
Chicago cops use social media to track grieving families of gunshot victims - pslattery
https://onezero.medium.com/chicago-cops-use-social-media-to-track-grieving-families-of-gunshot-victims-e68e5a6dc40c
======
danso
Worth noting that the issue isn't just/necessarily about the use of OSINT. But
the fact that government agencies often misclassify data gathered in a public
dragnet, with no accountability to how that data impacts public citizens
"social scores". We see this in China, of course, but this is also the case in
the U.S.

From Chicago's Office of Inspector General:

[https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/4/11/18355005/unverified-o...](https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/4/11/18355005/unverified-
outdated-police-gang-database-lists-134-000-names-watchdog-says)

> The Chicago Police Department’s “gang database” isn’t so much an effective
> crime-fighting tool as it is a disorganized hodgepodge of outdated and often
> unverified information, according to a blistering report released Thursday
> by the Office of the Inspector General.

> In fact, according to the OIG, the “database” label is something of a
> misnomer as the CPD has collected and stored gang data in more than a dozen
> places in just the last decade.

> “OIG found that CPD has captured, reported, and visualized gang-related data
> in at least 18 different forms, records, and systems of records in the past
> 10 years, although CPD was not able to definitively account for all such
> information in its possession and control,” the 160-page audit reads.

------
deogeo
> Some documents indicate the OSINT officers take what appears to be a broad
> and overly-permissive attitude when collecting logs, sometimes scooping up
> content from individuals who may have no clear relationship to the violence
> at all.

This is _public_ information, and very useful to figure out who to interview
after a shooting to learn more about the crime and victim. Saving more data
instead of less, just in case, seems sensible, and not overly-permissive at
all.

~~~
danso
> Saving more data instead of less, just in case, seems sensible, and not
> overly-permissive at all.

Sloppy cache-invalidation of data has led to huge problems for public life,
even when it comes to actual criminal records and arrest records [0]. You have
no issue with someone's non-criminal social data being gathered under broad
search terms, stored for an indefinite amount of time, and associated with
your identity without your knowledge by a law enforcement agency?

[0] [https://bangordailynews.com/2011/12/16/news/nation/when-
your...](https://bangordailynews.com/2011/12/16/news/nation/when-your-
criminal-past-isnt-yours-background-check-errors-have-devastating-
consequences/)

[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/haunted...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/haunted-
by-the-past-a-criminal-record-shouldnt-ruin-a-career/388138/)

~~~
deogeo
Sure I have issues - but these are murder investigations. Keeping track of who
might be associated with the victim is the _bare minimum_ of investigating.

Giving this data to others as part of a background check is a whole different
matter. That involves the police making an official statement about you. Of
course that should ideally involve a lot more due diligence to make sure the
information is correct, and limits on what they can share.

