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'."

Comments

Two thoughts

[Control Group]

First, this seems to be the failings of security through obscurity writ large, and not much to be done about it. Unless you can start closing off whole areas of cities so celebrities can walk through them, I don't see how you can address this sort of problem.

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.

Re:Two thoughts

[Epistax]

I agree entirely. I think the idea of people mobbing celebrities is a social problem of ours, not a technological one. Cure the problem, not the (albeit) catalyst.

I personally can't comprehend how people become so attached to celebrities that they collect things about or belonging to them. Or in the case of a musician (er most likely bad singer) go to an event with the person and scream so much they don't even hear the music-- what are they really there for? I'm calling the entertainment industry sick and perverted, and blaming the audience.

Re:Two thoughts

[Schemat1c]

A vapid statement. Shall we also end world hunger while we are at it?

We have all the technology and means available to us right now to end world hunger, and to create a fair justice system. The problem isn't the means but the attitudes and beliefs of the people in power. And even more importantly the apathy of the population in general to actually change the system.

Sure it is a threat.

[diginux]

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 :)

Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems they are simply using technology to better do what they want to do. Isn't this what it is for?

Re:Technology

[garcia]

You would think so but now that the technology is created those in power are changing what we should be able to do with it.

Protecting those in power from the evil truth.

[garcia]

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?

Re:Protecting those in power from the evil truth.

[WPIDalamar]

The president knows... it's the followers of him that we must shelter.

Re:Protecting those in power from the evil truth.

[pnuema]

The chaos won't contribute at all to making the secret service's job difficult. Ask any physical security specialist: It is almost impossible to stop an individual acting alone who is willing to sacrifice his life to accomplish his objective. It is the same as security through obscurity - it just plain doesn't work.

The secret to physical security is the same as computer security - make the payoff not worth the cost. In other words, stop making people so pissed they are willing to die to kill you.

Of course they are a threat

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Of course they are a threat

[cL0h]

Isn't it amazing how accurate George Orwell was when he wrote the book "1984" fifty six years ago. He didn't however foresee the precursive events or threats which would lead to totalitarian government control of civil liberties.
Perhaps the catalysts don't matter since the world seems to be increasingly bent on raising walls rather then lowering them.
So much for the global village!

Well as for America...

[apachetoolbox]

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.

Re:Well as for America...

[poot_rootbeer]

Practicing your right to assemble is NOT a security risk.

Incorrect. It's not illegal, but it may very well may be a security risk.

Put yourself in the shoes of a police officer or security agent -- if 200 people show up in your area out of the blue, you're going to be suspicious, and you're going to watch them closely. Maybe there's one bad egg in that crowd. Maybe they're all bad. Maybe there's no bad eggs, but while you're focused on watching them somebody else takes advantage of your guard being down and gets away with something.

Re:Well as for America...

[philbert26]

Practicing your right to assemble is NOT a security risk.

The fact that your right is constitutionally protected doesn't mean it's not a security risk. It just means that the right is so important that the government is (supposedly) not allowed to deal with the risk by prohibiting peaceful assembly.

Everything you do in a free society is a security risk. I don't have a government camera in my apartment, so as far as the government knows I could be making bombs in there. That's a security risk. But some risks are worth taking! We have to find a balance between security risks from terrorists and risks from oppressive government. Risk-free life is not possible. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be convinced that if something carries risk then it should automatically be banned.

Ehm..

[boesOne]

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 ?

Someone think of the celebrities!

[Sanity]

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.

please report to the nearest Free Speech Zone

[Cryofan]

you are living in the past. Have you not heard of Free Speech Zones?

Re:please report to the nearest Free Speech Zone

[miu]

As far as I can tell the Republicans are a lot more creepy and sinister when they do this sort of thing.

The fringies hated Clinton for Ruby Ridge and Waco, but much of what Bush has enacted scares the hell out of normal people that think about it. The fact that there is a large section of the Republican party that seems downright excited by the prospect of the apocalypse and authoritarian religious government is another thing that tends to make moderate Americans a little nervous.

Yeah I'm not exactly excited about the Dems myself, power seekers are often parasites who love control as far as I am concerned, but the Republicans make me a lot more nervous than the Democrats at this point.

Ugh

[nuclear305]

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...

Well, duh

[American AC in Paris]

...so what they're saying is that spontaneous, large, disorganized groups of people in a small space can pose a threat to security.

