Slashdot Mirror
Thinking About the SnitchCam
Saint Aardvark writes "From Dan's Data comes a fascinating look at the consequences of tiny, wireless video cameras: "Right now, it's hard to prove that (for instance) riot police really beat the crap out of innocent people at a demonstration....Live streaming video from multiple cameras operated by lots of people at the same time, though, will be a different matter. Even without cryptographic jiggery-pokery, it'll be practically impossible to get away with even minor editing-room spin doctoring, if thousands of people around the world have the original footage on their hard drives." "
Even without cryptographic jiggery-pokery, ..... Say, wha?????
Seriously though, this does raise an important point, however, the real issue is not "is there evidence available", rather it is: "can we get access to the evidence?". There are lots of instances where the facts exist, it is just obtaining access and recent efforts as part of and independent of the revised Patriot Act will make it even harder for the general public to 1) have access to evidentiary information 2) remain anonymous when contributing evidentiary information and 3) avoid prosecution for retaining evidentiary information that might be "determined" sensitive.
Remember to VOTE!
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Between the need to keep myself safe from injustice by documenting/recording everything, and massive invasion of privacy by documenting/recording everything...
Can someone reason me out of this conundrum? Is there a way to have my cake and eat it too?
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
... in school?
And weren't they beat up regularly?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
Sounds to me like Big Brother meets P2P.
Hey cops get accused of things all the time. It seems to me these cameras might cut both ways.
For a moment there, I read SnatchCam.
Any possible "legitimate" use for these things will be dwarfed by the massive amounts of grainy upskirt pornography that will be produced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just some guys idea. A lot of people have ideas... what makes this one great enough that, say, Sony would start making the cameras he is suggestions?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Funny, a while back here in the UK there was a program about people who used tiny cameras which sent the image of credit card pins & numbers when put into an ATM back to a mobile sitting in a nearby street and I wondered how long it would be before I saw one used where I live..
Then last week, while walking through town at college I saw a swarm of police around an ATM machine with one of them holding those little camera strip things they put on ATM machines to look nicely inconspicuous while recording stuff.. Yeah they can be easily abused and it happens a lot, costs millions, but so can everything in the wrong hands, n they're cool
In Quebec City, 2001, I shot 3 hours of DV footage. People getting surrounded and beaten up. An elderly woman having a cannister of CS-555 lobbed at her. It did nothing. Some of the footage was even plyed on tv. I guess it's not brutality if no-one's bleeding, right?
-Leigh
can anyone thing of any disadvantages of this? whatever you are doing in public, you probably wouldn't mind if someelse recorded it on camera.
as long as this isn't used in private places, such as a doctor's office, or the local changeroom, i don't think this is a bad idea at all.
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
Would that make this technology less valuable?
Salocin.com
It certainly could prove useful, but as the Rodney King tape proved, the context often does not get put into play with videos. It's not entirely certain that even 50 people will get the context of a situation recorded. I think the real bonus will be the hesitation of police to react with force in protest situations where everyone has a video outlet. A downside would be their hesitation to react with force when necessary.
When I was in London a couple years ago, I knew that I was on-camera everywhere I went and I felt safer. Part of that was because I knew that policemen were watching. I think that if I knew that the people watching and analyzing my behavior were just people with an axe of one type or another to grind, or goody-two-shoes types that want to force their morals on everyone, I'd feel less safe rather than more safe.
Curiouser and curiouser, and doubleplusbad, methinks.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
The girls locker-room...
*drool*
I reset my case.
What's needed is the ability to take pictures or video, have it transmitted wirelessly to a trusted third party who can attest as to content and time stamp. (I've pondered this sort of system in vehicles, so that a driver could record a "Driving While Black" type incident, and be able to provide evidence to his attorney that would be more likely to stand up in a civil suit.)
Such a system would also require cameras that provide tamper-resistant digital signatures for each frame. This wouldn't make doctoring impossible, but should quiet some of the objections to this sort of evidence.
