Slashdot Mirror
Flash Mobs a Threat to Security?
RawCode writes "News about a recent report released by the RCMP suggests that flash mobs could pose a future threat to security. 'Some are aimed at celebrities. Tech-savvy teenaged girls in Britain can quickly spread the word on the whereabouts of Prince William, surrounding him with hundreds of screaming fans. Some are political, organizing protests. Text-messaging was instrumental to organizing public demonstrations in the Phillippines that forced President Joseph Estrada from office'."
The other thing that occurs to me, unfortunately, is that this will lead us even more down the path of trying to prevent crimes rather than punish them. It sounds like a good idea - I mean, isn't it better to stop the Bad Thing from even happening? The problem with it, of course, is that the only way to prevent crime is to actually curtail the abilities of people to do things that could be criminal. Fundamentally, it's a tradeoff of liberty for security.
I'm not exactly a wild-haired anarchist, and I do believe that some tradeoffs of that nature are necessary given the amount of damage ten dedicated people can inflict (to paraphrase a quote that went something like "the progress of history can be measured by how many people a group of ten dedicated men can kill"...but I don't remember who said it. Help with attribution would be appreciated), but we (by which I mean the so-called first world) keep moving in only one direction: more security, less liberty. It's a cultural decision which is based on events like plane hijackings, car bombs and assasinations, but results in policies like the DMCA and the CBDTPA.
The article certainly comes across as a justification for engaging in yet more crime prevention. At some point, I can only hope that we turn around and realize that we can't prevent Bad Things from happening, so we're better off allowing liberty and punishing criminals than eliminating liberty and making criminals out of everyone.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
If the "flash mob" is a bunch of terrorists, or others seeking havoc. This makes no sense at all. Having a LUG meeting could be a security threat with the right type of people :)
Can you impeach me now?
Seems they are simply using technology to better do what they want to do. Isn't this what it is for?
a Beowulf Cluster of flash mobs!
Of course it is a threat... It's a threat because people are able to quickly organize and protest. That is a major threat to public officials that want to ignore the fact that there is dissention.
Afterall isn't that why we are "protecting" our President from those horrible demonstrators? They might actually show him that there is a percentage of the population that doesn't agree with him?
What, it's still 2002? Next you'll be telling me that the Angels are going to win the World Series or something.
sulli
RTFJ.
Any attempt by citizens to communicate and organize outside of sanctioned government channels will be seen as a threat to security. Welcome to the future.
before they look out for us.
If it is lives they want to save, how about all the millions of working class people who die obesity, cancer, heart disease, etc? Instead we pay to make sure some elite figurehead won't have his hair rumpled by teenaged girls.
Typical of the human critter....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Right to Peaceably Assemble
The right to peacefully gather and parade or demonstrate to make one's views known or to support or oppose a public policy is based upon the twin guarantees of the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble.
Practicing your right to assemble is NOT a security risk.
If you reason this way then everything is a threat to security. How insecure is prince William anyway if he's surrounded by teenage girls ? Are we afraid of teenage-terror-girls ?
Flash mobs of course can be a nuisance, or even a threat to the safety of the public as a whole. All it takes is one bearded terminal hacker gone bad to start one up under the auspices of a good prank or a fun time, but with the ulterior motivation of making some business pay for their alleged crimes.
Can we allow bearded terminal hackers to become judge, jury, and executioner? Perhaps one day we'll look back on the incident at the offices of Symantec last year and realize that it wasn't just a crowd, it was a crowd put together by a person, possibly a terrorist depending on your definition of such. Flash mobs have the potential to ensnare young participants in things they would normally not even dream of.
Is it worth the good pranks to let this go on?
So what - ban text messaging to protect poor Britney Spears next time someone spots her getting married in a Vegas drive-thru chapel? I think it might be easier, and definitely preferable, to ban celebrities.
Wow, this isn't NEARLY as interesting as the "Flash" Mobs I was thinking of...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
When the British police confiscate cell phones as they are apparently "empowered to do so" are they allowed to go though the phones call list and stored numbers or would that require a warrant? The ol' "guilt by association" thing...
Trolling is a art,
With the kind of random chaos that they could bring, it would be very, very easy for someone with violent or other criminal intentions to get away with something. Imagine flash mobbing the President, it would be very easy for someone to get around the SS agents and shoot the President because there would be so many people "spontaneously" crowding around Bush.
Now I know that many of you who can't stand Bush think this is the perfect means to "retake America" but let's be honest. Flash mobbing presents a danger to what little is left of freedom of association.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
you are living in the past. Have you not heard of Free Speech Zones?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Not trying to troll here...but these days everything is a security threat. I'm sure a cat wondering the lawn of the whitehouse is a security threat just because *gasp* somebody may have injected it to carry some kind of biological agent.
As for flash mobs, what exactly can you do about them? The minute you start trying to use force to prevent flash mobs from forming (read: before they turn violent...IF they even do) you're going to have everyone yelling about how oppressed they are.
These so-called "security threats" come with the right to be able to leave your house whenever you want...
Tech-savvy girls flashing for Prince William - :)
now THAT's a power to be reckoned with!
I believe that people are far too paranoid about security...Every possible advance in communications could help "dangerous" people as well as serve useful purposes. And apparently Britian treats protesters different if they have a cell phone...
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
For those who don't know (and the article doesn't seem to explain), RCMP stands for Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Y'know the mounties, with the red uniforms. I believe they are roughly equivalent to the FBI, though I am sure someone else can explain exactly what their duties are.
"But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
(Yeah yeah, and tell them they can have their joke back too)
For those who haven't read it, try "The Permanent Floating Riot Club" by Larry Niven. I can't remember which anthologies it is in, but a worthwhile read. At the end you won't be surprised by this phenom, except maybe that it isn't worse...
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
Dene Moore, you get a cookie. I can't wait to read your next exposé, "Bullets Fired From New, Hi-Tech Guns May Be Deadly"...
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Like this one:
Everyone who reads this should go to this guy's blog and post a comment about how you are looking for someone named Betty.
...will become just another over-hyped buzzword no better than all those others sitting on some PHB bookshelf. Oops... too late.
"The Last Days of the Permanent Floating Riot Club", 1974; collected in "A Hole in Space".
Unfortunately, the solution is going to have to be different. The stories make a starting point for thinking about the problem.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Of course, the entire case was eventually dismissed.
Fight Spammers!
That tech-savy girls would be smart enough to set their sights on a better target than prince William . . . .
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
You just have to treat the problem with information overflow.
The location of all "stars" should be posted all the times.
First, you'd see that any given time there are tons of stars moving around in the city, which will make them more "common".
Second, if you can find out any time where the stars are, spotting them is not even exciting anymore.
Overflow the crowd with info, so that it will become a no-big-deal issue.
As usual, the government is attempting to subvert a technology that is pure democratic freedom of speech. Wish to gather and protest a government official/stance? Gather a flash mob quickly and protest. Nothing terroristic about that - or every method of communication on topics not approved by the government will be outlawed under the 'terror' banner.