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"...

Flash Mobs = Democracy

[grunt107]

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.

The quote is.....

[Jsprat23]

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Mead

Re:The quote is.....

[hazem]

What were the WTC attacks genuine retaliation for? "Offences" against the Muslim people which Bin Laden never cared about until he needed justification for terrorist attacks

Actually, Bin Laden has been clear about this. He has 3 main grievances. (this is unlike the old Ayatollahs of Iran who considered the west "the great satan"). OBL is upset about:

1) Sanctions on Iraq, which he claims killed millions and caused starvation and malnourshment.
2) Near-unequivocal support of Israel and what he sees as oppression of the Palestinian people.
3) Placement of US troops and bases in Saudi Arabia and the US's support for what he says is a corrupt un-Islamic dictatorship.

Osama's a nasty SOB and deserves a shit-storm in hell, but let's not ignore that he has rational reasons for what he did. They were at least rational from his point of view, and his power grew because there were a lot of people who agreed with his issues.

Not liking him, or the fact that he committed heinous crimes, does not invalidate his initial complaints.

Re:The quote is.....

[hazem]

I'm not saying anything of the kind. I AM saying that it's unwise to simply cast Osama a raving madman who just hates the US because of our freedom.

Too many people fly into hyperbole and make Osama out as a madman who hates the US because of our freedom. That's simply shortsighted and childish. Unfortunately, too many Americans are happy to believe jingoistic rants.

"They don't love their children like we do."
"They hate us because we have freedom."
"They're incapable of living in a democracy."
"They'll never have peace because they love violence."

It's also blindly naive to go around thinking that our actions and our policies do not have any effect on other people in the world.

Osama's a great orator and he makes arguments that ring true with a lot of people in the region. Arabs are tired of the outside powers pushing their way in the region.

They hate the the way the US suports Israel, no matter how badly they treat the Palestinians.

They hated Saddam and they hated the sanctions. And while Saddam had the power to turn that around, they tend to blame the US for keeping the sanctions in place. Of course, before the invasion, Saddam was wiling to talk. Bush said that it didn't matter what Saddam said or did, we were going to invade. That doesn't win friends and influence people.

They don't like hearing Rumsfeld hinting that Syria and Iran will be next. Doesn't he realize that plays exactly into what Osama predicted the US would try to do?

They do not believe the lie that we went there to save the peopel of Iraq from Saddam. The fact that our first priority was to protect the oil fields rather protect power and water demonstrates that quite effectively.

Our actions in the middle east do have repercutions, and even here at home. The running failure in Iraq has served Osama tremoundously. It proved him right, and will probably provide lots more people and money to commit acts of terrorism.

Osama may be an opportunist and uses current events to push his cause. But is that any different than any other power monger? Look at how 9/11 was used in this country to push massive surveillance systems and the curtailment of liberties.

I dare say that Osama is not the only one that can be accused of hating our freedom.

Until we (Americans) can figure that we need to learn to see the world through they eyes of the people we impact, we're destined for more attacks at home, and more invasions abroad.

We live in a big neighborhood called the world. And right now, we're that neighbor that nobody likes. We park in front of the neighbor's house, dump our garbage in the lot behind us, and play our music loud until the wee hours of the morning. We're the mayor, so the police don't bother us when they call, and then we get indignant when our neighbors complain to us.

Re:The quote is.....

[hazem]

Sure, there are lots of problems in the Mideast, and the governments there play a key role in those problems. But like most Americans, you're still only looking at it from your own point of view.

Bend your mind a bit and imagine that you're an Saudi citizen that is just barely getting by. You know the royal family is oppressive and corrupt. And it's very buddy-buddy with the US Government. And you know that you can't complain because the mutaween will at least beat you if not kill you.

You hear people like Osama who tell you that your government is corrupt and that the US is behind them. It rings true enough. He tells you that the US wants to keep the corrupt and oppressive government in your country because it guarantees them cheap oil. He says that the US wants to dominate the region and points to examples such as the Iraqi sanctions and the US bases in your own country. And he says that all that money coming from the Americans who buy the cheap oil is being squandered by that family, rather than being spent on social welfare and economic development.

Now from your point of view as a Saudi, you probably don't like the US very much. You'd even feel justified in hating them because you see how they play a role in your misery. Osama says he's fighting the good fight, trying to kick the US hard enough to get them out of the Middle East, and you might even feel justified in sending some money to his cause, or even sending your son to fight in it.

