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...
Seems they are simply using technology to better do what they want to do. Isn't this what it is for?
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?
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.
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,
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!
(Yeah yeah, and tell them they can have their joke back too)
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
"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!
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.
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.
Having a LUG meeting could be a security threat with the right type of people :)
I'm thinking more of a biohazard.
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.
Yup,
RCMP == FBI
CSIS == CIA
CSE == NSA
Roughly speaking of course -- the exact details are framed in their separate charters and, of course, the constitution differs between our two countries.
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.
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.
You can legislate morally you can't legislate morality
The RCMP enforces federal laws and statutes.
In provinces where there is no provincial police, it also enforces provincial laws and statutes, usually as a police force under contract with the provincial government.
Some cities and towns also contract the RCMP for municipal police services as well.
From their website: We provide a total federal policing service to all Canadians and policing services under contract to the three territories, eight provinces (except Ontario and Quebec), approximately 198 municipalities and, under 172 individual agreements, to 192 First Nations communities.
Also for those who don't know, "First Nations" refers to Native Americans.
...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
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.
Are we afraid of teenage-terror-girls ?
/.ers...
Hell, yes! We're
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
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').
...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!
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'
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.
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
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.
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.
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.