My RSS Feeds
So, How Do You Feel About the First Amendment, Sheriff Beary?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Seems to me, that a logical corrollary is that the use of a restricted database to track a writer of a letter to the editor down and send her a personal response castigating her violates the spirit if not the letter of that law.
And, as he says, when you track back to the Orlando Sentinel Story, it gets even worse.
Privacy advocates say the use of restricted records is more significant than a tiff between a public official and a constituent. It comes at a time when police agencies are collecting vast databases of information on citizens in the name of homeland security."It is particularly disturbing that someone who has a leadership role on information-sharing does not seem to appreciate the crucial importance of privacy controls," said Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, D.C. "Any of these systems will be undermined, and they won't have the public trust, and they won't deserve the public trust and the public funding unless they have . . . controls to protect against misuse."
The Sheriff's Office stated in writing Tuesday that it acted within the law. Sheriff's spokesman Jim Solomons said responding to a resident's concern is well within Beary's official duties.
The Sheriff was just responding to a concerned citizen to offer her a ride along, eh? Tell me, if you received a letter saying this:
"I recently read your slanderous remarks about the Orange County Sheriff's Office in the Orlando Sentinel," Beary wrote on March 23. "It is unfortunate that people ridicule others without arming themselves with the facts before they slander a law enforcement agency or individual."
From a pissed off 290 lb sheriff with a taser, would you think information, or intimidation?
Ms. Gawronski has not filed any complaint at this writing. But she sees a problem she didn't see before:
Gawronski remains concerned about how often police use stun guns but now is afraid they have too much information at their fingertips."After 9-11, they instituted the Patriot Act . . . and I was all for it, because if you don't commit a crime you have nothing to worry about," she said. "But, now, I see there are situations where access to information can be a problem. Everybody is human, and if the information is out there, it could be used for the wrong reasons."