Flash Mobs a Threat to Security?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Flash Mobs a Threat to Security?

Posted by michael on Monday September 27, 2004 @04:26AM from the disruptive-technologies dept.

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'."

4 of 582 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:please report to the nearest Free Speech Zone by DAldredge · 2004-09-27 04:52 · Score: 1, Flamebait

The fucking DEMS did the same exact thing! Why does everyone blame the R's when the D's do it too?

Damn it, both parties want to fuck you over.
Re:The quote is..... by IncarnadineConor · 2004-09-27 05:27 · Score: 0, Flamebait

That's such an obnoxious quote. What about all the stupid people who voted bush into office, thats not change?
Re:Flash Mobs = Democracy by wintermute740 · 2004-09-27 05:36 · Score: 1, Flamebait

" or every method of communication on topics not approved by the government will be outlawed under the 'terror' banner"

Welcome to 2004 in the USA.

--

--
www.nitemarecafe.com
Re:Two thoughts by cdrguru · 2004-09-27 06:06 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The problem isn't that the people knocking over gas stations feel compelled to do so. 60-70 years ago social conditions were much, much worse and yet common robbery like knocking over a gas station was quite rare. Why? Because the perpitrator knew the odds of not getting caught and not going to a really unpleasent jail was about 1%. There was almost a certanity they would be caught and jailed.
What we have today is the belief in some social classes that this is almost reversed - a 1% chance of getting caught. So, it starts to look pretty attractive. Culturally, there are some minorities that hold up people that rob gas stations as role models for the young. When coupled with the perception of a low chance of punishment, this virtually assures that people are going to commit robberies.
The idea that we can solve crime problems by making sure everyone has plenty of money is a complete fallacy. It doesn't remove the real motivation, which is to get "more" at very low risk. About the only way to really implement what you are proposing would be to make "having more" utterly unacceptable to everyone - everybody gets $50,000 from the government no matter what they do. Nobody has anything "more" and there are no opportunities to get "more". Equality. Finally. Until you figure out that this was more-or-less the objective of the Stalinist Soviet Union and still is (sort of) the objective of Castro's Cuba. Neither one worked out very well and mostly people did indeed find ways to get "more".
The solution is to make the punishment certain to elevate the risk beyond any possible perception of the reward. Today, even when the punishment can be the death penalty, this has no effect when the perception is "I'll never get caught" and this is reinforced by people not getting caught.
The problem with any sort of mob protest is not that it is taking place, but that it (a) distrupts emergency services and (b) it can get out of control quickly. What does the ambulance driver do when the street is clogged with hundreds of protestors? Simple - the ambulance doesn't get through. How does a "mob" move from a peaceful demonstration to smashing everything in sight and looting? Nobody knows, but we have seen this happen even after sports events. Nobody wants to take chances on this happening.