Yay to technology making the world a better place.
Salocin.com
Yeah, I have been playing with a vBlog (video blog) here: m3blog.com, and my original idea was to quickly post unedited video quickly.
However, I quickly found out that is was more fun to do a little editing, as people weren't watching my raw posts, they quickly grew bored! And it wasn't very hard to do little quick edits, especially time-shifting, to make events seem like they took place before or after other a certain point.
As a previous poster said, it wont do much, even if you can get to A- produce footage from multiple cameras of 'incidents' ('innocents' getting beaten) B- Distribute said media at a scale large enough to have any kind of impact.
Public opinion is what matters. Try to get your 'point of view' on National TV. Medias are controlled, or at least aren't close to be 100% objective; they show you what they WANT to show you. In this case, Evil Anarchists rioting against the World Economy Globalization.
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
All the cameras in the world won't make a difference. All that matters is what people are told they're seeing. That was proven in the famous Rodney King trial.
Or, better yet, look at what happened in Waco. No evidence of illegal activity by the Dividians. No evidence of drug manufacturing. No evidence of child molestation. Ignored evidence of the initial shots being fired by the ATF. Yet our government was able to falsely justify the torture and death of innocent civilians. Few people seemed to notice.
Look at all the video evidence you like. Big Brother will tell you what to see.
... it's shoking at the 1st time... it's somewhat disturbing at the 10th time... and it who gives a fuck at the 1000th time.
Just think of those footages you saw last time about children dying of hunger. Can you remember what did you do? Opened a new can of Coke?
Just a Random.idea
I hate to say it, but does "original footage" even *mean* anything any more? In the day where "Photoshop" is a verb, I posit that it doesn't. Not really. It just plunges us back into "he said, she said" expert-witness land, where, to a large extent, we already reside. The only people it will solidly convince will be those who took it -- and, since they were there to start with, that doesn't really accomplish much. As a means to catch your babysitter yapping on the phone, it'll be fine. For anything more than that, though, I wonder.
The only problem with tiny wireless cameras we face today is that some of the people can only see the negative consequences of their omnipresence, like industrial espionage, blackmail, or even worse, voyeurism, which while clearly controversial is not even nearly as important as the anti-fascist tasks described in the article. This very article, however, sadly fails to address those concerns, which might be percieved as a bias for those who are against such an intrusive technology and violation of privacy in the first place. In my opinion this article would be perfect if it didn't lack the arguments refuting the concerns I outlined. "Don't ask me what Sweeping Social Changes will be caused by such pervasive cameras; my ability to foresee techno-consequences stops at the certainty that it's a bad idea to let anyone called Brundle near a teleporter." This, I believe, is not enough to convince the sceptics.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
With apologizes to Dr. Stallman, I'd like to point out that information systems to which everyone has access to the information it manages/monitors/etc. are less prone to abuse by bureaucracies or governments. Take "red light cameras," for example. These are foisted on municpalities under the auspices of "public safety" (e.g. fewer red light runners, ergo fewer intersection accidents). However, since the operation of these systems is typically obfuscated, these systems invariably become nothing more than revenue generators. Yellow lights are shortened, in order to increase the "catch." Never mind that this "forces" people to "run the yellow" and thereby increase the likelihood that there will be a ROW-induced collision.
If everyone had some way to monitor exactly what these cameras saw, exactly how the lights were timed, etc. it would be dissected in public enough to prevent these sorts of scams. The same goes for "safety" cameras in public. If you saw exactly how much of an invasion of privacy a given camera amounted to, you would bet there would be fewer of them, and those that are allowed would better meet the specified purpose (instead of "once it's there, nobody will notice we're not looking just at what we said we were").
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
This sounds like an idea from David Brin(author of 'The Postman'), called "The Transparent Society", from a book of the same name. Basically, he says that the powers-that-be will always have the power to snoop on the ordinary people, so there is no point in advocating privacy; all you get is an false feeling of security, and you give those in power a cloak of secrecy.
