<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog</id><link rel="self" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/feed.xml" /><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/index.html" /><title type="text">I-Witness Video Blog</title><subtitle>The Policing of Protest</subtitle><updated>2008-06-20T12:55:28-07:00</updated><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/21</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/21.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">I-Witness Video reveals NYPD's "big secret"</div></title><published>2007-06-23T16:32:00-04:00</published><updated>2007-06-23T16:32:00-04:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="NYPD" label="NYPD" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">



<div class="lead_float">
  <img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/Unpermitted1.jpg" />
  <p class="caption">
    Dyke March marshal, June 2007, New York City<br />
    Photo: Annulla of <a href="http://blatherfrombrooklyn.wordpress.com/">Blather From Brooklyn</a>
  </p>
</div>

<p>Through the spring and summer months, the New York City Police Department has continued its campaign to shut down, suppress and contain political demonstrations, often in a completely unreasonable, ill-informed and even insulting manner.  Recently, the Police Department has outright refused or stalled permits for events organized by the <a href="http://www.onnyturf.com/articles/read.php?article_id=580">African Diaspora Education Society</a>, <a href="http://www.newyorkblade.com/2007/622/news/localnews/bushwick.cfm">Gays and Lesbians of Bushwick Empowered</a>, the <a href="http://www.hopinc.org/events/pridefest.html">PrideFest</a> and the <a href="http://www.onnyturf.com/articles/read.php?article_id=583">Audre Lorde Project's Trans Day of Action</a>.</p>

<p>Yet, even as many groups scramble to assemble pro-bono teams of attorneys to fight for permission to hold events, the NYPD has secretly issued a parade permit to the largest annual unauthorized political gathering on a Manhattan street, the <a href="http://www.nycdykemarch.org">15th annual New York City Dyke March</a>.  Later today, tens of thousands of lesbians and their supporters will sally forth onto Fifth Avenue in a parade of lesbian visibility without knowing that their display has received the seal of government approval.</p>

<p>That's right, <strong>unrequested</strong> by and <strong>unbeknownst</strong> to the organizers, the NYPD has granted legally permitted status to the Dyke March and has done so for <strong>years</strong>. </p>

<p>How do we know this?  Because Assistant Chief Thomas Graham, the commander of the <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/chfdept/disorder.html">Disorder Control Unit</a> and the NYPD's expert on managing political demonstrations, says so in sworn testimony.</p>

<p>In a statement given under oath on March 23, 2005, then Inspector Thomas Graham, describes what he calls the "big secret." Here is an excerpt from the <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-DykeMarchChiefGraham">court transcript</a> in which he is questioned by attorney James Meyerson:</p>



<blockquote>
  <p>Q: You issue permits at the scene?</p>
  
  <p>A: We actually have issued permits on the street.  And I'll give you the event.  We used to have - it's the Dikes [sic] on Bikes.  It used to be motorcycles and it's a gay women's march.</p>
  
  <p>Q: Lesbians, yes.</p>
  
  <p>A: I like gay women.  If you like lesbians, we'll do lesbians.</p>
  
  <p>Q: Anyway.</p>
  
  <p>A: Back on the ranch.  They normally march down from Fifth Avenue, down Fifth Avenue from 62nd Street.  They have believed for years that they have not had a permit.</p>
  
  <p>Q: I'm sorry, they believed for years?</p>
  
  <p>A: Most of them believe - 99 percent of them believe there's no permit for that event.  But we always co-oped [sic] some of the leadership to cooperate with us.  Sign a permit, have your march, leave one traffic lane open. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Legally speaking, it seems that since the Dyke March has been around so long, the right for the marchers to walk down Fifth Avenue has been "grandfathered," or exempted from the usual requirement for a permit.</p>

<p>But what is the interest of the police in tricking the Dyke March organizers into thinking they do not have a permit when they have been granted one administratively?</p>

<p>Chief Graham touches upon this in the transcript:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A: They even tell us where they're going to take their clothes off, when they expose themselves. [ed: with the safety of large numbers, some women choose to go topless, which is legal in New York State] So I know we've actually issued the paper permit in the street.</p>
  
  <p>Q: The day of the incident?</p>
  
  <p>A: This was the day of the incident.  That, I know has gone on.</p>
  
  <p>Q: Do you guys tell anybody about this?</p>
  
  <p>A: No, that was a big secret.  That was a big secret because we didn't even tell the marches [sic] they had a permit.  Because they believed they didn't because that was one of the reasons for marching.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Ok, so the NYPD decided not to tell the Dyke March organizers they had been granted a permit so they would not be disappointed that they were involved in a political action which was legal?  Because it would not seem militantly radical enough? </p>

<p>That explanation seems somewhat bizarre.</p>

<p>Could it be that the police do not want to encourage other groups to think that they too might be able to organize large events in midtown Manhattan without approval from the Police Department?</p>

<p>That's possible. Because in the not-so-distance past, many demonstrations were organized just that way - without ever formally seeking permission from the authorities.   </p>

<p>In 1993, when the first Dyke March took place, it was common for protest organizers to negotiate the logistics of demonstrations with the police as the events took place on the street. There were a lot of positive aspects to that system, both for the organizers and for the police. In most instances, the model which the police used to handle demonstrators was a fluid one based on negotiation and accommodation. There was an unwritten understanding that if 1,000 or more demonstrators showed up, the NYPD would open up one traffic lane in the street to ease their passage, if only to move the group along more quickly. Groups which were smaller than that would make their way along the sidewalk while the police followed nearby to monitor the proceedings. It may seem hard to believe in today's era of over-policing and pre-emptive arrests, but at that time New York City police officers took pride in their cool-headed, unflappable manner during protests.  If no unplanned arrests took place, both protesters and organizers went home thinking that they had a pretty good day.</p>

<p>It is terribly ironic that as NYPD fights tooth and nail to stop others from assembling and marching, they have forced a permit onto the Dyke March organizers who have never sought one and likely never will.  </p>

<p>I look forward to the day when demonstrators can talk about lesbian rights, justice for transgender people, the cultures of the African continent, or whatever they please without having their political message subsumed in some needless fight with the police over the right to take up public space. </p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/20</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/20.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">NYC Councilmember was threatened last year too</div></title><published>2007-06-08T12:00:00-04:00</published><updated>2007-06-08T12:00:00-04:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="NYPD" label="NYPD" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">



<p>The group <a href="http://100blacksinlawenforcement.org">100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care</a> is protesting death
threats made against <a href="http://www.nyccouncil.info/constituent/member_details.cfm?con_id=69">New York City Councilmember Charles Barron</a> on the
<a href="http://p066.ezboard.com/fnypdrant64609frm1">NYPD Rant</a> website earlier this week. They want to find out if NYPD
officers were responsible for the threats and to have the officers fired if
that's true. The NYPD says they are <a href="http://www.amsterdamnews.com/news/Article/Article.asp?NewsID=79453&amp;sID=4">looking into the threat</a>.  But this is
not the first time that an NYPD Rant'er has threatened Barron. In December of
last year someone posting on NYPD Rant under the screen name "EA1025" urged
that Barron be "shot on site" [sic]. </p>



<p>EA1025, whose avatar or graphical identity on the website is a picture of TV's
terrorist fighter Jack Bauer, wrote the following:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>WHEN HE ARRIVES AT 1PP he should be shot on site. the man's actions should be
   considered terrorism. Threatening the rest of the city with his "POWDER KEG"
   community ready to blow up, that he continues to incite ...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Soon after, he elaborated in another post:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>people like Barron keep pushing the wrong buttons and you might see fiction become reality.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I-Witness Video archived the page headlined "Barron to Storm the Palace" when
it appeared on the website on December 4, 2006. A PDF is available <a href="/files/barron-to-storm-the-palace.pdf">here</a>.
Note: although the PDF software was unable to capture the background color of
the page accurately, it is otherwise identical to its original appearance on
the website.</p>