I know it can be hard to make the break and see things through others eyes. So, lets come back to the US. We've been attacked by a bunch of Muslims who seem to hate us. They bombed embassies abroad, attacked a ship, and then toppled the twin towers. "They hate us because we are free", we are told. And we're afraid and angry of what they did to us and by God, we're not going to let it happen again. Our leaders tell us we need to invade Afghanistan to get those terrorists. Then they tell us we need to invade Iraq because there are terrorists there too. And it makes sense. All these attacks have been carried out by Muslims from these Muslim countries. Maybe we're a bit skeptical, but the leaders tell us we're fighing the good fight and that God is on our side. We're convinced enough to spen our money on it, put the ribbons in our windows, and send our sons for the cause.

As an American, I feel that with our wealth and power, we should be an example and help those who are less fortunate. But, I don't think we can bomb and invade other countries into better economies, higher literacy rates, and improved human rights. Sadly, our government is not interested in these things. All it cares about is our energy security and it will work to keep the regimes in place that ensure that cheap flow of oil.

As an American, I'm ashamed of the fact that my government often choses to support tyranical dictators and monarchies for the expedient short-term return in cheap resources and the illusion of security. It is exactly these short-sighted policies that breed a hatred and distrust of my government.

The encouraging thing is that many Americans don't directly support these policies. In many cases we're simply not aware of what is done in our names. The sad part, though, is that too many Americans are content with being ignorant and resist the idea that our government does bad things to other people and countries. We're raised to believe we're the good guys, fighting for the good cause, and doing good works in the world.

The ingorance of the fact that this is often not the case is why so many Americans are surprised that people hate us. Not aware of what's done in our name, it's easy to then believe it when we're told, "they hate us because of our freedom." Clearly their governments (the very ones we support) don't support freedom, so it must be true.

Re:Yes, they really could be dangerous

[Doverite]

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. Shouldn't we ban those, or how about pretzels for that matter. This whole topic is absurd. Freedom requires risks, and resposibilities, you can't be completely safe and completely free at the same time.

Flash mobs work for freedom also

[Simonetta]

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').

Re:Flash mobs work for freedom also

[EinarH]

According to this study it's now; US 702 per 100k and Russia 628 per 100k.

Not by far now, but maybe by far in 2010.

When I first read the headline...

[Techguy666]

...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!

Learn how civil disobedience works

[mengel]

This is exactly the kind of thing that gives civil disobedience a bad name. The people who successfully used civil disobedience (Ghandi, Martin Luther King, etc.) figured out where the benefit to the people in power was in the current system, and organized specific protests designed to remove those benefits.

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.

Re:Learn how civil disobedience works

[mcmonkey]

It's about the money, but it's also about practicality. The sea salt protests clogged the jails and courts with petty criminals that would get out of court and commit the same crime just to get arrested again.

Certainly the war on drugs has its profiteers and mercenaries, but jails take years to build. It's easy to make money on a sustained growth in the prisoner population; it's hard to make money on a sudden growth in what is essentially petty crime.

There is also the ability to force an unjust government to face uncomfortable political realities. Who wants to first on the boat back to mother England with the news the practitioners of violent uncivil disobedience aren't being prosecuted because judges have 100s of cases of 'possession of salt with intent to season'?

Likewise, how many politicians will run on the 'I let a serial rapist go free to make room for johnny pot-smoker' platform? Not many. You can clog up the courts with petty criminals and force politicians to choose between pot smokers and violent criminals. Witness the current debate in Chicago. I don't see legalization around the corner, but I do see more localities coming to the realization pot smokers are not public enemy # 1 and just cost too damn much to prosecute.

To many, the benefit of the war on drugs is money. But for those who have allowed this war to escalate, and have the power to stop it, the benefit is political clout. Force the hand of the police with what is essentially a DoS attack on the court system, and the politicians will have some 'splaining to do.

Re: Assualt Rifle Ban

[Migraineman]

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.

Please mod INSIGHTFUL not FUNNY

[jridley]

Anybody who modded that funny apparently doesn't know what's going on.

more thoughts...

[zogger]

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?

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 .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.

Not the Man we have to worry about

[Kphrak]

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.

P.C.ness

[mcmonkey]

Those aren't "internment camps". They're "free speech zones".

We have always been at war with Eurasia.