Instead, he says that we shoud remove privacy from everyone, and let the public see what others are doing - basically, have everyone watch everyone else. The point of that is supposedly that it would keep corruption down and stop the rich and powerful from abusing their power.
Now, I don't say that I agree with Brin, but I just thought the idea of people going around broadcasting live video of everyone to keep the cops in check sounded like somthing Brin would like.
I doubt that the protest idea would work, though. People don't care about brutality if they think that the police are acting in their interest and there is even a chance of violence from the protesters. Remember how all the violence from the police at the WTO protesets was justified by a dozen 'anachists' defacing a Nike store? Or how much of America feels that it's "better safe than sorry" regarding Guantanamo and Abu Gharib?
Watching the watchers only matters when the public gives a damn that the watchers are brutal.
It's a movie produced by some folks who were at the 20 Nov 2003 FTAA protest in Miami. By my count it shows 14 felonies commited by police officers, including refusing to identify themselves, shooting unarmed & non-violent people (in the head), random pepper spraying, etc etc and so forth. The raised fist of today usually has a camera in it.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
How about slipping a few of these into the offices of our elected officials? If we can't have any privacy why should they?
Just imagine this: people on the road could have a "SnitchCam" on the back of their rearview mirror that they could use to record your bad driving habits and then send it to the police department for $$$ (as suggested in the article). Is there ANYONE who has not broken some traffic law at one time or another? We'd all be getting fines sent to us in the mail on a regular basis, probably.
Then again, just like the photo-radar, people could just say, "Yeah, that's my car... but that's not me driving it!" Uh, sure...
Another thought, who is going to wade through the millions of hours of snitched data? Police departments don't have enough manpower as it is.
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
i was at the big one in the summer near the front. some "anarchists" had been dragging a flag on the ground during the protest and were being eyed by big guys with orange arm-bands on. when the protest started circling washington sq. park, the flag draggers turned into flag burners and the plain-clothed guys turned into anarchist-pummelers.. they put leather gloves on and started just beating the crap out of basically college-aged kids. There was a huge crowd of people around, some journalists, and photos started being snapped.. in the melee, it was hard to figure what was going on.. but i was standing near a guy with a very nice camera who got maced for taking pictures by one of the plain-clothers. I don't know why they singled him out. After things quieted down, i followed the plain-clothers for a bit to see where they ended up.. they walked over to the cordoned-off area and pulled out police badges (on necklaces) out from under their shirts and wore them out in the open.. now that they were next to their uniformed buddies with guns, they were big men. We went and found some reporters and told them.. Daily News and the New York Post. They started writing furiously.. but basically weren't believing us that plain-clothed new york cops beat protestors. Well, those same guys had been following us and were near us in the crowd listening to us talk to the reporters.. they were giving me the evil eye, so i told the reporters, "see, that guy right there!" and pointed at him (still had badge out).. and the reporters kind of looked at each other, decided not to back down, and started asking the cop if it was true.. he totally shrank away. The reporters apparently took that as a good sign and then got the full story from us. For no point though.. neither paper published anything significant about the event. The closest was (I don't remember which one said this) "there were reports of scuffles between police and protesters near the front of the parade at one point, but overall it was very peaceful." Yeah, riiiight. Just a few black eyes and kicks in the stomach for the "anarchists." Whatever you think about burning a flag, we have laws, and it's protected political speech. The technicality that would get the cops off in front of a complicit judge is that the protestors didn't have a fire permit. Ha! Just like Rodney King was resisting arrest. In a department full of cops who were generally reasonable for all of the protests of the last two years, those cops deserved to be identified and charged with crimes. But, no flashy vid, no sticky charges. Makes me sick.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just some guys idea. A lot of people have ideas... what makes this one great enough that, say, Sony would start making the cameras he is suggestions?
Some people even think about their ideas, amazing isn't it?
The cameras are being made already. They are already part of cell phones and anyone with gumption can combine a PDA with wifi and a camera. That's not the point.
