The Seattle Times: Ed cetera

Police drones don't invade privacy

Fri, 04 May 2012 14:46:13 PDT

A lot of people have a camera on their cell phone, ready to snap the latest news or fun shots at a moment’s notice. Many news outlets welcome viewer pictures and stories, riding the wave of citizen journalism.

Walking around outside is a public act. Anyone could photograph another person walking by; a tourist taking a shot of the market, a journalist writing a story about crowds, a stranger who likes an outfit or hairstyle. The police aren’t breaching a reasonable expectation of privacy by photographing those out in public.

Seattle’s police department is looking at the use of drones to capture images.

The point of a protest or demonstration is to gather people en masse, to be seen and heard and make that point—thousands of people, strong and clear. Anyone can take a picture of that. If the point is to be seen, heard, and counted, then photographs are not so troublesome.

Some say that police shouldn’t be in the photography business. But this isn’t illegal search and seizure. Police and protestors alike might benefit from having photographs of the event. If they’re merely kept as a record of a rally or protest to use as reference, perhaps evidence if something happens at the event, that’s no crime.

The real concern is what police could potentially do with these photographs. If police search protestor names and faces, that is profiling. But, keep in mind that any private citizen could take a photo and vet it through search engines.

It is a public world and increasingly, a photographed one. Technology has given rise to anonymity and the comfort of hiding behind a curtain to protect some privacy, despite sharing deeply personal and private information. But what technology has given can also be taken away with the click of a camera.

Alicia Halberg is a senior at the University of Washington and the spring editorial intern at The Seattle Times.

Civil Disagreement: On "anarchists" in ski masks

Fri, 04 May 2012 16:14:17 PDT

Civil disagreements, with Lynne Varner and Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times editorial board, is an occasional feature of the Ed Cetera blog. Today they ask: Do masked anarchists with sticks have the same right to march in a protest as anyone else?

Lynne Varner, left, and Bruce Ramsey

Bruce Ramsey:Lynne, I'm big on individual rights, but here is where I draw a line. I saw the video of these "anarchists" breaking windows at Niketown. They were the same as the bandanna-disguised "anarchists" I saw on Nov. 30, 1999, at the anti-WTO protests here. I remember those guys, who I saw near the Pike Place Market, walking in a file past a police car with four officers in it. And the cops did nothing, because the "anarchists" were doing nothing. But they were masked, and there had been property destruction all over the downtown by people dressed just that way, and I thought: these guys should be stopped, questioned and taken into custody.

And that's what I thought Monday when I saw pictures of them marching in the parade.

Why? Because they pose a clear and present danger. Because the protest was expected, and property destruction was expected. Enough of the plan had been spread on the Internet in order to get recruits to do it, and to get other people to report on it. And there had been other protests with property destruction--recent ones, in Oakland, and in Portland. There's an M.O.: these guys are all in black, with masks and carrying a heavy stick; they are in a group, and several break off from the group, go and bust up a plate-glass window, and then blend back into the group so that it's difficult to identify who did it.

I suggested the city say, "You can't be in the protest march if you are carrying a weapon and your face is disguised." The Seattle liberal reaction was, "They can't do THAT. That's preventative detention. That's discriminating against people based on the way they're dressed."

Yup. You betcha. But if the way they're dressed and the implements they are carrying, and the historical baggage they carry communicate a clear and present danger, then I'm for it. You don't have to detain them a long time.

"But how do you know they are going to destroy property?" people said.

The first time, you don't know. Maybe not the second time. But suppose their tactic works. Suppose they keep doing it. Suppose they have a march every May 1, and wear black and have masked faces and carry sticks or hammers or implements like that; suppose they bust the windows of Niketown in 2013 and in 2014 and 2015. At what point can you say, "We DO know what you are going to do, and we are not going to let you do it here"?

Lynne Varner:Bruce: Private businesses are free to demand customers wear shoes, jackets or tuxes - depending on the establishment. But people ought not be required to dress a certain way as they navigate public streets. The fact that they're in a pack doesn't change the freedom to dress as one choose.

Some of the farmers who drove tractors into the nation's capitol to protect cuts to crop subsidies carried a pitchfork or other tool to make a dramatic point. Police were wise to wait and see if they committed a crime with said pitchforks rather than confiscating the items up front. And what about supports of the NRA? On the off chance they might shoot someone, should they be told to leave the guns at home? That would leave the pirates at Seafair defenseless, so to speak.