The only manner this could fall under the 'terrorism' moniker is for the flash mob to be directed to do something illegal. Kinda like 'Gather at xxxx street and bring bombs and guns to eliminate yyyy official/people'.
As pointed out before and proven here, labeling something as a potential terrorist threat is the new way freedom is subverted - and this must stop.
It's the largest flash mob in the US. Why do you think they call them "Thousands Standing Around"?
Yes, I'm that old. This was around 1986 or so.
Anyway, one night there was a food run declared for midnight at the Lyons restaurant in Capitola. One hundred and ten students descended all at once on the otherwise empty restaurant, and all ordered coffee, some ice cream, and at the end asked for separate checks, each of which ranged from maybe one to five dollars.
There were only a couple employees on staff when we arrived. It took a long time to get served because they had to call off-duty employees on the phone, waking them out of bed to come work for the hour or two we were there.
As we prepared to depart, the restaurant manager sternly said "Don't ever do that again".
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Could the Internet, phones, etc. be used equally well to detect, prepare for, disrupt and otherwise mess with Flash-mobbers?
Of course that would require a sufficiently large and motivated group of people with lots of time on their hands who are interested in preventing mayhem ... ;)
Request your free CD of my piano music.
The technology is simply being used for what was originaly envisioned. Worldwide cheap and efficient communication that can change the world.
And since it's changing the world it isn't surprising to me that there are those who would like to see this form of communication restricted.
>
As always, it can be easily solved.
Just put this article in the paper, and wait for other teenage boys to get the idea of throwing a few posts on the web about how the "prince" (or whatever target you want) will be at a certain location.
Then just sit back and wait as all the girls run around frantically, desperately trying to find someone that isn't there.
More noise == problem solved.
And governments have this control. Both to enforce censorship (filtering) of messages, and to shut it down completely. And don't you dare believe otherwise! They call it National Security, and it's part of every country.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
...than masses of students stuffing themselves into volkswagons and phone booths.
It's funny, how the rich and famous will try to make it illegal what bothers them, even if it's a fundamental freedom. No to mention how they are using up all available resources paid by common tax payers for their own goals.
The funniest part is that it's the public interest that makes them a star at the first place.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Mead
Historically, the reason large groups of people could be controlled by small groups is that the small groups were able to coordinate their behavior better. This usually took years of training within a culture of discipline (like the Roman army). Now, with technology, it is easier to coordinate the behaviors of large groups of people. Your seeing more of this sort of thing with grass roots campain activity over the internet. However, this will lead to unexpected side effects which I certainly can't predict, and I imagine has the entrenched powers-that-be worried, because if you're in power you want the general population to be predictable.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
If only there were people whose job it was to prevent mayhem... We can dream, can't we?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Like in this movie.
Arianna H. talks about it, too.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
...British Soccer fans? They show up at a predetermined time, riot, and then disperse to thier home country. And they've been known to cause injuries and death!
A soccer ball is the symbol of real terror!
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
Text-messaging was instrumental to organizing public demonstrations in the Phillippines that forced President Joseph Estrada from office
Well, of course they're a security threat! We don't want groups of unimportant people forcing politicians from office, now do we?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I remember in Farenheit 451 the government would incite the coorperation of the masses with video bulletins. "1984" too?
Flash mobs only pose a security risk if you are a fascist. I think with the advent of the cell phone and text messaging, the possibility of a coup d'etat in the developed world is slim to none. Before any would be junta could consolidate power there would be protests in the street, largely due to cell phones and text messaging. I think this a good thing. It safeguards our freedoms and if a few celebrities have to put up with mobs of teenage girls, then so be it.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Flash mobs, and the decentralized media systems to organize them, are a threat to the security of the corporate state. It attacks the popularity of the official media, like ABCNNBCBS, which hide their incompetence and complicity behind popularity. The masters of the status quo can't abide the people freely speaking, assembling, and believing whatever they want, when the corporate edifice depends on the consent manufacturing industry producing through the proper channels.
"Flash mobs" are under attack first, because they've got "mobs" in their name, and most Americans have no other idea of what they are, never having the chance to participate. Once they're on the "terrorist" side of the "with us or against us" equation, look for blogs to get lumped in. I'd expect that by the end of 2005, several of the most reliable websites without FCC-controlled components will have been spiked with "true lies". Like the simulated Bush draft-dodging memos that killed CBS as a messenger of their subsequent Iraqmire documentary. The mediacracy prefers potatoes to surfers.
--
make install -not war
Flash mobs can work for basic freedoms when the political system is too corrupt or stagnant to respond to changes in the modern world.
Say you and your friends are tired of being arrested for possession of marijuana. You feel that if you're not disturbing the peace, it isn't anyone's business. And you feel that the people who do the arresting and prosecuting are just in it for the bribes and kickbacks from lawyers to the police and the judges, or they are making tons of money by investing in corporate prison systems.
So whenever you see or you be in 420 arrests happening, you send a flash bulletin. Many people who agree that this situation must change show up.
They surround the arrest perimeter. They don't leave when ordered. They just aren't reasonable.
A single arrest turns into a hundred arrests (for 'terrorism').
This happens over and over. It's not a one-time thing. Eventually, the authorities begin to get the message through their cement heads that the time has come for the situation to change.
It changes. No more 420 arrests; regardless of the 'law'.
This is not exactly how democracy is supposed to work, but it is the only way that does in corporate dictatorship (like where the people who make big bucks selling prescriptions to Marinol reinvest the money in corporate prisons, which are filled with (black) people serving time for being unable to come up with the money to bribe the judge, ahh... excuse me, for 'using drugs').
Did you just stumble across this phrase or something???
In this thread you said and any true bearded terminal hacker would tell you as such. You then used the same phrase twice in the parent post:
All it takes is one bearded terminal hacker gone bad
Can we allow bearded terminal hackers to become judge, jury, and executioner
I don't often notice this sort of thing, but having just left the 'Solaris vs Linux Continues' thread the additional instances of the phrase stood out.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Just give the celebs powerful, wearable "jammers" that obliterate all cell phone activity within a two-block radius! ;-)
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Is that the guy will be re-elected.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Many's the time hundreds of screaming, tech-savvy teenage girls have surrounded me. Usually I wake up right about then. Damn.
What about the Dutch gangs (who used cell phones to arrange fights between fans of Feyenoord and Ajax), Italian ultras (Lazio fans have some clever communication network), Turkish fans, and most of the other countries.
Heck, Canada had its flash mob when the hockey team won the world cup last week. They turned over cabs and made a nuisance of themselves in downtown Toronto.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
Can I just pay to get frist psots on an a'la carte basis?!!!
One or two posts have already pointed out information on Flash mobs, which Niven has masterfully discussed in some of his works. Granted, his flash mobs required teleportation booths, but still, it's a lesson about technology that's highly important and still applicable here.
What's interesting to me is no one has mentioned Niven's second tier problem with Flash mobs. Niven wrote at least one story about a man who worked as a professional flash mob pick pocket. He'd wait until some event occured that would result in a flash mob, and he's show up, working the crowd.
How long until the criminal element reads Niven and gets the idea?