The point is imagining what people will do with those cameras and the possible social good that will come from them. As long as new restrictions are not made on publishing photographs of public places, these cameras will give the public an unprecedented new witness of public events.
The same technology in government hands, however, needs to be restricted. Real harm can come from unrestricted domestic spying. The trick it to not pay people to do the spying while still allowing prosecutors reasonable access to publically recorded material for criminal investigation.
In short, it is possible for these new cameras to be used in a way that does us all lots of good. The credibility of witnesses can be enhanced without creating a police state, where the state has all of the "evidence" and the ability to harass political opponents. Recent events, such as Mary Landrie's hysterical smut cam attacks and the whole UK police cam infrastructure make me worry about the actual uses. Noise produced by people like FortKnox serves the interest of those who would do all the wrong things.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
That's usually the case.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Robert J. Sawyer considers something like this in his book "Hominids", which posits an alternative universe where Neaderthal never died out. Everyone in the Neaderthal society is implanted with a device that records their activity in realtime, piped to a physically and cryptographically sealed "Alibi Archive" that can only be accessed by permission of the person being recorded.
:-) even a straight digital voice recording would be of value.
While the novel isn't all that great, this idea is extremely interesting. For anyone who has ever been falsely accused of anything (like, say, any man who has ever had a close relationship with any woman
More seriously, an ex-girlfriend of mine was a volunteer at a women's shelter, and used to complain that too many cases came down to "he-said/she-said", so I suggested the shelter start using compact, cheap, voice-activated digital recorders to lend to women who were in abusive relationships but who couldn't get anyone to listen to them. So far as I know, this plan has been adopted, although the current state of my relationship with that particular woman precludes my knowing any of the details...
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
For a couple of years, I was a volunteer for the Legal Defence and Monitoring Group here in the UK. One of the main things we did was to monitor police behaviour on demonstrations to make sure that the police were acting within the law.
At the time, we discouraged the use of video cameras for collecting evidence of police behaviour because of the problems with interpretation of footage. We preferred for each monitor instead to take written notes (recorded on the day with a dicataphone) at regular intervals (once every 10mins or so) since a report that nothing was happening was often as valuable as a report that all hell was breaking loose. The police usually said they were reacting to provocation before taking the decision to modify people's skulls, and any evidence to the contrary was valuable.
While the former issue might be solved by the "network effect" described, the latter issue is not unless those with cameras record everything, or at least sample the situation at regular intervals.
In short, even if you still have some form of organisation operating the cameras, you're in for a FAR heavier invasion of privacy burden: compare a written note saying "14:55 - Nothing happening" to 10 seconds of footage showing people, their faces, their placards, their expressions... and nothing happening.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
Can you imagine if not one person voted in the upcoming election. Now that would make a difference. Seriously though, people push voting to no end.... I wonder why. And what if I dont like any of the candidates? or for that matter, the entire system of government?
This AC is spot on. Voting just lends legitimacy to an illegitimate system. If we had 100% turn out, that just gives the "winner" the opportunity to say "The people have spoken"
Just government rests on the consent of the governed. It's about time we withdrew that consent. Given that 50% of the population fails to vote in any election, I'd say we already have.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Yep. Governments everywhere have always tried to use fear to control the citizenry and to keep them from prying into govt affairs, the better to rip us off. I say make the American govt completely transparent. Cameras everywhere, publically accessible via the web, with audio.
Oh, but the Rightwingers will whine about military secrets being exposed, etc. Kiss my ass! They are just using that for cover. They have been doing it for decades, carrying water for the rich and powerful and the big corporations, supporting dictators overseas in order to keep the 3rd world peasantry from having Leftist governments. Starting wars to feed the profit margins of the military industrial complex and other parasite megacorporations.