I disagree that even once a group has been identified to use sticks to bash windows, they should lose the right to carry those things. How do you decide who is carrying a stick because they're an anarchist and who is just carrying one to be part of the action? Personal judgement is too subjective.

No matter how much you look like the group that's busting up windows and wreaking havoc, you should have the freedom of movement, dress and speech until you do something wrong. Happy Cinco de Mayo, Bruce.

Youth aren't to blame in yesterday's violence, individuals are

Wed, 02 May 2012 14:16:06 PDT

Those arrested at yesterday’s violent events downtown are 24, 30, 28, and 23. That youngest one is just one year older than me. They’re young, but they don’t represent all youth. When events like this involve younger people, the public is quick to blame the “youth,” a monolithic group that simply doesn’t exist.

So when describing yesterday’s events to others, don’t say that youth smashed windows and destroyed storefronts. This small anarchist offshoot doesn’t represent most of the people at demonstrations yesterday, most political activists, or the “youth.”

The youth are often talked about collectively, like they all share common thoughts; they don’t. These anarchists, members of the so-called “black bloc,” don’t represent anyone but themselves.

On campus at the University of Washington yesterday most were quick to disparage the incidents downtown. Indeed, far more students shop at American Apparel than wish to smash the windows of it.

As the police release more information about the ages and backgrounds of those arrested in connection with these violent acts, media should continue its coverage without grouping the entire youth population in with a herd of violent masked demonstrators and their destructive tendencies.

Alicia Halberg is a senior at the University of Washington and the spring editorial intern at The Seattle Times.

The politics of "Get a job"

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:31:05 PDT

Gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna said it. My conservative grandma has said it too. They say it like whoever they're speaking to isn't working hard enough, isn't working as hard as they do.

This week, when confronted by a woman about whether he supported the failed Reproductive Parity Act, McKenna responded by telling the woman to "go get a job."

I've heard conservatives say it plenty about people in the lower classes, particularly those who are homeless. "Why don't they just get a job?" usually followed by some sort of diatribe about people "feeding off" of the welfare system. Let me be clear, this sentence didn't come from McKenna, but others have used the same phrase. They say it with this snark, like feeding people who would otherwise starve is a bad thing; there's no compassion for those who aren't as well off. It is entitlement, it is classist and it needs to stop.

The moment we start dehumanizing others is where bipartisanship ends.

There's no caring or understanding in the phrase, "go get a job."

For most of my life my dad has been in and out of jobs. He works hard, but this modern world hasn't set us up for careers like previous generations.

I'm about to graduate and a study released last weekend showed that one in two college grads can't land a job or are underemployed.

Go get a job? I'm trying. If you didn't know, the economy still isn't doing very well.

Go get a job? That homeless guy on the street—you don't know his story. Maybe he lost his job in this Great Recession. After all, one third of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck. Nearly two-thirds said if fired today they would not be able to make housing payments after five months.

I remember being at a bus stop when I was in high school. A homeless man approached me for change and we struck up a conversation. I later learned that he had once attended my high school, a private college-prep school, and had to drop out of studying engineering at a university because of tuition increases.

Go get a job? He had nowhere to stay; his parents didn't want him, he was gay. Some shelters let you list their address on job applications, others don't. It's difficult to get a job without an address.

You can't assume things about others, because you just don't know.

This woman McKenna commented on—she has a job! Kendra Obom works for the YMCA on youth programs. She's also a volunteer for the state Democratic Party.

She asks a question he disagrees with, he gets angry, and assumedly he thinks she has nothing better to do with her time than ask a gubernatorial candidate a question about an issue that matters to her. So he assumes she has no job? With fly-off-the-handle logical jumps like that, I'm concerned.

"You're just trying to gain a political advantage," McKenna said. "Sorry, go get a job."

Is that going to be McKenna's answer to our economic problems? That the unemployed need to just "get a job?" That those who ask him tough questions and might disagree with him are wasting their time?

Most people are working hard to get by in this down economy. McKenna better be prepared to answer tough questions and not look down on those who disagree with him if he wants the governor's job this November.