<p>The NYPD Rant website, which claims 120,000 daily viewers, functions as a
stronghold of unconcealed racism and occasional, but vicious anti-Semitism.
"Savage" is the word overwhelmingly favored to describe blacks.
The term "African-American" is almost never used except derisively.  The <em>New York
Observer</em> has highlighted some of the Rant's most hate-filled
<a href="http://www.observer.com/node/29310">remarks mocking Jews, particularly Hasidim</a>.</p>

<p>EA1025's threatening comment appeared on the website after several days of
increasingly agitated posts about the dangers which police officers could
face from demonstrators at a protest against the shooting of Sean Bell, an
unarmed Black man, by NYPD officers. People claiming to be police officers
wrote messages on the website warning their colleagues that they could not
count on police supervisors to allow them to defend themselves if they
were attacked. The demonstration had originally been planned to take place
at NYPD police headquarters at One Police Plaza, colloquially known as 1PP
or the "Puzzle Palace," although it was relocated to Foley Square because
of the size of the crowd.</p>

<p>Since NYPD Rant posters do not use their real names, it is usually impossible
to determine whether the posters are actually police officers without a
full-fledged investigation.  </p>

<p>However, EA1025 left many clues about his identity on the Internet.</p>

<p>Last year EA1025, with <a href="http://p066.ezboard.com/bnypdrant64609.showUserPublicProfile?gid=ea1025">2467 rants</a> to his name, wrote that he was related
to Joseph Piagentini, an NYPD officer who was shot by the
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liberation_Army">Black Liberation Army</a> in 1971, in a thread which has since been removed
from the website. He also wrote that he lived in <a href="http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Fvn0lSGiGAoJ:p066.ezboard.com/fnypdrant64609frm1.showNextMessage%3FtopicID%3D60059.topic+ea1025+westbury&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=1&amp;gl=us">Westbury</a> on Long Island.</p>

<p>A few days ago EA1025 reported that he is in
<a href="/files/hello-nypd.pdf">training to be a police officer</a> at the <a href="http://www.joinlapd.com/academy.html">Los Angeles Police Academy</a> in a
class of 70 recruits. </p>

<p>If it turns out that EA1025 is actually an LAPD recruit, he will have begun an
eight-month program which includes 100 hours of what is described as "Human
Relations": cultural sensitivity training, media relations, stress management
and community relations, all of which he might find beneficial.</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/19</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/19.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">German police will use dogs to track activists at G8 summit</div></title><published>2007-05-22T23:34:00-04:00</published><updated>2007-05-22T23:34:00-04:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">



<p>Federal authorities in Germany intend to use police dogs to track activists at
the upcoming G8 summit, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3200158">according to the Associated Press</a>.  A spokesman
for the federal prosecutor's office has confirmed that the police have already
taken scent samples from "several" activists.</p>

<p>Scent tracking was a tool of the Stasi, the notorious East German secret
police. The AP story quotes Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble saying
that "potentially violent" activists may be placed in "preventative
detention" for up to two weeks.  The summit will be taking place in
Heiligendamm, a Baltic Sea resort town in the former East Germany, from June
6-8.  If you think this kind of thing could not happen here in the U.S.,
take a look at <a href="http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/2273_human_scen.html">this recent item</a> on the "Danger Room" blog.  A U.S. government
research agency is hoping to develop a device to "collect human scent for
future use to track a specific target."</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/18</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/18.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">How to Search the RNC Intelligence documents</div></title><published>2007-05-20T08:00:00-05:00</published><updated>2007-05-20T08:00:00-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="Fight to Unseal RNC Records" label="Fight to Unseal RNC Records" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">



<p>So many choices.  The NYPD RNC Intelligence documents are available on
four websites which each offer different possibilities for searching
the files.</p>

<p>Since none of the available navigation tools will answer every need, the
serious researcher should consult more than one navigation aid.  While
the indexes provided by the New York Civil Liberties Union and <em>The
New York Times</em> are helpful guides which enable the reader to grasp
the broad features of the surveillance program, they do not capture
every instance in which a group or individual appears in the
documents.  For example, the <em>Times</em> index does not include any
citations for I-Witness Video, which is written about on five pages of
the intelligence documents.  Nor does the <em>Times</em> list "Stonewalk," an
event organized by family members of September 11th victims, which is
cited on four pages of the documents.  The NYCLU's index appears to be
more complete, but even so, activist Lisa Fithian, whose name appears
on eighteen pages of the documents, is cited as appearing on only
thirteen pages by the civil liberties union.  The I-Witness Video
search capability is the most successful in ferreting out each
citation; it uses optical character recognition (OCR) software to make
the scanned documents searchable as text, but is occasionally
inaccurate because that conversion is imperfect.</p>



<h3><a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-rnc-intel">I-Witness Video</a></h3>

<p><strong>Navigation aids:</strong>
Simple text search: Type a word or words into a little box on the
page to pull up the links to matching documents.  Clicking on an
orange link will show the relevant page as an image in your web
browser.</p>

<p><strong>Downloadable files:</strong>
A giant (47-megabyte) PDF contains the entire run of 603 pages of
documents to read at your leisure.</p>

<h3><a href="http://www.nyclu.org/rncdocs">New York Civil Liberties Union</a></h3>

<p><strong>Navigation aids:</strong>
Alphabetical index to the groups and individuals mentioned in the
documents.  The index shows the Bates numbers, a legal numbering
system which is stamped on each page. </p>

<p><strong>Downloadable files:</strong>
The documents have been grouped into five PDFs containing more than
100 pages each, batched by Bates numbers.</p>

<h3><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/ref/nyregion/RNC_intel_digests.html">The New York Times</a></h3>

<p><strong>Navigation aids:</strong>
Arranged chronologically, the organizations and people cited in the
documents are listed under each document date and title.</p>

<p><strong>Downloadable files:</strong>
Each document is available in bite-size PDF form, generally 3 to 5
pages, separately dated and titled.</p>

<h3><a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/dcpi/nypd_rnc.html">New York City Police Department</a></h3>

<p><strong>Navigation aids:</strong>
There are none.</p>

<p><strong>Downloadable files:</strong>
A 39-megabyte <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/dcpi/rnc_docs.zip">ZIP file</a> containing the 603 pages as TIFF images
whose filenames are their Bates numbers.</p>

<p><strong>Bonus feature:</strong>
An 8,724 word
<a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/dcpi/nypd_rnc_overview.html">essay</a>
on why the NYPD was right to undertake its program of surveillance of
activists.</p>