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Any attempt by citizens to communicate and organize outside of sanctioned government channels will be seen as a threat to security. Welcome to the future.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA... oh, wait, that's what they did in Soviet Russia.
Yakov Smirnoff - bad 80's comedian, or visionary distopian prophet?
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
It should read...
"Flash Mobs help strengthen Democracy and protect your rights to free speech and peaceful assembly."
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Sure, we stop crowds of teenyboppers around Prince William, or paparazzi around Elton John, but won't real terrorists accomplish the same thing with a secure means of communication, like a classified ad?
All flash mobs do is annoy "celebrities", and I'm all for that. Anyone who lives off fame and then complains that the fans are affecting their 'normal' lives is a hypocrite.
People have been protesting for years. Protesting peacefully is a right in America. When people feel passionately about a cause, they are going to persue actively that cause - technology or no technology. Improved communications means that the organization can conducted more efficiently. The article does not say this, but I hope that people do not have the assumption that improved technology equates to more crime. Crime comes from human nature, not technology. Crime has been with us as long as humanity itself.
As to how to deal with it... there really isn't a lot anyone can do about it as the article suggests. I suppose that the best we can do is deal with crime as it arises and punish accordingly.
Get some.
This is the same police force who investigated the Raging Grannies as a subversive group.
...My first thought was that terrorists were contemplating using flash mobs to create an instant victim base...
Sure, you have security crawling all around a popular building - big deal. The terrorist, posing as a fan of say, Britney Spears, creates a flash mob two blocks away from the secured building claiming that she was spotted there - and shows up at that spot with a bomb. Voila, several hundred victims appearing of their own free will, close enough to the security site to create absolute chaos.
It didn't even occur to me that the Man considered flash mobs to be a threat in themselves... After all, there are certain Amendment rights to make this train of thought silly. I thought that the government was concerned about the public - not their right to assemble!
As we headed out of the Bay Area Rapid Transit Station, a young man pleaded with us not to leave the station. "They're breaking heads out there," he said.
My intrepid mother tightened her scarf and out onto the street we went. Near the station were a large group of police in riot gear (helmets, shields, sticks, etc.) but the crowds had largely dispersed by then.
We made it to the door of the opera house where we found a sign announcing the ballet's cancellation due to the riot, and how we could get tickets for a different date.
Happily, we got better seats when we came back, right up front. Romeo and Juliet. Exquisite.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
You are completely mistaken. Did you even read the summary? The summary, let alone TFA, explained how the "mob" can unintentionally locate high valued targets. That the person calling the mob to a location could inadvetantly be acting as a lookout. That the mob converging on the location could inadvertantly be acting as camoflauge for a terrorist. Things are far more complicated than your post suggests.
Text messaging? How long does it take to reach a group of 200 if you can only message 5 people at a time? And everyone knows how inaccurate "telephone" can be after a few iterations.
I'd guess that if you're gonna do something like this, then you've signed up your phone's email on a listserv; that way everyone gets the same message at nearly the same time.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
Viva Cochabamba!
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
More often, flash mobs have no discernible purpose at all. Last August about 40 people gathered at the Place des Arts in Montreal to toss rubber ducks in a fountain and quack.
:D
I was there. The first flashmob in Canada. Those tourists never understood what happened...
"I personally can't comprehend how people become so attached to celebrities that they collect things about or belonging to them."
John Lennon.
It seems to be a primate thing.
In one set of experiments, monkeys were willing to sacrifice very large quantities of their favorite beverage in order to simply look at pictures of higher-ranking monkeys in their social group for a period of time.
Sort of puts a new spin on those celeb mags in the supermarket checkout lines, doesn't it?
DNA just wants to be free...
So Ghandi figured out that the British were making a fortune on the salt tax, and had made making sea salt illegal to make more tax money, so he organized lots of people to break that law and make sea salt. The point was not to flout the law, but rather to stop the money.
Now do the similar analysis: According to your statement, the people profiting from the current drug laws are "...making tons of money by investing in corporate prison systems". You are proposing to get a factor of 10 or 100 more people arressted and jailed for each drug bust. So tell me, does that make those coprporate prison investors more money or less money?
You have to actually learn from history to make a difference.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
Seems they are simply using technology to better do what they want to do. Isn't this what it is for?
Things are far more complicated than you suggest, as was pointed out in the slashdot intro. The problem is that innocent civilians unknowingly become lookouts and cover for the terrorists. They are in effect a force multiplier for the terrorists.
What hasn't been discussed is the fact that police organizations also use SMS messaging as a way to deal with security issues (i.e., flash mobs can be used to "increase" security). I've seen police officers (not in the US though) text each to coordinate their movements against rowdy ruffians that were turning violent.
With cell phones being so cheap, yet effective, it seems that flash mobbing may be a way around outdated equipment or non-functioning equipment.
The assualt rifle ban was one of those "feel good" pieces of legislation. High-power rifles were never the focus. Lawmakers were aiming to restrict rapid-fire short-barrel weapons that were predominantly used in urban combat evnironments. The final compromises made and the grandfather clauses created a "pre-ban" marketplace that very effectively bypassed the legislation. In summary, it was a complete waste of time.
Banning "dangerous things" is always a bad idea. I have a hammer. It can be used as a weapon. Should it be banned? The distinction between "tool" and "weapon" has nothing to do with the item.
Unfortunately, this position requires that we allow crimes to happen, and forces the police to be reactionary instead of preemptive. It's the only way to allow me, Joe LawAbidingCitizen, to have my freedom.
So, a high powered rifle at a distance is dangerous too and they let the ban on assault rifles run out contrary to campaign promises.
In your zeal and haste to invoke the 'assault rifle' bogeyman, you forgot one thing: the "high powered rifle at a distance" is called a hunting rifle with a scope. These firearms were not covered by the assault weapons ban, and were not restricted [any more than usual] during the ban period.
Assault rifles, OTOH, are generally used at shorter ranges where the target is visible without the need for optics (e.g. a scope).
To the rest of
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
I mean, c'mon, burn every "Freedom==security threat" wanker at my account, but the article is fair. Even a Mountie (Well prolly not a mountie, but some IT manager for the Police) was quoted saying "Every twist in technology has benefits and not-so-beneficial things that occur".
The original Mountie report was quoted to say flash mobs are a "phenomenon to be reckoned with" and they are bloody well right. They are the police. Flash mobs ARE a force. Leddem reckon with it. Thats them jobs.
I mean, Its not like "The Man" recommended to do away with cell phones entirely or anything, that would be preposterous even in the US of A.
And this is Canada speaking.
"/Dread"
"Seems they are simply using technology to better do what they want to do. Isn't this what it is for?"
I always thought technology was for the ease of catering to our baser instincts.
Anybody who modded that funny apparently doesn't know what's going on.
We can dream, can't we?
The first rule of project mayhem is you do not ask questions.
Preventing crime is a necessary function of society, not just punishing criminals but fortunately there's a Right Way to do it without imposing draconian restrictions on individual liberty.
