There is a difference between "plain clothes" and "undercover".

"Undercover" implies that the officers are actively participating in the "action".

"Plain clothes" is officers not in uniform watching you. And what's wrong with this? It's a freedom that both the "protesters" and the cops have.

Given the random violence and willful destruction of private property that these "protesters" engage in, I have no problem with "plain clothes" cops watching these people (and why shouldn't they?)

I agree with Arthur. Who cares? If people protesting peacefully it shouldn't be an issue. If not, then the trouble makers can be identified and weeded out.

That "peaceful" protest on December 8th disturbed the peace and quiet for me in my apartment with all the yelling. I couldn't even tell what anyone was saying. Get over it. Its done. Move on.

Nobody has an expectation or right to privacy on a public street. They want to be photographed by the news media. If a citizen or a cop also wants to photograph them, its no different. If you are doing nothing illegal, so what if someone captured your picture?

The only thing that I think is legit, is that when a public agency takes your photo, or films you on a body camera, whether you have done anything or not, it is subject to public disclosure to anyone who asks, to use however they choose. Nobody is thinking that through when they demand police body cameras. Yes they are a tool for police accountability, but for every case where the video is critical to documenting police abuse or exonerating an officer there will be tens of thousands of hours of citizens doing nothing illegal, accessible to the public, for distribution far and wide, whether it is flattering or not (you don't know how it will be edited).

Do you guys even understand why the police puts undercover officers in the crowd? Because Protesters will never police their own, at least the ones in Seattle. When someone throws a rock, a brick, a steel re-bar, a bag of urine at the pigs and they scream who did that, nobody points fingers, nobody pushes that punk out of the crowd at towards the police. Its reasonable to assume that people wearing masks, might actually be there to stir up a shit storm, so no shit cops are going to go undercover.

@6:

Also, it never hurts to have a couple of agents provocateurs infiltrated into a demonstration, so they can get people riled up if they're not sufficiently violent or bent on destruction of property - like what just happened in Oakland.

That wooshing sound was The Point flying over @1-@6's heads.

This is about the police taking photographs of praceful protesters, which as clearly stated is not allowed.

Is it weird that we're creeped out by this, yet demanding body cameras on every police officer?

@9:

Not in the least. If a cop is wearing a body cam: 1.) you know they're a cop, because, uniform; 2.) the camera is in plain view, and; 3.) it's recording the interaction between citizen and cop and THEORETICALLY should keep both on best behavior. The problem with UC cops taking photos is: 1.) nobody knows they're cops; 2.) they're only taking images of citizens (which again is counter to stated policy), and; 3.) historically these images have been used not just to identify law-breakers, but as part of concerted COINTELPRO operations where UC cops attempt to infiltrate legitimate social justice organizations, not infrequently for the purposes of entrapment.

Here is a thought experiment: When police attend church, they are walking into the church in public view and often with their families and personal vehicles. Anyone standing on the sidewalk across from the parking lot entrance or the front doors of the church can see them, photograph them, and use that photography in any noncommercial manner they might desire.





Why would police object to this? Especially if they suspected the photographers were Anarchists, or protesters angry about their actions the night before...





If you can see how this would upset police officers, then add to this the fact that police officers have regular access to Department of Licensing photographs from every driver's license photo you ever stood for. All of them. And it takes a simple email and about 15 - 20 minutes for a cop with some idea about your name and date of birth to get that photograph and compare it to their street photos. Where it goes from there depends on what the cop wants to do with the data. Let's just say I get a lot fewer traffic tickets now that I am not seen at protests.

@6 Undercover police in Seattle have never arrested and convicted a member of an organized gang of protest vandals. As far as I can tell undercover work involving protest vandals does not even try to impact the success of the violent groups. They get active later on when the police are coralling bunch people with no connection to the black mask groups at all. Undercover work focused on protesters in Seattle and most other places seems to be primarily political, rather than related to preventing or investigating specific crimes.

@8

This is about the police taking photographs of praceful protesters, which as clearly stated is not allowed.

It clearly *IS* allowed, and there is no rational reason to "disallow" it.