<p><strong>Warning:</strong>
It seems odd that the NYPD which fought so bitterly against the
release of the RNC Intelligence files should provide them to the
public on its official website.  Considering the context, before you
use a police department server to transfer data to your PC, it might
be prudent to consider the possibility that the ZIP file could contain
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyware">spyware</a>, which Wikipedia defines as "computer software that collects
personal information about users without their informed consent."</p>
</div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/17</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/17.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Not "Top Secret," Just "Cop Secret"</div></title><published>2007-05-16T03:28:15-04:00</published><updated>2007-05-16T03:28:15-04:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="Fight to Unseal RNC Records" label="Fight to Unseal RNC Records" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="lead_float"><img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/nypd-secret.png" /></div><p><a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-rnc-intel">Here are the NYPD Intelligence documents</a> from the Republican National
Convention spy campaign that lawyers for New York City fought desperately
to keep from public view.</p><p>City lawyers argued that "The documents were not written for consumption
by the general public," and "The documents contain information filtered
and distilled for analysis by intelligence officers accustomed to reading
intelligence information." Additionally, the news media would "fixate and
sensationalize" on the intelligence documents.</p><p>Now you can see for yourself.</p><p>We have begun the process of posting all 600 pages of documents to the
website. We will get them up just as soon as we can.  We'll also be adding
new indexing and searching capabilities to help you navigate through the
documents.</p><p>After a quick scan of the content of the files, many of which are stamped
"N.Y.P.D. Secret," I have to admit that I see plenty of sensationalism on
display.  Like the "intelligence analyst" who concluded that "First-aid"
advice posted on the Internet for people who were attacked by police meant
"that participants of direct action protests may be willing to physically
resist and confront disorder control personnel." <span>[<a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/files/rnc-intel/pages/000102668.png">000102668</a>]</span></p><p>Perhaps we should all offer some help to NYPD by reviewing some of the
groups listed in the N.Y.P.D. Secret files and explaining precisely what
they do.  Film festivals: <span>[<a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/files/rnc-intel/pages/000102685.png">000102685</a>]</span> they show movies where people sit in
the dark and stare quietly at screens.  The Brooklyn Center for
Anti-Violence Education: <span>[<a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/files/rnc-intel/pages/000102706.png">000102706</a>]</span> dedicated for over 30 years to
teaching anti-violence. The New York City AIDS Housing Network: <span>[<a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/files/rnc-intel/pages/000102978.png">000102978</a>]</span> just like its name, it places people living with AIDS in
decent housing.</p><p>What kind of training are these "analysts" receiving when they go out to
collect "intelligence" information about a "mass leafletting" campaign
conducted by a peace group, United for Peace and Justice? Information
which is then placed in a file marked "Limited dissemination to law
enforcement personnel and designated local, state, federal and military
officials with a need to know"? <span>[<a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/files/rnc-intel/pages/000102809.png">000102809</a>]</span></p><p>It's sad, really, that the NYPD, for all its talk of <a href="http://www.nypdshield.org/public/initiatives.nypd">"counter-terrorism initiatives" and "information-sharing"</a>, cannot seem to tell
the difference between these folks voicing their opinion on the streets of
the city and al Qaeda.</p><p>Even if the muckety-mucks at the top would like to imagine the NYPD as a
sort of hybrid CIA-FBI, someone needs to break it to Police Commissioner
Ray Kelly and Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence David Cohen: your
surveillance program is not "Top Secret," it's just "Cop Secret."</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/16</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/16.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Neo-Nazis and the FBI</div></title><published>2007-03-06T20:26:55-05:00</published><updated>2007-03-06T20:26:55-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="lead_img"><img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/white-salute-560.jpg" /><p class="caption">Members of the National Socialist Movement pose in Orlando.  Ohio NSM leader Mark Martin stands in back row, far left; FBI informant David Gletty kneels in front row, third from left.</p></div><p>David Gletty, the lead organizer of a neo-Nazi march through a historically black neighborhood in Orlando, Florida has been named as an FBI informant by the <em>Orlando Sentinel</em>. Shocked Orlando community leaders have demanded an investigation.  Alzo Reddick, a former Florida state legislator, asked, "Was the FBI informant an activist or participant? Was he an agent provocateur from the get-go?"</p><p>A <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-nazipdf021507,0,7680463.acrobat?coll=orl-home-headlines">parade permit</a> issued for the march names the National Socialist Movement (NSM) as the permittee and lists David Gletty as the "on scene event manager." Gletty has also bragged on the internet that the idea for the march was his own.</p><p>The NSM is called "the nation's leading neo-Nazi group" <a href="http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=630">by the hate-group experts</a> at the Southern Poverty Law Center. NSM members wear mock Nazi uniforms with swastika armbands.</p><p>Three hundred law enforcement officers policed the February 2005 march in Orlando where 500 counter-demonstrators faced off with several dozen neo-Nazis.  There were 17 arrests.</p><p><b>FBI denies sponsoring neo-Nazi rally</b></p><p>Despite paying Gletty at least $20,000 over two years, the FBI Orlando office declined to take responsibility for the actions of its informant, saying in an official statement, "In no way did the FBI initiate, organize, or sponsor the NSM rally."  Apparently not satisfied with the FBI's demurral, an <em>Orlando Sentinel</em> <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed16307feb16,0,4995552.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines">editorial</a> questioned "whether the rally was Mr. Gletty's idea or if his FBI handlers put him up to it, perhaps to burnish his racist credentials.  Beyond the $300,000 security costs [to police the march], the FBI owes residents an explanation, like how terrorizing a neighborhood helps the fight against terrorism."</p><p>The Orlando event was so heavily policed, in part, because several months earlier the NSM triggered a riot in Toledo when it attempted to march through a predominantly African-American neighborhood there.</p><p><b>Ohio NSM members joined in Orlando neo-Nazi march</b></p><p>The Ohio-based NSM members who organized the October 2005 march that resulted in a riot also traveled to Orlando for the NSM march through the African-American neighborhood of Parramore.</p><p>A <a href="http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=9174">photograph</a> of Ohio NSM leader Mark Martin in Orlando shows him with the informant David Gletty and other racists raising their arms in a "Sieg Heil" salute.</p><p>Mark Martin did not merely participate; <a href="http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=10190">according to a website</a> run by Bill White, a former NSM spokesperson, he played a leading role in the Orlando rally.</p><p>Confirming Martin's special role, the FBI's informant Gletty gives kudos to Ohio's "SS Mann Martin" for "supervising the overall mission" during the Orlando rally.  Gletty wrote that he, Martin and another NSM'er, Sgt. Drake, took a consensus decision to end the rally at a certain point because "If we had stayed things would have went bad for the police and that would have hurt the good name we are building with police forces around the country."</p><p><b>FBI informant participated in Toledo neo-Nazi rally</b></p><p>During the period in which the FBI was paying him, Gletty traveled to a neo-Nazi rally in downtown Toledo which took place on the heels of the October riot.  In <a href="http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2006/03/my-march.html">his own account</a> of these events, Gletty says that after he drove 1200 miles to take part in the December 2005 rally in Toledo, Ohio NSM members traveled to Orlando to join the NSM march there in a spirit of reciprocity. </p><p>Intriguingly, Toledo Police Chief Mike Navarre acknowledged to the Cleveland <em>Plain Dealer</em> on the day after the rally that the FBI had "assisted with intelligence gathering" for the rally.</p><p>Before Gletty's role in providing information to the FBI was revealed publicly, Mark Martin described the companionable time he spent on the day of the Toledo rally with the FBI informant and other Florida NSM'ers.  On a now-defunct NSM website, Martin <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20051215085632/www.nsm88.com/rally/return-to-toledo.html">wrote</a>, "Tampa Florida Unit Leader, Derek [Reis], and two of his members" all "[got] to know each other better over getting tattooed," and remarked how "Dave" (Gletty) had never seen snow.</p><p>One other prominent NSM member who was a major player in the Toledo march and rally and the Orlando march, Bill White, has been "widely accused by fellow neo-Nazis of being an informant" <a href="http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=630">according to the Southern Poverty Law Center</a>. White has since been expelled from the NSM and has set up a new Nazi group.</p><p><b>Heavy-handed policing and intelligence collection</b></p><p>Claims of heavy-handed policing and over-the-top surveillance by law enforcement agencies followed the NSM events in Toledo and Orlando.  Counter-protesters and news media representatives who attended the December 2005 NSM rally in Toledo were forced to go through metal detectors and were  videotaped in what police described as "intelligence-gathering for future investigations."</p><p>Why would the police bother to collect so much detailed information about people who oppose Nazis?  That information would almost certainly be turned over to the FBI.  The FBI is particularly interested in tracking the activities of anarchists.  Since some of the most dedicated anti-racist groups are in that camp, the neo-Nazi events offer an excellent opportunity for federal authorities to do surveillance on anarchists.</p><p>Many questions remain.  Before 2005, NSM public gatherings were typically stationary rallies which took place on government property like state capitols.  Did the FBI influence Gletty's decision to stage an NSM march through an African-American neighborhood in Orlando?  