The Swiss are issued guns as part of their mandatory military service, and required to keep them in the home and be proficient with them. You don't hear much about violent crime being committed in Switzerland.
Arming citizens, giving them the duty and more importantly the *ability* to protect themselves, is a great way to prevent crime. Unfortunately, the USA is so stricken with cultural victimitis that even though guns are still allowed, actually using them in self-defense is likely to result in civil or criminal prosecution because the would-be assailant is a victim of The Man, racial profiling, whatever. It is strange that this is one of the few cases Europeans provide a social model that Americans would do well to emulate.
How far would a terrorist, or even a normal murderer or rapist, get in a well-armed society? Especially the kind of society where the people can text-message each other quickly and easily? The end of the Wild West started with the proliferation of the telegraph, so that distant towns could communicate with each other and warn each other about dangerous outlaws.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
The article forgot to mention the heavy, heavy use of SMS to organize flash mobs in protest to both the DNC and RNC. This is not an "a-American" phenomenon.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Yeah, if they're standing right next to each other.
Maybe someday there will be a Bluetooth Across America day, just to prove that we can.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
sounds like democracy in action.
If we don't like the government we have the right to try to over throw it.
It's a question of scale.
One person = suspect
Two people = conspiracy
Three people = mob
Four people = revolution
We can't allow revolution, now can we? That would upset the entire system!
Better to arrest those suspects before they have a chance to conspire
-kgj
-kgj
General Jack D. Ripper is already proclaiming: "Mr. President, we cannot allow a flash mob gap!!!"
At the DNC, protesters were herded into fenced enclosures with concertina wire. At the RNC there were far more lenient restrictions as to where and how people may protest.
There is a cultural assumption on the political scene that the Democrats are all compassionate progressives (so their actions are ipso facto less evil), and the Republicans are all hateful religious zealots (so their actions are ipso facto more evil). It seems the Republicans are far more creepy to you simply because they are Republicans, and any restrictions that exist just proves their jackboot nature. I guess the DNC's prison-like FSZ's are simply just necessary steps to ensure that the protesters (many of them likely Republicans or GOP-sympathetic libertarians) don't spread their vile hateful poison while Kerry "Reports for Duty".
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Its banned in India due to security threats.The police think it can lead to major disruptions.The last flash mob that I heard about was pretty successful with people there for a few minutes.
All this ws co ordinated through SMS(text messaging). But the main organiser was called up by the cops the next day and asked not to hold any more of such mobs or there would be arrests.I don't think any one wants to face the prospect of an arrest just for holding flash mobs.
Lord of the Binges.
There is no good use for Flash.
Never confuse volume with power.
Only mobsters will have Flash.
Flout 'em and scout 'em,
and scout 'em and flout 'em;
Thought is free. - Shakespeare [The Tempest]
..to drum up financial support from the government to pay for the RCMP.
Canada has been putting the brakes on all gov spending and the RCMP would like more pie. This is simply fear mongering with the intent to get more funding. All police organizations do this. I doubt if any technological advance has escaped this type of concern... Running shoes included.
If it was a terrorism thing, it would probably come under CSIS's juristiction anyway.
-b
I wasn't aware that security meant security for the government from its own people.
"Comedy's a dead art form. Now tragedy, that's funny."
I was watching TV last night and there was an "Amber Alert". It got me thinking how do we know the person they describe really is suspected of abducting a child?
Then I remembered (from the movie, Farenheit 451):
I don't know what the flashmobs in the US are like but the ones here (London) are fun, non-political gatherings.
Everyone talks as though they're dangerous out-of-control, pretencious politcal statements thought up by flunked out students.
So far I have been to all but one of the flashmobs here in London and at every single one there has been zero-police presence, but it isn't as though they can't get the information out fast enough or arrange the man-power. Not this minute did I receive an email outlining the next mob in London (a week from now)
Every time there has been a mob it's on the evening news, and not once has the idea of 'terrorist attacks' surfaced, it is always a light-hearted affair (note this is all post 9/11 as well)
I think this just goes to show the highly-overzealous and inanity of current thought towards anyone normal having something remotely near un-regulated fun. Not to mention the seemingly constant specture of 'terrorism' and other assorted panic buzz-words 'biological' 'chemical' 'islam' 'mushroom cloud'...you get the idea.
I'll be going to the mob next week regardless of what all the politcal advisors and sercurity experts say.
I'd hate to be the guy who stole someone's wallet, and has 10 more, surrounded by angry protestors/flash mobsters. People tend to lose their inhibitions and I could easily see someone like that getting beaten to death and no justice would be served (in a court of law that is).
I'm only on chapter 3, but this book seems to involve something similar to the idea of a flash mob security threat.
This far from justifies outlawing flash mobs, however. Making such an activity illegal because there's a chance that someone might do something violent would be an absurd knee-jerk reaction akin to suspending high school students who wear black trenchcoats.
InstantCrisis
People of a certain age remember when "Television would rot the minds of the youth of America" and "Rock and Roll was 'dangerous jungle music' that would cause uncontrollable urges in today's youth." These were horrified reactions to new media on the part of the more conservative elements of society.
At the same time, the "conservative" elements of US society applauded when the fax machine in Soviet Russia became a tool for the masses to communicate without government censorship. Yeltsin came to power largely due to mass faxes in Russia (predomanently in Moscow) told the real story of the government coup attempt on Gorbachev. Gorby lost face because he "allowed" it to happen by remaining Communist and a well-informed (via fax) Yeltsen became an instant hero because he stood up to the Red Army generals who wanted Gorby's ouster.
Obviously, the conservative elements in Soviet Russia didn't think so highly of the fax machine.
I note one Russian news service is called "Interfax" and, for a while, was a very independant and trusted news agency.
What bothers me is that laws have been passed to allow the confiscation of cellular phones and other new media devices to prevent the use of these new media for the purpose of organization "against" something or "for" something else. These laws will be selectively enforced to "edit" what kinds of flash mobs will be permitted by governments who wish to use those laws as that kind of tool.
I would predict that this kind of "editing" will amount to unequal enforcement. For example, were Conservative Christians in the US to "Flashmob" a clinic that offers family planning, there would be few arrests under a Bush government. But a monthly "flashmob," also known as Critical Mass was broken up by police in New York in late September because the riders supposedly went where police decided they should not go (even though they were obeying all traffic laws).
Critical Mass has become a "reason to arrest" for the NYPD only since their August 28th event just before the Republican National Convention.
This amounts to unequal enforcement and standing before US law enforcement, as no prior Critical Mass gathering had ever resulted in arrests.
Critical Mass holds the meets in order to promote non-polluting transportation and encourage the construction and maintenence of safe bike lanes. That doesn't sound like terrorism to me
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
Because it used to, and people couldn't gather and protest the abuse of power. Don't believe the hype.
would have been a full scale invasion on the Japanese mainland. On the order of 1,000,000 Allied dead, and maybe 10 times that Japanese dead.
I think with the RNC-NY disaster is obvious that most Americans have forgotten about their right to protest. Protesters we arrested even when not blocking traffic or pedestrians and even when they did what they were told and followed the police! The attitude was that they 'shouldn't have been protesting if they didn't want to get arrested' and that they would be 'kept until it was over so they couldn't make any more trouble'!
