Talk:Undercover operation

Differentiated between plainclothes and undercover. Also change referance to police having the RIGHT to commit crimes undercover to POWER. People have rights, governments have powers.--170.121.15.35 14:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

PEOPLE!!

Lets get this article expanded. There's got to be plenty of documentation on undercover work, especially by police forces around the USA. I'm not knowledgable of such stuff, and I don't watch any of the TV shows (CSI, New York Undercover, etc.) but there has got to be reputable sources detailing how undercover cops operate and famous cases, like say, Donnie Brasco from the 70s. Let's get started!! Ocn169 (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification in "Drug Use and Undercover Policing" section

"Undercover agents are regularly engaged to target narcotic and drug offending, and policies for drug use vary from country to country. The view of some agents is that the infiltration of drug rings often results in large consumption of cannabis to remain legitimate..."

• Is this just for cops who are busting marijuana dealers or for all drugs? It might make sense for all drugs, since the cops wouldn't need to do more dangerous drugs, yet they can smoke in front of suspects and be seen being "on something" even if it isn't the specific drug being traded. I just thought it was confusing, and the reference is a book so I couldn't go to the source. Can anyone clear this up? Thank you. KenFehling (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Many of the sources for this article are over 20 years old, policing in the US and indeed around the world has changed a lot since the 80s, might be worthwhile to find some updated studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.156.163 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the controversy section

While there will be genuine controversies involving undercover policing (such as drug addiction and perjury) the controversy listed here is vague and relates to a single incident that has been used to generalize to all plain clothes policing. Furthermore, the article is about undercover police officers and from the reference it is not clear whether they are undercover or plain clothes Detectives (or similar). There is no issue with having controversies section, but perhaps more prominent ones should be included (for example the allegations of lack of support to ex-undercover agents who have become drug addicts as a result of being exposed to drug use while undercover).Xiaan77 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

See also section

I've removed several US law enforcement enforcement from the see also list. Presumably they were there just because they sometimes work undercover, and so I don't think it appropriate to list them for the following two reasons:

• Someone following the links is not going to find out anything more about undercover operations by reading those general articles. Compare Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Covert policing in the United Kingdom.
• If we include in the list US organisations that happen to use undercover operations, then NPOV would dictate we also include links to organisations from other countries that do so also. Imagine how long and unuseful the list would be if it inckluded organisations in the UK, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Belgium, Qatar, Russia, Central African Republic, etc, etc.

This same logic does apply to links like Covert policing in the United Kingdom, but that is directly relevant and (at present) there is only the one article like that I'm aware of. If it turns out that there are lots then they should be replaced by a link to a list of articles about covert policing so as not to overwhelm this see also section.

I'm not completely sure that all the other links should be there either, as some seem only tangentially relevant, but I've left them there for now. Categorising the links would probably be a useful start. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The links you removed seem to be the work of banned vandal and childish overlinker User:Bobmack89x. Like most of his edits they are, as you point out so well, worthless. Perhaps worse, they waste the time of good editors. More about Bob's history at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#Disruptive_editing_by_Bobmack89x and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bobmack89x/Archive. --CliffC (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense. I thought this was familiar, and it turns out that an edit to the Child pornography article adding US federal agencies only barely related to the topic [1] that I reverted was by him as well - (see Talk:Child pornography#See alsos). I wasn't aware he was a serial offender though, so thanks for the heads up. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Undercover Sociologist

Sometimes Sociologist go Undercover. https://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/may/latino-immigration-study-050510.html --2A02:A400:6148:1:F8D7:632C:F575:A73C (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Added a section on authorized criminality

Aka "can cops commit crimes while undercover to keep their cover?" I'm not trained in law so this is just what I can find from easily found open sources. I apologize if I misinterpreted or messed something up. Jasonkwe (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)