Did the FBI influence, through Gletty or through any other NSM member it might control, the NSM's decision to march through a predominantly African-American neighborhood in north Toledo?</p><p>Community residents in Toledo and Orlando have accused the police of protecting the neo-Nazis at the expense of the rights of neighborhood residents, counter-protesters and the general public. In turn, politicians and police officials say that these tactics are necessary and that their willingness to protect even the most controversial public gatherings shows the strength of their commitment to protecting freedom of speech.</p><p>However, if it should turn out that a neo-Nazi demonstration was, in effect, a staged, government-sponsored event organized by a professional agent provocateur, the justification for the forceful policing and extraordinary surveillance measures would fall apart.</p><p>It seems like the citizens of both Orlando and Toledo are owed more answers from the FBI on that account.</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/15</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/15.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">NYPD Video Spying Techniques</div></title><published>2007-02-20T00:48:53-05:00</published><updated>2007-02-20T00:48:53-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><table class="clip_thumbs"><tbody><tr><td><a href="http://blip.tv/file/get/Iwitness-NYPDSpyingWithFujiBlimpCam409.mov" class="image_link"><img height="116" src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/blimp-thumb.jpg" width="174" /><div>&gt;&gt; Watch blimp-cam</div></a></td><td><a href="http://blip.tv/file/get/Iwitness-NYPDHiddenCamera520.mov" class="image_link"><img height="116" src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/body-thumb.jpg" width="174" /><div>&gt;&gt; Watch body-cam</div></a></td><td><a href="http://blip.tv/file/get/Iwitness-NYPDSpyingWithHelicopter477.mov" class="image_link"><img height="116" src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/helicopter-thumb.jpg" width="174" /><div>&gt;&gt; Watch helicopter-cam</div></a></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Even though the NYPD's written policy of blanket surveillance of demonstrations has been <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/14.html">enjoined by a federal judge</a>, the scope of the police spying is not widely known.  The official police rationale for videotaping public events&#8212;that it helps to "prevent and detect terrorist activity"&#8212;hints at the vast potential applications of the policy in a time of public anxiety over the possibility of terrorist acts.</p><p>The NYPD has employed what amounts to 360 degrees of surveillance at demonstrations since the Handschu rules were modified in February 2003.  In particular, there was a massive mobilization of video surveillance at the 2004 Republican National Convention. The police department used high-tech equipment and techniques to spy on members of the public, including a high-powered camera carried on a blimp; a military-style, infrared, thermal-imaging camera on board a $9.8 million helicopter; and a concealed video camera worn by an undercover officer who mingled with crowds at a public gathering. Generally, these live images were beamed back to One Police Plaza over the NYPD's microwave network.  After the RNC, the spying continued at anti-war events, racial justice protests, rallies to fight Global AIDS and many others.</p><p>Using military jargon, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly bragged about the NYPD's formidable arsenal of surveillance equipment:</p><blockquote><p>We also employed new technology that enhanced our command and control.   This included ongoing, real-time images of conditions throughout the City.</p><p>In addition to strategically placed television cameras in and around Madison Square Garden and at other key locations in the City, our new police helicopters were equipped with advanced video equipment as well.  The newest innovation in this connection was the use of a blimp to establish an advanced observation platform. It fed real-time images in startling clarity to our planners on the ground.</p><p>[source: <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/repconv04/nypd090304pr.html">NYPD Press Conference</a>, 3 September 2004]</p></blockquote><p>Let's look at some of what the NYPD's sophisticated technology has garnered.  You can make up your own mind if the collection of video seen below is useful to "prevent and detect terrorist activity," or if it might serve other purposes.</p><p>The three video clips below were shot by NYPD officers on August 27, 2004 during the Republican National Convention.  The footage has been edited into short segments for web viewing.</p><p>What is perhaps most remarkable is that all of the cameras converge on Union Square Park at exactly the same time.  Along with the ubiquitous <a href="http://scaryny.com/archives/2004/09/nypd_taru.php">TARU police officers using handheld camcorders</a>, the blimp cam, the helicopter cam and the covert body cam were deployed at the same moment in time and space.</p><p><b>Blimp cam</b></p><div class="cam_float"><a href="http://blip.tv/file/get/Iwitness-NYPDSpyingWithFujiBlimpCam409.mov" class="image_link"><img height="174" src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/blimp-medium.jpg" width="261" /><div>&gt;&gt; Watch blimp-cam</div></a></div><p>The Fujifilm corporation loaned its blimp to the NYPD for a week during the RNC.  The letters "NYPD" and a police shield logo were emblazoned on the blimp, along with the Fuji logo, branding the blimp with a <a href="http://www.airshipman.com/NewsArticles/News30aug04.htm">double logo</a>.</p><p>The first scene on the clip shows people from the antiwar group <a href="http://www.notinourname.net/rnc">Not in Our Name</a> lying on the grass in Central Park, spelling out a giant "NO" with their bodies. Every so often the camera operator focuses on some young women lounging nearby who do not seem to be part of the antiwar event. The hovering blimp cam seems almost to float above this tranquil scene.  It might even be a pretty picture if it were not for the fact that we are viewing this all through what appears to be a military targeting scope superimposed on the frame.</p><p>When the camera zooms out, what seems like half of the island of Manhattan comes quickly into focus.  The blimp cam has a truly awesome <a href="http://poynteronline.org/content/content_view.asp?id=5657&amp;sid=29">depth of field</a> and range.</p><p>The NYPD Fuji blimp continues downtown to Union Square Park where it floats above the assemblage of  parkgoers and bicyclists gathering for the Critical Mass ride.  Once again the camera appears to shadow a young woman around the park just long enough to give the impression that some girl-watching might be going on.  A man stares directly up at the blimp, giving rise to the insight that staring directly at an aerial observation platform allows a perfect view of your face.  Occasionally the blimp cam turns on its infrared capability for reasons that are unclear.</p><p><b>Body Cam</b></p><div class="cam_float"><a href="http://blip.tv/file/get/Iwitness-NYPDHiddenCamera520.mov" class="image_link"><img height="174" src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/body-medium.jpg" width="261" /><div>&gt;&gt; Watch body-cam</div></a></div><p>An undercover police officer wears a "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_camera">lipstick camera</a>" with audio capability concealed on his body.</p><p>The undercover officer rides his bicycle (while making several illegal maneuvers in traffic) to a rendezvous point in Union Square Park.  In the park he meets up with other undercover police officers, one of whom sports a camcorder over his shoulder.   The three undercover police officers mingle with the bicyclists who are gathering to take part in the <a href="http://www.critical-mass.org">Critical Mass</a> bicycle ride.</p><p>We cannot know for certain, but it is very possible that the video from the body cam was transmitted live over a special wireless system that was put into place specifically for the Republican Convention.  There were at least two such systems that were tested during the RNC.  World Air Waves <a href="http://www.pr9.net/business/telecom/1164september.html">had an RNC contract</a> to provide a system including wearable video cameras to the NYPD. The Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security funded "Smartnets," a pilot project to transmit a live, two-way video signal by piggybacking on the local public television station's digital signal.</p><p><b>Helicopter Cam</b></p><div class="cam_float"><a href="http://blip.tv/file/get/Iwitness-NYPDSpyingWithHelicopter477.mov" class="image_link"><img height="174" src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/helicopter-medium.jpg" width="261" /><div>&gt;&gt; Watch helicopter-cam</div></a></div><p>The NYPD used several of its high-tech helicopters equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance cameras to monitor demonstrations during the RNC.  At least one of those helicopters was purchased by the police department using a <a href="http://ovc.gov/newsroom/2002/ojp02107.html">$9.8 million counterterrorism grant</a> from the U.S. Department of Justice.  The Bell 412 helicopter is equipped with military-style infrared imaging, a "Nightsun" searchlight whose strength is measured in tens of millions of candlepower, and the capability of transmitting a live television signal over microwaves to commanders located in One Police Plaza or anywhere else in town with the appropriate receiver.</p><p>This brief clip begins with the helicopter using only its infrared camera, while flying over the "W" hotel in the northeastern part of the Union Square neighborhood.   Hundreds of bicyclists take off on their group ride, appearing as ghostly black-and-white skeletons in the footage.  After this short clip ends, the helicopter follows the Critical Mass around Manhattan.</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/14</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/14.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Judge tells NYPD to stop willy-nilly videotaping of demonstrations</div></title><published>2007-02-20T00:02:39-05:00</published><updated>2007-02-20T00:02:39-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="TARU" label="TARU" /><category term="NYPD" label="NYPD" /><category term="Surveillance" label="Surveillance" /><category term="Handschu" label="Handschu" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>Judge Charles Haight delivered a withering blow to NYPD's blanket surveillance of public gatherings in a carefully rendered, 47-page <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-handschu-feb-15">decision</a>.</p><p>Haight's decision clarified the Handschu guidelines, the rules which the NYPD must follow when videotaping or photographing political activity.  He ordered that the current NYPD policy of wholesale surveillance of demonstrations stop immediately.</p><p>The police department argued that its officers should be able to attend (and record) public gatherings of all types "on the same terms and conditions of members of the public generally."