The whole Prince William thing is surely bullshit, if i was a teenage girl and I saw him, why the fuck would I want 200 bitchy girls getting in my way? and as for celebrities - pop stars etc. they live for attention, you don't think they have a 1,000,000 record sales deal for the 'art' do you? As for getting people out of office, if they deserve protests then you have every right to protest, there's no debate on this issue. ok so there's people on trial, and yes sometimes idiots decide that if you're on trial it means you're guilty so they want to go and kill you, it could be a problem, especially with the growing number of total fucking shit-for-brain people who confuse 'paediatricians' with 'paedophiles' and go smash up their homes.
"The (British) police are cracking down on activists who come equipped with mobiles - and are apparently empowered to do so" I haven't heard of that and I've been to a few, it kinda makes us sound like the ultimate big-brother but generally the police are ok, i even burnt the flag - no problem (ok so it was the US flag but hey) The anti-terrorism laws are just like Americas - they give the police power to do just about anything and really, if they did want to stop phones they could _easily_ demand the local cell towers are turned off or set to emergency calls only, that goes for any country and you can pretty much expect the government to have an agreement to be able to do that anywhere at any time.
Generally mobiles are going to make it easier for police if they have access to the phone companies. While i would totally not tolerate letting them have access to the locations of specific people, it might (with careful thought) be ok for them to know how many phones are logged into a certain cell purely for safety, as long as everyone remembers that a: the police work for you, not the other way around, b: you have the right to protest, and c: crowds can be dangerous, sometimes erupt into violence and may be a terrorist target so its in everyone's interests to just be careful and sensible and leave lots of space and exits and cooperate with each other etc. Generally i think the sort of people that flash-mob or protest are sensible people that actually think and care about things so its not like they are going to go toss Bush's limo over, drag him out and beat him to the ground while security try to shoot them off one by one with pistols.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I read the article you pointed to, where does it say that the RCMP setup a terrorist group? Where does it say that the RCMP arranged for someone to kidnap and murder this minister? The closed thing I could see was this:
On Oct. 5, 1970, members of the FLQ kidnapped British diplomat James Cross. The Mounties had thoroughly infiltrated the organization years earlier, yet the situation was not deemed sufficiently urgent to prevent Premier Robert Bourassa from flying to New York to woo American investors. However, with the kidnapping of Pierre Laporte (and two days before his murder), things took on a feverish quality.Which only states that the Mounties had infiltrated, that is, had informats or under cover agents, in the FLQ. That certainly does not mean they had any influence over the decisions the FLQ made. At worse it shows a failure to act.
Assumine that Laporte is the minister you are referring to, if the RCMP wanted him killed why would they be giving evidence to the local police that caused them to ask for emergency powers? Wouldn't the best play be to just let the terrorists kill the kidnapped victim?
Thats why the President tavels in a Cadillac tank and never gets out of it unless it is at a highly controlled semi-public event.
What was banned were specific models of specific guns. Therefore, when a specific model was banned, the manufacturer was free to make some minor change and introduce a new model that was not banned. About the only thing that was actually banned were larger magazines for many weapons. I do not even think that was actually useful because the limits were silly. I do not believe, for instance, that a 9mm 15-shot Berretta clip was banned.
...that sports kill people. NOT violent videogames. When was the last time a riot broke out after an MvC2 match?
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
What do you do as the "swift law n order" guy when you as a prosecutor or jury turn out to have convicted the wrong guy? We see articles about it all the time now, some poor schmoo in prison for years, turns out the prosecutors surpressed evidence or their main witness recants and admits they were lying, or new DNA evidence clears someone, etc. What then? Are you prepared to take their place in the criminal justice enforcement provisions, and take jail time or execution or castration for making a drastic mistake? Or is saying "whoops, sorry 'bout that" enough? What amount of "sorry" cash will bring someone back from the beyond, or restore your nads? How do you give back the time taken from someone who's spent years in jail?
.00001% (whatever, some small number) of the cases out there, the rest are too random in their details to really classify easily, because the system is so broken now. But it's not "justice", it's something else, but not that word, not anymore.
The problem with extremely "swift justice" is that in a lot of cases it leaves out the "justice" part and concentrates on the "swift" part. And in our society now it all boils down to cash, the more you got, the more you can get away with, and the least likely you may even be charged. The less you got, the more likely it is you WILL esperience capital S swift and not really get any small j justice.
You ever been in a courtroom for something serious where the prosecutor and cop get on the stand and lie to the judge about events they claim transpired, with you as who they want to prosecute, and you know they are lying, and that you are 100% innocent? I have, and I tell you, it is about one of the most depressing and dismal and hopless scenes you can imagine, you just get devastated. It's in my top ten list for being such an anti corrupt government agitator, been there, done that, it HAPPENS to people, either individually, or in the case of big crimes like illegal wars, it happens to everyone. Justice? Where is it, not seeing it much, I see a prison/lawyer/government 3 million laws on the books and climbing racket, but not seeing much in the way of "justice". Isee a system where eventually you won't ever be innocent, because they could find something you are guilty of. I bet it's there now for the bulk of the population.
"Justice" to me is-say, one example-a potential rape victim HASN'T been disarmed in advance by society, and when a rape is attempted, the raper gets popped by the rapee. When joe sixpack has some burglar break into his house, the same, bang, end of story, obvious evidence, burglar on floor in living room. That's "justice". Anything else is a convulted melodrama conducted in a foreign language most people don't speak with the winners usually determined by who has the most cash or the most "power" in the situation. Not in all cases, but in most of them.
What we have now is the criminal justice "system" which is more of a perpetual jobs racket for some folks then anything else. Do we have crime? Sure! There's still a lot of legit crime, theft, murder, etc, but a LOT of what we have now is artificially produced pseudo crime, introduced by the state and legislators who's only job is to write more laws, never to REMOVE laws that have been proven to be a disaster. A lot of the so-called "crimes" on the books are merely a way for the state to seize command and control and to take property. I would say almost all asset forfeiture laws are scams, most drug laws are a waste of time (alcohol prohibition proved that) and so on. The tax codes are criminal in nature from top to bottom, not a dang thing about them is even close to being lawful, either by design or by implementation.
In addition, our society *rewards* extremely high level criminals, calls them CEOs and distinguished politicians, it's really in most cases petty ante crime that gets prosecuted. Joe haliburton can "lose" a million here or there and not much happens, joe six pack can "lose" a few thousand on taxes and get his life devastated. The big cases make headlines, but that's only
Should be most cities and towns.
"First Nations" refers to Native Canadians.
Change is not always good. Too bad. go live in a cave instead of asking the rest of us to.
CSIS does work inside Canada, and is allowed to spy on canadians. Prior to 2001 though, most of their evidence would not be allowed in court. They would be allowed to tip the RCMP though.
Flash mobs are a threat to security as it exists. When you (and I too) think about security as dealing with static, predictable events. Indeed, when we talk about risk management at minimizing risk, we think about how we can predict events.
