Charges Laid in G20 Abuse Scandal

But don't get too excited, it's just one officer of the however-many who were caught abusing protesters.

A Toronto police officer has been arrested and charged with assaulting a protester during the G20 summit in June.
It is the first arrest of a police officer in connection with allegations of the use of excessive force during the summit.
Const. Babak Andalib-Goortani was charged Tuesday with assault with a weapon. The charges relate to the treatment of Adam Nobody by police on the evening of June 26, said a statement released Tuesday by the province's Special Investigations Unit.
Nobody was one of about 1,000 people arrested during the two-day summit.
During his arrest at Queen's Park, Nobody suffered a fracture below his right eye and a broken nose.

So far, police have been "unable" to identify anyone shown in the video - even themselves.

The blue wall at work.

You know, cops must absolutely hate technology. In this day and age, everyone and their brother is carrying around cell phones with built-in cameras and video recorders (even my bottom-rung phone comes with these features), which makes abuses of authority much more likely to be caught. Once upon a time, it was a lot easier to get away with this sort of thing - someone gets beaten by the cops, all they really had to do was deny it. The vast majority of the time, any ensuing investigation by any of the toothless oversight agencies would simply find no wrongdoing.

Cops don't snitch on their own, after all. Without video evidence, there's not much to be done.

That simple denial would be enough. I know in times past, I would have given the police the benefit of the doubt. I mean, they're police. Why would they go around beating people utilizing their lawful right to protest - a right the police are supposed to protect for all citizens?

Certainly, tales of abuse seem a lot more common these days. From beating off-duty soldiers outside a bar, to repeatedly stun gunning a Polish immigrant, to the many, many reports of the G20 abuses. But here's what I suspect - police abuses of power aren't any more common these days than they ever have been. It's just that police are that much more likely to get caught in the act.

And even with video evidence - blatant proof of wrongdoing that's plain for everyone to see - it's often not enough. The police playbook is pretty established by this point:

-Abuse somebody because it makes you feel like a big man
-Ignore the inevitable complaint (usually by claiming it never happened)
-Backpedal when the video gets put up on Youtube
-Claim the video has been edited or otherwise doesn't show what actually happened

Usually, it doesn't get past that fourth stage. Even with this latest incident, charges weren't laid until two other corroborating videos found their way into the SIU's hands. At that point, some cops finally started to talk - probably because they felt they had to.

So, all of those people who were abused and humiliated while in detention during the G20 summit... Well, don't hold your breath waiting for justice to happen there. After all, cell phones get confiscated (with their memories usually wiped) when their owner gets arrested.

Wait, You Mean There's an Actual Godwin?

So I guess the FBI's mad at Wikipedia right now. Why? Because on the Wikipedia page for the FBI, they have a picture of the FBI seal.

And they're threatening legal action if it's not removed.

I'll give you a moment to digest that idea.

Funny as that is on its own (government heraldry is not a class of protected image in any way, shape or form - nor should it be for reasons that should be obvious), it seems in the Cease & Desist letter to Wikipedia, they actually redacted the parts of the law they were citing (18 USC 701) that were inconvenient to their interpretation.

I'll give you another moment.

Wikipedia's lawyer, one Mike Godwin, has responded to their threat and put his response up on the interwebs for anyone to peruse. A choice bit I'm rather fond of personally:

It’s clear that you and Mr. Binney took the hint, although perhaps not in the way I would have preferred. Entertainingly, in support for your argument, you included a version of 701 in which you removed the very phrases that subject the statute to ejusdem generis analysis. While we appreciate your desire to revise the statute to reflect your expansive vision of it, the fact is that we must work with the actual language of the statute, not the aspirational version of Section
701 that you forwarded to us.

I've got a big rant on Law Enforcement and media technology that I've been allowing to bubble in the back of my brain for a while, and now seems an okay opportunity to go into it... But, nah. I'll wait until another time. Instead, I'd like to talk about Mike Godwin, Wikimedia's lawyer.

Apparently, this is not just any old lawyer - this guy is the Godwin from which Godwin's Law gets its name. (For those of you who don't know what Godwin's Law is, it's a rule about internet discussions that goes as follows: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." A commonly-cited subrule also states that the party that invokes the Nazi comparison is probably the one who's just lost the debate in question.)

Interestingly, Mike Godwin was also, once upon a time, first staff counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and his first work was the case against the Secret Service on behalf of Steve Jackson (of Steve Jackson Games), whom he knew from his days on an Austin BBS. This was the infamous incident involving the raid on SJ Games' computers back in March of 1990, due to a misunderstanding on the parts of the completely competent Secret Service guys, who thought that GURPS: Cyberpunk held detailed instructions on real-life computer hacking and credit fraud.

I had no knowledge of most of this stuff an hour ago (well, I knew about the SJG raid), but now that I know it my life feels one step closer to being complete.

...

Oh, and I finished another character design. Here ya go, you quiet readers you.

Landmark Charter Case

It took almost eight years for the case to make its way through our court system, but in the end the precedent has been set in the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the denial of Alan Ward's rights. As the article at the CBC says:

The ruling means that people whose rights have been infringed can seek damages even if they suffered no actual loss and even if the authorities acted in good faith.

So, score one for the good guys. Luckily, the denial of citizens' rights by state authorities is incredibly rare here, so it's doubtful this precedent will ever really apply to any other cases.

Justice Delayed, but Not Yet Denied

It's been three years, but it looks like the white-wash of Robert Dziekanski's killing is being given a proper examination... And unsurprisingly, things aren't looking so good for the officers involved.

I remember when this story first broke, and the Mounties' claims of exactly how the event went down happened to blatantly contradict the youtube video that was uploaded shortly thereafter. They revised their statements, and promised to investigate the matter themselves and - quelle surprise! - found that they hadn't done anything wrong.

I'm glad the blatant miscarriage of justice is being reviewed. Nothing can bring Mr. Dziekanski back, but once this is done hopefully his mother will be able to get some closure.

Cops must absolutely hate the age of cell phone video cameras.