</p><p>Haight demurred, writing, "There is a quantum difference between a police officer and the little old lady (or other tourist or private citizen) videotaping or photographing a public event."</p><p>In the words of Jethro Eisenstein, one of the lawyers challenging NYPD policies, the "effect [of the current NYPD written policy] is to treat every demonstration as criminal activity."</p><p>But even treating all political demonstrations as criminal is insufficiently Draconian for the NYPD.  Chief John Colgan, the commanding officer of the Counter-Terrorism Bureau, included "Large public events such as the New Year's Eve celebration" in the category of activities that a wise police department must surveil. Colgan's justification is that "the videotaping of public events serves to help <em>prevent and detect terrorist activity</em>." [my emphasis]</p><p>Haight disagreed with the NYPD's characterization of even small, benign protests as potential lightning rods for terror. After reviewing evidence that individuals participating in a legally permitted sidewalk demonstration in front of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's townhouse had been comprehensively videotaped by <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/chfdept/chfdept-taru.html">TARU</a> officers, Haight wrote, "Here there was no reason to suspect or anticipate that unlawful or terrorist activity might occur."</p><p>The bottom line for Haight is, "there must <em>always</em> be a legitimate law enforcement purpose&#8212;having a purpose of investigating political activity exclusively for its own sake is never allowed."</p><p>During the past few years in New York City we have seen a full flowering of video surveillance by NYPD at demonstrations and other First Amendment events.  It is very likely that Haight's decision has opened up the door to more litigation challenging police department surveillance tactics.</p><p>It is crucial that we track the NYPD's compliance with the new federal court order. The folks associated with I-Witness Video will be keeping our eyes peeled for NYPD surveillance activity. If you see NYPD spy cameras in action, we want to hear about it.  Please send your observations about police spying to <a href="mailto:iwitness@iwitnessvideo.info">iwitness@iwitnessvideo.info</a>.</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/13</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/13.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Smolka video cited in Newsday</div></title><published>2007-02-06T16:02:03-05:00</published><updated>2007-02-06T16:02:03-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="NYPD" label="NYPD" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>Newsday picked up the <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/10.html" title="Has Chief Bruce Smolka been muzzled?">I-Witness Video story</a> about the <a href="http://mirror.video.blip.tv/Iwitness-NYPDChiefSmolkaKicksWoman442.mov">Chief Smolka video</a>.  This is the first time video from this website has been cited in the mainstream news media.  In true "old media" style, Newsday doesn't credit I-Witness Video or the videographer by name or even link to the video as a service to its readers; but the article says the video "is making waves on the Internet and in the department."</p><p><a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nyrocc065082229feb06,0,6518060.story?coll=ny-nycnews-headlines">The Newsday article</a> brings some new information to light. Cynthia Greenberg speaks about what is not visible in the video.  She says Chief Smolka kicked her repeatedly in the head and body, resulting in a concussion. She also says that, as he assaulted her, he called her a "fucking cunt" and accused her of "resisting" him. (Newsday censors the expletives.)</p><p>The article also describes a deposition of Chief Smolka, where he offers a convoluted explanation of how his knee perhaps happened to come in contact with Cynthia Greenberg's head.</p><p>Newsday reporter Rocco Parascandola summarizes the scene caught on tape like this: "Although only seconds long, it looks bad."</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/12</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/12.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau and CCRB investigate theft of Flux's camera</div></title><published>2007-01-31T18:21:37-05:00</published><updated>2007-01-31T18:21:37-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="CCRB" label="CCRB" /><category term="NYPD" label="NYPD" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>FluxRostrum, whose videocamera <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/4.html">was stolen</a> by NYPD officers on October 30, 2006, is still fighting for possession of his camera and tape.  Sources tell us that the Civilian Complaint Review Board has opened an investigation into the matter. The blogger Aldon Hynes sent a <a href="http://www.orient-lodge.com/node/2098">complaint</a> to the NYPD via e-mail and received a follow-up phone call from a Sgt. Hanlon of Internal Affairs. Hynes <a href="http://www.orient-lodge.com/node/2129">reports</a>,</p><blockquote><p>This morning, I received a phone call from Sergeant Hanlon of Group 12, the internal affairs bureau of the New York City Police Department. My wife was a little concerned about why a Sergeant from the New York City Police was calling me, but when she understood the details, she handed the phone over to me. He was calling in regards to the email I had sent about "The War on Journalism".</p><p>Sergeant Hanlon said that the Police Department and received several emails about the event at the Mexican Consulate and that many videos had emerged online. The Police Department's Video Unit is reviewing the online videos and will be providing information to Sergeant Hanlon. He will be handling the investigation from there.</p><p>If any people have additional information they should contact Sergeant Hanlon at 212 694 3115. Sergeant Hanlon was very helpful in providing information and hopefully will conduct a thorough investigation into what happened.</p></blockquote></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/11</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/11.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Revlon and Chief Smolka</div></title><published>2007-01-31T18:21:38-05:00</published><updated>2007-01-31T18:21:38-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="CCRB" label="CCRB" /><category term="NYPD" label="NYPD" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/revlon-floor.jpg" /></p><p>Readers of an <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/10.html">earlier post</a> may have been puzzled about why NYPD Chief Bruce Smolka's unique talents would be in demand at a leading purveyor of beauty products for women.</p><p>I-Witness Video received this note <a href="http://freelancewrite.about.com/od/glossary/g/Overthetransom.htm">over the transom</a> from a <a href="http://www.rantcollective.net/article.php?id=35">legal observer</a> who did not wish to be identified.  It provides some insight into the history of the relationship between Revlon and the NYPD.</p><blockquote><p>Revlon is owned by highly controversial billionaire Ronald Perelman  (who rose to prominence, with his partner Michael Milken, through "corporate raiding" in the 1980s). Revlon does business with NYPD (and Revlon/Perelman was the central cause of the [former Police Commissioner Howard] Safir ethics violation charges).<span class="footnote_ref"><a href="#footnote-1" name="footnote-ref-1" id="footnote-ref-1">[1]</a></span></p><p>Perelman and Revlon have long made it a practice to hire politically connected figures as part of their own corporate strategies.  Press reports have also pointed to Perelman's desire to hire NYPD "tough guys."  And it would appear that Smolka is replacing 73-year old Tosano ("Tough Tony") Simonetti, a former NYPD senior official (who was also close to Safir/Giuliani and as a CCRB appointee <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/ccrb/html/simonetti.html">[see bio]</a> oversaw complaints involving Smolka).  Perelman is also now the owner of the largest  US-owned private security company (combining Allied, Barton and SpectaGuard).</p><p>These lucrative contracts for senior NYPD officials are increasingly common (and other key parts of law enforcement, a police variant of the so-called "revolving door").   While New York City has clear rules to avoid undermining the public interest through classic corruption, it has only weak guidelines to face this more subtle challenge.</p><p>The sad part is that, in a big way, Smolka will not be "getting out."  Many senior NYPD brass will now be requesting his recommendation, which may decide the second part of their career (and the most lucrative part).  Perelman's huge security firm alone is an enormous source of patronage.  In the future, Smolka's view of their ongoing performance may be more important to some police brass than the Mayor's.  That will weigh on their minds during many demonstrations to come.</p><p>More and more, police policy decisions are subject to private sector influence&#8212;even if it is an indirect and long-run type of influence.</p></blockquote><div class="footnotes"><p class="footnote"><a href="#footnote-ref-1" name="footnote-1" id="footnote-1">[1]</a> The New York City Conflict of Interest Board "rebuked former NYC Police Commissioner Howard Safir for accepting a free trip to the 1999 Academy Awards festivities in Los Angeles. Revlon was the donor of the trip, valued at over $7,000." <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/conflicts/downloads/pdf2/enf_summary_11_9_04.pdf">[See summary.]</a> Safir's trip took place at the height of protests about the Diallo killing.</p></div></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/10</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/10.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Has Chief Bruce Smolka been muzzled?</div></title><published>2007-01-23T23:43:27-05:00</published><updated>2007-01-23T23:43:27-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="Police Misconduct" label="Police Misconduct" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div><a href="http://mirror.video.blip.tv/Iwitness-NYPDChiefSmolkaKicksWoman442.mov" class="bare_link"><img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/Greenberg.jpg" /></a></div><div><a href="http://mirror.video.blip.tv/Iwitness-NYPDChiefSmolkaKicksWoman442.mov">&gt;&gt; PLAY VIDEO</a></div><p>After 26 years on the police force, two-star NYPD Chief Bruce Smolka is retiring and leaving for a security job at Revlon.  The timing of his departure is both striking and curious.  Since the Street Crimes Unit which he commanded was forced to close after the killing of Amadou Diallo, Chief Smolka has had a meteoric rise within the NYPD.  He is currently the borough commander of Manhattan south of 59th Street, which is the plum patrol assignment at his level within the department.</p><p>Why would Chief Smolka choose to leave now, at the height of his career, holding one of the most prestigious assignments the department has to offer?</p><p>Is it possible that Chief Smolka's impending retirement has something to do with civil rights lawsuits that have been brought against him by activists?  