But the unpredictable and the formerly low-percentage events are beginning to be...not so low-percentage. Exhibit A: the slashdot effect. Exhibit B: DDoS. Exhibit C: flash mobs.
How can we deal with such fluid events? One idea is that there can only be so much total "disruption" in a whole system. So if people could share security just as they share risk in an insurance plan, larger attacks could successfully be fended off. I think we see a lot of that in current techniques in dealing with server uptime, etc.
"No. Fix the judicial system so we can actually punish ** THE ** criminals."
Or fix the society so we're not a breeding ground for crimminals. It will never be zero, but it can be much better than it is presently.
1) Precisely WHOSE security?
2) Is it conceivable that the people in power might not be entirely disinterested in stopping this ``security threat''?Personally, I think that's an awesome use for technology - getting people locally to assembly and protest the latest government abomination. Sure, the government won't like it. But please remember - ``illegal'' is not automatically synonymous with ``morally wrong''.
I'm surprised so many Slashdotters are making such a fuss about law enforcement finding the idea of crowds so unpalatable. Hasn't anyone been in a moshpit before (fun)? Or a riot (not so fun)?
A large, unpredictable crowd of people showing up, possibly for no good reason, in a possibly dangerous area, is something to be concerned about. Not that I'd advocate banning the technology, but I definitely see where the RCMP are coming from. Mobs are weird beasts at the best of times, and a charismatic figure can get them to do abominable things that they would never even think about doing as individuals.As other posters have already mentioned, terrorists could lure bloggers to a predetermined point to maximize casualties in the case of an explosive attack. A quickly-organized protest without any expectation of it by authorities might get the point across to onlookers, but the lack of expectation might also lead to all the problems of a large crowd with none of its solutions -- trash everywhere, smashed windows, snarled traffic....and the possibility of an injurious riot breaking out.
Now for a moment, switch away from my comment and browse at -1. Imagine the Slashdot crowd all yelling the contents of their individual post at the top of their lungs -- or carrying signs summarizing it, or both -- in the middle of downtown New York. This is (IMHO) a good analogy because New York, like Slashdot, is high-traffic, and usually there are only two or three distinct positions taken on an issue, which can be compared to shouting slogans. Some, not many, of these people have extreme ideas and are willing to commit violence to get this across. Some of them have pointy sticks.
The reason why this is contained on Slashdot (for the most part) is that everyone's talking at once, but it never cuts off anyone else since you're only reading one at a time. This means that slogans, etc usually aren't required. Even then, an anti-MS post laden with slogans, even faulty info, can be modded up, showing that even this is not perfect.
You are isolated on Slashdot -- or a blog -- as well. In addition, a certain percentage of Slashdotters (the moderators) are assigned to police the others through (meta-)modding -- this works to a pretty decent extent. The assignment is by fiat and people know who's in charge. A crowd has no such thing.
Even the crappiest, most reviled blog has far better signal-to-noise ratio than a crowd, and the worst that someone can do is troll...or attempt a DOS. In real life, crowds are really something to be concerned about.
There's no sig like this sig anywhere near this sig, so this must be the sig.
So what's stopping the cops from doing the same thing: calling in the swat team or a vigilante mob who would love nothing better than to beat the crap out of a bunch of potheads? Nothing. Stop smoking and you won't have to worry about being arrested or ruining your body.
Easy solution. Just send a signal to the area's JumpShift(tm) booths and within a few minutes the entire mob will be incarcerated in the municipal stadium to be processed by the ARM.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
No cite, sadly -- I can't find the original (and more in-depth) article I had originally read on the web now -- but the researcher's name was Dr. Michael Platt, and the research in question is referenced in this NewsWeek article (halfway down, look for "berry berry"). I'm not sure if this was before or after he left the Glimcher Lab for Duke.
His lab page is here, but none of the paper titles ring a bell.
If you're interested, you should at least be able to reach him at: platt at neuro dot duke dot edu
DNA just wants to be free...
That's not an accurate description of the events of May 4, 1970 and not fair to any of those involved.
The troops sent to Kent State came from union picket lines. They had been controlling crowds that were armed and were violent. These were young men on edge, high in adrenaline and short sleep. They should never have been sent to a college campus. Would you take troops fresh from Iraq and station them inside a mall to control crowds the day after Thanksgiving? (In the USA, the day after Thanksgiving in November is a quasi-official start to the winter (Christmas, Chanukah, Tet, etc.) holiday shopping season. Stores have big sales, give-aways, open early. Chain stores often have severely limited bargains, like a 46 inch plasma TV for $5, but only 1 per store. Crowds queue up hours ahead of time to fight for the best deals. Not the prettiest side of our society, but mostly harmless. Not a situation calling for battle-minded troops, but a chaotic situation likely to result in violence if you add armed troops to the mix.)
Yes, individuals firing at unarmed students should be held accountable. However, a soldier at the command of a politician is as much a weapon as a gun in the hand of a soldier. Politicians firing on unarmed students should be held accountable.
As for students "who attacked the guardsmen without provocation" is there any evidence of this? In addition to general unrest in protest to the bombing of Cambodia, National Guard troops were sent in response to arson to the ROTC building. Evidence suggests it is just as likely as not this was done by agents provocateur sent by the FBI. I'd call that provocation. I'd also call an army in full riot gear and gas masks showing up on a college campus provocation. And the worst thing any student did that day was throw tear gas canisters back at the guard. How is throwing the enemy's missiles back at them attack without provocation?
Those aren't "internment camps". They're "free speech zones".
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
Why not teach the Police about the idea with the flash mob, and start using that to deploy forces? Build in some hierarchy of some sort, but really, if we can do it, why can't they?
TossableDigits.com: Temporary Phone Numb
Please go home now!
Cell phone and text messaging may not help if the communications capabilities are taken out.
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Flash mobs! Anarchist newspapers! Incitement to riot! Religious extremists!
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Home-grown terrorists!
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
You know, these military bases are soooo darned expensive. Putting soldiers into the community will both cut down on housing costs *and* keep the community safer from terrorism!
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Sneak and peek! Echelon! Carnivore! Keystroke loggers! Infared searches of houses from helicopters!
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Trying a person in federal courts for civil rights violations after they have not been found guilty in a state court! Mass arrests at political events! Civil forfeiture laws for alleged drug-selling criminals!
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
No attorney/client privileges for those accused of terrorism! Special terrorism courts, with secret judges, classified evidence and shadowy accusers! Indefinite detention without charges for "enemy combatants"! "Protective" detention for alleged terrorism witnesses!
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Special bench trials for situations where "intelligence methods and sources might be compromised"! Trying a person in federal courts for civil rights violations after they have been found NOT guilty in a state court!
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The death "penalty"! The federal expansion of the death "penalty" to 53 new federal crimes in 1996!
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
Instant diversion.
If I wanted to actually get anything illegal accomplished, the best opportunity would be to cause an unrelated commotion a few miles away. If my activities themselves cause commotion (bombing, etc.) then law enforcement is tied up somewhere else. If my activities are quiet, the risk of getting caught is dramatically lower since there's less coverage at MY location.
Kinda like in "Smokey and the Bandit". Create your own diversion.
Yes I was looking for a funny mod.
I was quite worried for a while that I just had an "Interesting" mod, even though there isn't a "Scary" moderation I seriously hope nobody does find it interesting, certainly no one with the power to do anything about it.
However this does seem to be the logical conclusion of a lot of the "anti terror" plans being discussed at present.
Finally, somebody came out and said it like it needed to be said. Things like diabetes, heart disease, and obesity in general are self-afflicted by whiny, unattractive people.
Myself, I don't mind waiting for a cure.
Does anyone else remember this exact thing happening at the end of the book Idoru by W. Gibson?
Notice of his death was posted on a fan bulletin board and thousands of teenage Japanese girls mobbed the love hotel where it was supposed to have taken place.
Flash riot police?
No THAT would be scary. But practical.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5304846/site/newsweek/
This is nothing you couldn't always do with an ordinary telephone.
The only thing new is that it's trendy to do, and trendy to "report" on as "new" threat (ohmygosh!). It's only the trendiness that makes this a potential threat.
I must add that your "Assault rifles, OTOH, are generally used at shorter ranges..." is not completely (mostly, not completely) correct.
I've owned several of them in the past (Still have a couple) and a very good number of people I know also own one or two. It's one of the byproducts of being a former police officer and hanging around with a group of people who collect guns. Anyway I digress. The point is that most of the assault rifles belonging to the people I know are generally used to sit inside a gun cabinet (or closet) to take up space. They come out when you want to show it to another gun nut and they inspire a great deal of Ooooh'ing and Ahhhh'ing but they're rarely fired.
Seriously. Of the half dozen people I know who own them (including myself) most of us rarely if ever shoot them. It's not that shooting them isn't a lot of fun or anything. It's just that these weapons weren't purchased in many cases because they're such "sweet shooters" (Though my FN-FAL rocks). They were purchased because they're friggin cool. The reality is you pull that thing out so rarely that for many it's almost a waste of money. 9 times out of 10 when I go to a shooting range it's a pistol range. Same goes for most of the gun owners I know.
The assault rifle ban was a joke. It gave the gun control mob a high profile "win" story without affecting much of anything else. The vast majority of guns used illegaly in the US weren't affected by it and the fact that it's been allowed to slide off into oblivion means nothing.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
I will send out an SMS on my cellphone and instantly tens of thousands of anarchists will descend on Washington and burn it to the ground.
In other words, the "right to assemble" is now a "security threat". (Unless it's the RNC, of course. And protesters get to be restricted to a cage a mile away.)
Doesn't get more obvious than this.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Is ANYONE surprised this is a Canadian news site?
cool experiment ;-) mod up!
The difference between a hammer and an assault rifle is probably that there are lots of "useful" applications for a hammer, but an assault rifle has no other purpose than killing people.
The Universities in Ontario, at least, with engineering programs regularly organize "DUSTED" events (Drink Unsuspecting Small Towns Entirely Dry - which I think is self explanatory). People buy tickets for the bus beforehand, but only the organizers (theoretically) know the location. This works scarily well, especially when you get a few schools together (like around Toronto or Ottawa).
Everyone I mention it to that's ever worked in a bar wants to just punch me, though. Especially if they've ever worked during a frosh week or something similar.
Seems to me that the whole thrust is going towards pre-emption of anything considered 'dangerous' by anybody. The problem I see is that the whole concept of pre-emption (incl. wars) is at cross-purposes with the notion of a free and fair society. IMHO by its very nature a free and fair society can only be a reactive society, or else we could very easily descend into a Minority Report situation (which I am sure a lot of muslims and arabs in the US are already experiencing). And the problem with prohibition of any sort (be it flash mobs, texting, etc.) is that historically its never worked. If only our politicians paid a little more attention to history... yea I know that wishful thinking but a bit of what if never hurt anybody...
"Banning "dangerous things" is always a bad idea. I have a hammer. It can be used as a weapon. Should it be banned? The distinction between "tool" and "weapon" has nothing to do with the item."
i see you too apreciate the skill it takes to drive a nail into a wall with a barage of machinegun fire.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
that would happen to be the article I linked to, yes...
DNA just wants to be free...
Flash Mobs are entirely at the trust level of the participants. If you want to attend a mob, you do so based on the trust of the sender.
It is only a threat to security in that it obligates people to make they own decision on whether to respond or not. Assuming this is a tool that is going to be used by terrorists is typical paranoia.
Do terrorists use McDonalds? Sporting events?
Why not?
If you are going to be paranoid about flash mobs, you want to give up walking down the street at all.
>> Banning "dangerous things" is always a bad idea. I have a hammer. It can be used as a weapon. Should it be banned? The distinction between "tool" and "weapon" has nothing to do with the item.
How many people can you kill with that hammer before a policeman with his standard side arm stops you?
If you instead had an automatic assault rifle with a 50-round clip, how many people could you kill before a policeman with his standard side arm stops you?
If you had a small nuclear device, how many people could you kill before a policeman with his standard side arm stops you?
I think there's a good reason to ban some things that might be called "arms" today, but by no means were envisoned when the second amendment was written. You can have as many muzzle loading weapons as you want. Heck, you can even have handguns with 10 round clips. (I'm actually quite partial to shotguns myself.)
Certainly, any of those items could harm or kill 1, 2, 5, 10 people before the assailant is stopped. That's a risk we willingly choose to take. But when the assailant can kill 50+ people with ease, some consideration should be taken to restrict access to the means. (Within reason - something often lacking in any political debate.)
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Do me a favor--rent the movei THEY LIVE.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Personally, I think this speaks volumes about the powerful grip the "2 party system" has on the U.S.
Even the minority of people intelligent and insightful enough to realize that our personal liberties and freedoms are being tossed out like old trash whenever it's politically convenient are caught up in "are the Republicans or the Democrats worse about this?" debate!
BOTH modern Democrats and modern Republicans make me very nervous about this! Don't forget, they just recently asked both Kerry and Bush what their thoughts were on the "Patriot Act II" bill, and both pretty much said the same thing. They were completely for it. (Actually, Bush stated that he'd be for it with "a few small changes", while Kerry said he liked it as-is.)
The Libertarians out there keep asking each other "When are things going to get bad enough that people wake up and realize it's time for a 3rd. party?" IMHO, it's a good question - and if we don't collectively figure it out soon, we're headed right down a path to "Globalization" with a one-world government. (Think about it. The "socialist" governments are making more and more compromises, willingly or unwillingly, and becoming more "free". Meanwhile, it seems the U.S. is trying to adopt more "socialist policies" while allowing more foreigners to apply for our jobs. I think this "global agenda" is something both Democrats and Republicans are ultimately working towards - albeit at a slow, stuttering pace.)
Protecting them from us, not vice versa.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
Democracy and freedom of assembly are sure bad for those in power!
If our we-know-way-better-than-you leaders could just assume power Castro-style and squash the phones/press/internet, just think of how much safer we would be!