He has been named or will be named in two separate lawsuits by
women who have claimed that he used excessive and unnecessary force on
them during demonstrations. National Lawyer's Guild legal observer
Adrienne Wheeler intends to bring one of suits.

You can see Ms. Wheeler tell her story about being manhandled by Chief Smolka <a href="http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_066002543.html">here</a>.</p><p>Does the timing of Chief Smolka's exit from NYPD have anything to do with his upcoming civil trial for using excessive force against another woman activist?  A deeply disturbing video that will be introduced as evidence in the trial shows Chief Smolka kneeing Cynthia Greenberg in the head while she is engaged in passive civil disobedience.</p><p>I-Witness Video has obtained the videotape of Chief Smolka personally taking Ms. Greenberg into custody during an anti-war demonstration at the Federal Building in Manhattan on May 5, 2003.  The circumstances of the civil disobedience that day were negotiated in advance with the 
police department, including an understanding that arrested demonstrators would receive "desk appearance tickets" (summonses) rather than being locked up overnight.</p><p>View the short clip of Chief Smolka's actions <a href="http://mirror.video.blip.tv/Iwitness-NYPDChiefSmolkaKicksWoman442.mov">here</a>. The sequence plays once at normal speed and then again enhanced, zoomed in closer to the action and in slow motion.</p><p>The video, shot by independent videographer Ana Nogueira, shows Ms. Greenberg seated on the ground next to other demonstrators. Ms. Greenberg is wearing an orange t-shirt in a sea of blue uniforms.  Chief Smolka, wearing a navy sweater over a white shirt and a cap with distinctive gold braid on the bill, tries to pull her away from the group.  He yanks at her but fails to dislodge her at first.  Two other officers are also grabbing onto Ms. Greenberg.  Chief Smolka grips the back of her clothing with both hands, and suddenly his knee shoots up, striking the right side of her head.  Ms. Greenberg's head snaps back sharply with the impact.  Her face is contorted in pain.  Her right hand comes up to the part of her head where she has just been hit.</p><p>Ms. Greenberg is handcuffed off camera.  The video cuts to a pair of female police officers walking with Ms. Greenberg in custody.   As she passes the camera, Ms. Greenberg pauses and then blurts out, "One of the officers just called me a cunt and kicked me in the face."</p><div class="floater"><img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/smolka-189-01.jpg" /><p class="caption">Chief Smolka arrests woman at April 2005 Critical Mass</p><p class="credit">Photo &#169; <a href="http://web.mac.com/antrim16">Antrim Caskey</a>, 2005</p></div><p>Chief Smolka's actions on the videotape seem consistent with his reputation for having an explosive temper.  For more on the Chief's standing among activists, many of whom consider him to be a sort of "Darth Vader" figure, see Aaron Naparstek's piece naming him one of the <i>New York Press</i> "<a href="http://www.naparstek.com/2005/03/really-bad-lieutenant.php">50 Most Loathsome New Yorkers</a>."</p><p>It is not clear why Chief Smolka has chosen to leave the police department that has been the focus of his adult life.  Perhaps he just got a better offer.  Or maybe the Chief's ascent to the highest levels of the police department has been compromised by his hands-on aggression on the street.</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/9</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/9.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Are you allowed to take pictures of the police?</div></title><published>2007-01-23T23:43:26-05:00</published><updated>2007-01-23T23:43:26-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="The War on Cameras" label="The War on Cameras" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><blockquote><p>By law we cannot arrest someone just because he may call a cop a pig.  We cannot arrest someone because he asks for a name or a badge or takes a picture.</p><p>-- Lorenzo Casanova, Deputy Police Commissioner, NYPD. <span class="footnote_ref"><a href="#footnote-1" name="footnote-ref-1" id="footnote-ref-1">[1]</a></span></p></blockquote><p>We know that NYPD officers harass photographers for taking pictures of stuff that the police decide is "sensitive."  But what if police officers decide that they themselves are the "sensitive" stuff?</p><p>To see an example of what can happen when the police take umbrage at being videotaped, see <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/news/index.html#news-41">this WCBS story</a> showing an NYPD official striking a man who was videotaping the police. </p><p>Can the police simply decide that it is illegal for you to to videotape them?  Do you have the right to take pictures of police officers at work in public places?  Do you have even the limited right to stand around and gawk at the police when they stop someone?</p><p>It turns out that the rights of "onlookers" at police incidents, including photographers, in New York City have already been recognized in federal court in a ruling that is still in effect today.</p><p>In the 1970s a class action lawsuit, <i>Black v. Codd</i>, was brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of reporters, photographers and onlookers who had been harassed, assaulted and/or arrested in the vicinity of police officers at work. The five plaintiffs were a diverse group: a WINS radio journalist; an <i>Amsterdam News</i> reporter; two members of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, a far Right <a href="http://www.public.org/larouche/synthesis.html">LaRoucheite group</a>; and a person identified by <i>The New York Times</i> only as a "bookkeeper."</p><p>NYCLU attorney Paul Chevigny stated in court papers that between 1970 and 1973, 259 people had been "subjected to some sanction, such as arrest, threats or physical abuse, because of criticism (or implied criticism, as by taking a photograph or writing down a shield number) of a police officer, including going to the precinct to make a complaint." <span class="footnote_ref"><a href="#footnote-2" name="footnote-ref-2" id="footnote-ref-2">[2]</a></span></p><p>In 1977 the NYPD was forced to agree that onlookers at incidents where the police are stopping people or making arrests are permitted to stay nearby without being subject to harassment or arrest.  The federal court ordered that this understanding be incorporated into the NYPD Patrol Guide, the internal rulebook about how to be a street cop. (It appears in section 208-03.)</p><p>The <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-black-v-codd">federal consent decree in <i>Black v. Codd</i></a> reads in part:</p><blockquote><p>... when a person (or persons) is detained, stopped or arrested in public areas, a person or persons not involved in the conduct for which the person is stopped or arrested may remain in the vicinity of the stop or arrest as an onlooker or onlookers ...</p><p>None of the following constitutes probable cause for arrest or detention of an onlooker unless the safety of officers or other persons is directly endangered or the officer reasonably believes they are endangered or the law is otherwise violated:</p><p>(a) Speech alone, even though crude and vulgar;<br />(b) Requesting and making notes of shield numbers or names of officers;<br />(c) Taking photographs;<br />(d) Remaining in the vicinity of the stop or arrest.<br /></p></blockquote><p>What does this mean out on the street?  Explained in the forthright language of Lorenzo Casanova, the Deputy Police Commissioner in 1977, "By law we cannot arrest someone just because he may call a cop a pig.  We cannot arrest someone because he asks for a name or a badge or takes a picture." <span class="footnote_ref"><a href="#footnote-3" name="footnote-ref-3" id="footnote-ref-3">[3]</a></span></p><p>Apart from <i>Black v. Codd</i>, the Patrol Guide warns against interfering with photographers:</p><blockquote><p>Members of the service will not interfere with the video taping or photographing of incidents in public places. Intentional interference such as blocking or obstructing cameras or harassing the photographer constitutes censorship.</p><p>-- NYPD Patrol Guide, section 116-53 <span class="footnote_ref"><a href="#footnote-4" name="footnote-ref-4" id="footnote-ref-4">[4]</a></span></p></blockquote><p>In other words, a police officer's fear of criticism, without evidence of a crime, is simply not a sufficient basis to harass or arrest someone. And NYPD's own rules for police officers recognize that interfering with cameras is censorship.</p><p>The upshot is: taking photographs or shooting video on the streets in the United States of America is a constitutionally protected activity.  That includes taking pictures of New York's Finest.</p><div class="footnotes"><p class="footnote"><a href="#footnote-ref-1" name="footnote-1" id="footnote-1">[1]</a> Peter Kihss, "Police Agree on Rights of Onlookers at Arrests," <i>The New York Times</i>, June 7, 1977.</p><p class="footnote"><a href="#footnote-ref-2" name="footnote-2" id="footnote-2">[2]</a> Kihss, ibid.</p><p class="footnote"><a href="#footnote-ref-3" name="footnote-3" id="footnote-3">[3]</a> Kihss, ibid.</p><p class="footnote"><a href="#footnote-ref-4" name="footnote-4" id="footnote-4">[4]</a> Todd Maisel, "<a href="http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2004/08/answers_from_nypd_meeting_for_rnc.html">150 photographers seek answers at NYPD meeting for RNC,</a>" National Press Photographers Association</p></div></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/e8</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/e8.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">NYPD makes its own rules; keeps secret files on photographers</div></title><published>2007-01-10T09:51:29-05:00</published><updated>2007-01-10T09:51:29-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>In my previous post, we found that taking photographs in public places is
        firmly protected under the Constitution.</p><p> Yet, in the cold light of post-September 11th New York City, the NYPD
        seems to think that it should be able to decide who is allowed to take
        pictures of anything that the police deem "sensitive."  This kind of
        thinking is justified under the rubric of fighting terrorism.</p><p>In May 2005, documentary filmmaker Rakesh Sharma was videotaping traffic
        near the Met Life building when he was accosted by NYPD Detective James
        Alamia.  Mr. Sharma was told that he was videotaping a "sensitive
        building."  His passport was taken from him and he was threatened and
        roughed up.  Mr. Sharma alleges in <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-sharma-complaint">court papers</a> that Detective Alamia
        "said words to the effect of 'we know how to deal with you guys, asshole'
        and told Mr. Sharma that he was authorized to punch him if necessary."
        After being harassed for a couple of hours on a midtown street corner Mr.
        Sharma was taken back to the 17th Precinct for more questioning and
        threats.  At the end of an ordeal lasting several hours, the police gave
        the filmmaker's passport to him, returned his now-broken videocamera and
        released him without charge.</p><p><b>NYPD's Intelligence Division keeps database of photographers</b></p><p>The <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-sharma-complaint">federal lawsuit</a> filed on Mr. Sharma's behalf by the New York Civil
        Liberties Union includes shocking new information.  According to the
        NYCLU,  "the Intelligence Division of the NYPD is maintaining a database
        that includes the identities of everyone investigated for photography by
        the Division, regardless of the outcome of the investigation."
        The NYCLU says that a "substantial
        number of investigations of photographers and filmmakers" have been
        conducted by the Intelligence Division.  In many cases these
        "investigations" involved threatening filmmakers and photographers in
        order to get them to destroy their images, or at least to show them to the
        police.</p><p>