Now pull your head out and realize that this is exactly what the Communist Chinese Govt tells their people every day!
Democracy IS NOT SAFE! It never will be!!
"Blood is freedom's stain" - Iron Maiden
Moderators need an additional choice: "Karma Whore" for people who cut-and-paste articles as their comments!
I thought they generally behaved. BTW the football "hooligans - storm over europe" RTS game is now only £5 on PC. Or can be downloaded (61Mbytes). Wasn't it coded by a Dutch team? I haven't played it but have seen it about.
I personally vote about 66% Dem based on my opinion that they are the slightly lesser evil. It isn't just fear of throwing my vote away that keeps me from voting Libertarian - I don't believe that they have a viable plan for governing a large nation.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
Well, first off - I thought quite a bit about the whole "throwing one's vote away" thing, and for a time, I believed it was really a problem.
But upon further consideration, I don't buy into that argument anymore. For starters, the whole purpose of voting should be selecting the person you feel is best for the job. When people stop doing that and instead, place votes based on the "lesser of two evils" concept, they corrupt the whole democratic system. (It effectively ensures that only candidates aligning themselves with one of the two most popular lines of thought can ever get elected.)
But that aside, why do you say the L.P. doesn't have a "viable plan" for governing a large nation? The political plans laid out by the Democrats (such as Kerry's recently posted "plan" on his web site), as well as the Republican plans I've seen do little more than make very vague summaries of what they want to achieve - without going into any detail about how they plan to reach those goals.
These days, I think that's pretty much par for the course. The president is surrounded by so many political advisors, he's probably not even really sure himself how he's going to tackle specific problems until well after he's elected. (Let's face it. If *I* were suddenly made president, I'm sure quite a few of my personal ideas on ways to fix things would be critiqued and "modified" by advisors who would give me statistics and technicalities about why they weren'tt really viable.)
Given that, I don't think the Libertarians have presented any less of an overall "plan" than the major 2 parties have?
If anything, the L.P. probably scares some people simply because they propose more radical changes to the "status-quo" than the "Demicans" or "Republicrats" we've got running for office today. IMHO, it's not really sane to expect big improvements/changes while electing folks who keep trying to please everyone and walk on eggshells to ensure their changes don't topple any existing govt. programs or policies.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/quotes#qt01030 80
consider that the Boston Massacre, one of the key events that defined the colonial uprising as a revolution, involved only *five* [people]
I didn't know that -- very interesting.
John Brunner says (in "The Jagged Orbit") that you only need five percent of a population on your side to effect a revolution. Margaret Mead said something similar about how a small group of committed people make up the only way of getting real social change.
-kgj
-kgj
They're called flash crowds. It was invented in a sci-fi story after the invention of teleportation. Any time some newsworthy event happened, just a fraction of people the world over would teleport in to see it live.
The solution was to teleport people to an industrial-sized giant bowl where they'd slide down to safety.
We're...not quite there yet.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I did something about heart disease and obesity today. I put on my shoes, went to the park, and ran six miles.
A good pair of running shoes costs less than a TV set. And a good run takes less than the 2.5 hours that the average American adult spends watching that TV (source: American Time-Use Survey Summary.
There's a big, big divide here. On one side is the parent poster, placing responsibility on the government for cancer, heart disease, and obesity. On the other side is me, taking responsibility for my own body weight and my own heart condition (not to mention that I don't smoke and I eat a lot of veggies and I spend $3 per month on vitamins,all of which lower my cancer risk).
Unfortunately, the solution is going to have to be different.
Awww. I was looking forward to teleporting teenage girls into my futuristic rotating prison complex.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
maybe the reason you are able to do this and the reason why others are not able to do this is that they and you have different brain structures? Maybe some part of their brains do not work quite right? maybe some part of their endocrinal or nervous system is slightly flawed? The body is very complicated and we do not yet understand it.
THere are thousands of ways that organisms can be flawed. Just because we do understand these differences and flaws YET does not mean they do not exist.
You and others here on this thread boast and gloat about how virtuous you are, but apparently your thinking about this is superficial. Healthful desires and discipline are not necessarily there for everyone.
Let's put you on the court with an NBA player and let him your every shot because he towers over you by a foot. You would complain that his genetics give him an advantage, but you are doing the same thing here. Did it ever occur to you that what a person does is influenced not entirely by will, but biologically?
You and the other posters on this thread sicken and frighten me. I come here to post and try to teach you young people human decency because I know you need it. Many of you are isolated from good human morals and need guidance. You need a community. Modern AMerica lifestyle has taken that from you. But I try to give you moral guidance anyway. I may be engaged in a futile pursuit, but I think I am doing the right thing.
What is even more sickening is how our political system and corporate media is encouraging this type of morality, this type of darwinistic, predatory capitalism. This is just wrong.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Lest The Man forget: We are the people that make up society, not you, you faceless legal bureaucratic construction. We can flash mob if we want to.
The reality is that the Arab states as well as Osama bin Laden couldn't really care less about the Palestinians and merely use them as a pawn in their efforts to destroy Israel.
Witness the 'Black September' shooting of 20 000 Palestinians in Jordan or the fact the Lebanese, Egyptians and Jordanians haven't offered the Palestinians anything since 1948 while Israel is held responsible for their welfare.
The only reason Osama bin Laden raises the Palestinians is the one and only thing all the Arab Muslim states can agree on is hatred for Israel, the only non-Islamic democracy in the region. So why not use it to rally support for various other causes?
Don't be fooled... Western actions were never the cause of Militant Islamic fascism, merely an excuse. Being non-Islamic is the reason and nothing we should feel guitly about.
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
Flashmobs are bad. Having fun at the expense of other people (without their consent) is wrong.
Also true of L. Ron Hubbard.
Thankfully without the bizarre cult...
Okay...first off: 1. We bandy about all of these modern tools/weapons of mass destruction, Terrorists as a force, Gov.t, etc. as being all powerful weapons or "levers"- fact is, this article describes what I've always maintained was THE MOST POWERFUL TOOL and/or WEAPON THAT MANKIND HAS EVER DEVELOPED...COMMUNICATION!!!!! At least the Chinese gov't. has this fact down pat. Who is being threatened here? Yes, there are valid concerns raised in the article (security issues for gov't. officials, etc.), but I can't help but feel that the MAJOR issue is: instant global real time communication is POWERFUL...even with an unarmed society. The old days are over-wake up!We can't let the Government take our freedom and ability to have real-time instant global communication (it comes and needs to be in all forms...even those not devised yet) if we want things to stay as free as they are. It's not a perfect world, but it IS the one we got to work with- let's not enable or contribute to %$#@%$# it up even more. Like it or not, isolationism (individually or nationally) just isn't gonna work in this new (every day!) and changing world...communication has (and is constantly) made this world "smaller". Pay attention to what's going on out there!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Seems people simply use nuclear weapons to better do what they want to do. Isn't this what technology is for?
(What it is they want to do, whether the vast increase in effectiveness changes the nature and acceptability of the action, and what the side effects are seem to all be crucial to the discussion. How does your comment contribute to the discussion at all?)