        So there you have it.  While the U.S. Constitution gives broad rights to
        photographers and videographers shooting in public places, if you actually
        try to exercise your right to take pictures, you may be subject to
        questioning, search, threats, assault, or arrest by the police.  Your
        personal details may even be included in a special NYPD Intelligence
        Division database.  With all the recent enthusiasm for "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010501517.html">information-sharing</a>" among local and federal law enforcement and "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000238.html">intelligence fusion centers</a>", what is the chance that the information NYPD is collecting about
        photographers will stay in a lockbox down at One Police Plaza?  My guess
        is zero.</p><p>Do you feel the chill in the air yet?</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/e7</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/e7.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Is it legal to take pictures on the street?</div></title><published>2007-01-09T20:07:41-05:00</published><updated>2007-01-09T20:07:41-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="First Amendment" label="First Amendment" /><category term="The War on Cameras" label="The War on Cameras" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>There seems to be a lot of confusion about whether or not people can be
          prevented from taking pictures or shooting video in public.  Just what is the
          law around taking pictures in public places?</p><p>The rights of photographers under the Constitution are expressed in sparklingly clear language in <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/documents/index.html#doc-public-streets">a legal memorandum on the "Rights of Journalists on Public Streets"</a> which is available on the website of the National Press Photographers Association. I will now quote liberally from this very helpful document.</p><p>In general, the
          right to take photographs on the street is the same for members of the public
          as it is for journalists.  So, if you're a member of the public, rather than a
          journalist, most of this applies to you too.</p><blockquote>Although not unlimited, the media [and the public] enjoys a broad right of
          access under the First Amendment to photograph in public places such as streets
          and sidewalks.  These rights are rooted in the First Amendment's strong
          protection of speech within "public forums."  A "public forum" refers to a
          public place historically associated with free expression.  The most commonly
          recognized examples include <b>streets, sidewalks and parks.  Within these areas,
          the government's ability to limit the public's speech is extremely limited.</b><br /> [my emphasis]</blockquote><p>Great.  So taking
        photographs on the street is a constitutionally-protected activity.  This means
        that the government is not supposed to restrict your right to photograph or
        videotape in public places, with very few exceptions.</p><p>But surely, the laws
        must have been changed after September 11th to reflect the new reality of the
        Global War on Terror (GWOT)?  According to the legal memo, from the Washington,
        D.C.-based firm Covington &amp; Burling:</p><blockquote>[T]he case law does not reflect any
          narrowing of media rights within public forums in the name of national
          security. Moreover, <b>no specific post-September 11 federal law grants the
          government any additional rights to restrict visual newsgathering,
          photojournalism or photography generally.</b><br />[my emphasis]</blockquote><p>The memo does
        point out that a "public safety" exception exists for certain First Amendment
        activity.  For example, a photographer may be ordered off a public sidewalk to
        maintain traffic flow and the like.  But, "[C]ourts have found that the
        government cannot restrict protected First Amendment activity by merely
        invoking 'public safety' without any supporting evidence."  That means the
        police must have a solid, factual basis for telling you to move on.</p><p>In a future post I'll look at what can happen when you actually exercise
        your First Amendment right to take pictures on the street in New York City.</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/5</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/5.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">18,000 people watch video of NYPD attacking FluxRostrum</div></title><published>2006-12-22T17:30:43-05:00</published><updated>2006-12-22T17:30:43-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="17th Precinct" label="17th Precinct" /><category term="Police misconduct" label="Police misconduct" /><category term="FluxRostrum" label="FluxRostrum" /><category term="The War on Cameras" label="The War on Cameras" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>Over 18,000 people have viewed FluxRostrum's video <a href="http://fluxrostrum.blogspot.com/2006/11/war-on-journalism.html">Get That Camera!</a> since it was <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/4.html">posted on this website</a> and others last week.  The
              videotaped assault on Flux and the theft of his camera by NYPD officers 
              has been re-posted to scores of blogs including Amanda Congdon's
              high-profile ABC News video blog.
              </p><p>
              If you haven't seen it, take a minute now.  The
              baldness of the actions of the police is astonishing.  There is an   
              undeniable Keystone Kops element as the hapless police officers attempt to
              hide the evidence of their bad acts while standing on a midtown Manhattan
              sidewalk in front of many other people who are videotaping and
              photographing their actions.
              </p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/4</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/4.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">NYPD assaults videographer, steals camera</div></title><published>2006-12-12T00:00:00-05:00</published><updated>2006-12-12T00:00:00-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="17th Precinct" label="17th Precinct" /><category term="Brad Will" label="Brad Will" /><category term="Mexican Consulate" label="Mexican Consulate" /><category term="FluxRostrum" label="FluxRostrum" /><category term="Manhattan District Attorney" label="Manhattan District Attorney" /><category term="Police misconduct" label="Police misconduct" /><category term="The War on Cameras" label="The War on Cameras" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div><a href="http://fluxrostrum.blogspot.com/2006/11/war-on-journalism.html" class="bare_link"><img alt="Get That Camera!" height="222" src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/FluxRostrum-GetThatCamera578.jpg" width="420" /></a></div><div><a href="http://fluxrostrum.blogspot.com/2006/11/war-on-journalism.html">&gt;&gt; PLAY VIDEO</a></div><p>On October 30, 2006 at a demonstration protesting the murder of journalist
          Brad Will in Mexico, members of the NYPD assaulted an independent
          videographer and stole his videocamera.</p><p>That's right, stole.  The filmmaker, FluxRostrum, was not arrested. He
          did not receive a receipt for seized property. He was not even directly
          asked for his camera. Instead, without any warning, he was jumped by two
          police officers, one of whom is an NYPD captain, and knocked down onto the
          asphalt of 39th Street.  One police officer was succcesful in wrenching
          the camera out of Flux's hands.  As Flux crawled around on the ground
          looking for the eyeglasses which had been knocked off his face during the
          attack, the cop with the camera quickly conferred with another officer.
          Then he ran off to hide the camera.</p><p>When Flux attempted to get his camera back after the demonstration, he was
          threatened with arrest by a Lieutenant at the 17th Precinct.  His lawyer
          was told that camera was found "abandoned" at the scene and that it had
          been turned over to the Manhattan District Attorney's office to be used as
          evidence against people arrested at the Mexican Consulate demonstration
          that day.</p><p>Someone at the 17th Precinct told the D.A. that the camera was found
          "abandoned" on the sidewalk. Now the D.A. is insisting on keeping a copy
          of the stolen videotape to use as evidence.</p><p>Is this the new normal? Is it legal just because the police say so?</p><p>If police do not have their own videocameras at events will they simply
          bonk one of us over the head and steal our gear and videotapes?  What if
          they decide that they do not like what the videotape shows?  Will they
          then destroy it as has happened to so many cameras seized by the NYPD over
          the past couple of years?</p><p>This story is a little hard to believe, isn't it? Fortunately, you do not
          have to take my word for it. Not to be denied his voice, Flux made a <a href="http://fluxrostrum.blogspot.com/2006/11/war-on-journalism.html">videotape</a> about his experience at the hands of NYPD.</p><p>This is the first blog installment in an ongoing I-Witness Video
          investigation, The War on Cameras.</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/3</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/3.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">I-Witness Video Blogging Begins</div></title><published>2006-12-01T00:00:00-05:00</published><updated>2006-12-01T00:00:00-05:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><category term="background" label="background" /><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>I-Witness Video was born in the wake of the crackdown on freedom of
          speech and assembly which followed the embattled Seattle World Trade
          Organization (WTO) meetings in 1999. Since 2000, we have used
          video as the foundation for our investigations into police and
          government misconduct in and around political demonstrations.</p><p>The I-Witness Video blog will explore a plethora of police wrongdoing
          including surveillance, police perjury, prosecutorial misconduct and
          preemptive arrests. We will also try to shed light on the
          mechanisms of government repression through the use of obscure federal
          agencies, little-known Presidential directives, disinformation and the
          hyperbolic conflation of social activism with terrorism.</p><p>Living in the era of what a friend ironically calls the post 9-11
          Constitution, we will try to offer some perspective on the history of
          resistance and repression in the U.S.</p><p>To do all this we will use a variety of tools: video, still
          photographs, news articles, lawsuits, government and NGO reports and
          whatever open source intelligence we can get our hands on.</p><p>The story of the current wave of political repression is so complex
          that we may have to tell it in small pieces over a long period of
          time. We hope that you will join us in this unfolding,
          adding your own thoughts, analysis and observations to the mix.</p></div></content></entry><entry><id>http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/101</id><link rel="alternate" href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/101.html" /><title type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">I-Witness Video Moves to Quash Two Subpoenas</div></title><published>2008-06-20T12:55:28-07:00</published><updated>2008-06-20T12:55:28-07:00</updated><author><name>Eileen Clancy</name></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="lead_img">
  <img src="http://iwitnessvideo.info/images/archive.jpg" />
  <p class="caption">
This is a photo of completely unrelated video archivists.  But
they look about as comfortable in this picture as we feel.
(Photo by Chris Bouldin for The Pine Log.)
  </p>
</div>

<p>In April, I-Witness Video received the first of two subpoenas from the
New York City Law Department in connection with the civil lawsuits
filed by people arrested at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
We received a second subpoena, seeking additional material, in early
June.</p>

<p>The subpoenas demand videotapes, photographs, documents and other
"potential evidence" related to "protests, demonstrations, and
arrests" during the RNC.</p>

<p>Yesterday, our attorneys filed a Motion to Quash the City's subpoenas.</p>
<p>In the event that the judge orders us to turn over any portion of the
archive, we have asked the court to prohibit the City from making the
videotapes available to police, federal agencies, foreign governments,
or other entities, and to allow us to withhold the names of the
videographers.</p>

<p>The City is engaged in a very cynical exercise: it already possesses
about 270 videotapes of the demonstrations shot by police officers,
as well as about 70 other videotapes from other sources.  And yet,
they are asking to copy every last videotape in our RNC collection --
including videotapes they already have, and including a large number
of tapes shot by the NYPD itself.</p>

<p>The City knows what we know -- that the NYPD was out of control during
the Convention protests. The videotapes in their possession already
show that. So we can't help but wonder why they are demanding access
to our archive.  Could it be that they are using this opportunity to
gather intelligence about activists? We are deeply concerned about
this, and about the possibility that the City's request, if granted,
could transform I-Witness Video from a network of video activists into
a de-facto arm of the government.</p>

<p>We are continuing to engage in the larger struggle to expose police
abuses, but right now we are also under the gun.  And we need your
help.  Join us this summer at the presidential conventions in
Minneapolis and Denver where we will be documenting the policing of
demonstrations.  Or <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/contribute/">contribute money</a>
to I-Witness Video.  We have a
lot of exciting projects underway in addition to the convention work.
If you want to talk to us, we'd love to <a href="http://iwitnessvideo.info/about/">hear from you</a>.</p>
</div></content></entry></feed>