Bring on the mini cameras and shove up their asses. I wanna see EVERYTHING!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
In addition to tear gas, pepper bullets, sonic weapons and microwave beams, the riot police will in the near future use the slashdot effect to knock down any nearby wireless nodes. "Look at this cool page!" they will post, pointing to some poor activist's IP number. With wireless disabled, they will proceed to bust some heads.
And they'll do it time and time again without Timothy getting any wiser. Who notices dupes any more?
This wouldn't be too hard to do (in all seriousness), would it? Just flood the wireless frequencies with noise before calling in the Riot Squad... You can build that kind of gear from spare parts at Radio Shack and mount it in back of a van.
Don't want your protest to end in an orgy of violence? Regulate it yourself.
There have been many peaceful protests with any number of people, where the cops need do nothing but sip coffee and watch.
And there are protests where you see people getting off of busses with backpacks full of masonry, balaclavas at the ready. Where during interviews, they say things like 'We'll be completely peaceful as we block off all roads within a ten block radius and hurl insults at passers by. If the cops want to MAKE it a fight though, we're ready.'
Nobody wants to be a riot cop. So you get the newbies and the burnouts. They don't get adequate training. They know that a mob can turn ugly. They know they're under watch, and that the hindsight brigade will come down on them like a ton of bricks. They know that taking proactive action to keep things under control will land them on the news; they know that letting things happen will result in a full riot.
And they know that the TV news will never show the rocks, the insults, and the provocations. They'll just show the cops wading in and busting heads.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I've often thought the cops should be required to wear a camera in their hats or on their uniform. Use some form of solid-state recording medium and have upload terminals in the cars and stations.
The theory goes, if they cover or turn off the camera and someone makes an allegation, the cops look guilty already and the accusation gets heard, instead of the coppers all giving the same story.
In his novel Earth he described the effect
retirees with nothing better to do
had on petty street crime has they
walked around with their "TruVues" on which
wirelessly spool video to storage on central
servers. Would be criminals just simply didn't
bother, and elders knew they were untouchable.
That's horseshit. The vast majority of those that don't vote do so because they are too damned lazy to either a.) get their asses to the polls or b.) educate themselves enough on the issues to be able to make an informed decision. Only a small fraction of those who abstain from voting do so based on some ill-conceived moral perogative to not "lend legitimacy to an illegitimate system."
-Matt
Duke '05
There is an Arthur C. Clark novel, "The light of other days" that deals with this idea. In the novel, Clark imagines the invention of a device that creates wormholes through which a person may observe anything undetected. He goes on to speculate about the effects that such utter transparency would have on our culture.
Secrets of any sort become a thing of the past causing all sorts of world changing effects from the total remaining of governments and corporations to the end of modesty.
Later in the book they learn to pilot the wormholes back through time. If anyone hears about a camera that can do this, please let me know as I would like to find out who took my wallet last year.
I can think of a way to prevent it. We've got public-key encryption hardware, and it's going to get cheaper. Suppose you have a video format that's got a slot in every frame for a cryptographic signature of that frame, and the video hardware itself is cryptographically signing the video as it records it. The private key for each camera is burned into a secured chip in the camera, and the public key is in the documentation along with the serial number and suchlike.
You can still make faked video, but you can't make faked video coming from a particular camera that'll stand up to a check of the signatures. Well, technically it's possible to do so, but you'd have to posit the ability to create a secured chip with contents of your choosing and put it into the camera without any indication of tampering and fudge the matching of the serial number and assigned key in the manufacturer's records. And of course there's also the question of numbers: if several people with no other connection to each other all have video showing the same thing, how likely is it that they all went through that trouble to fake their video and all came up with exactly the same scene on their own?
This is a great idea for the rich nations of the world, but the real trouble spots, typically, don't have such affluence.
The idea I've been pondering for a while is something that is cheap and easily distributable so that people in the places where bad stuff happens can put them in their windows and make the results available to journalists when something goes down. These could be distributed for free by NGO's, like freedom organizations, so that most trouble spots would be blanketed.
The hardware I have in mind is something really cheap, rugged and self-contined, with a walkman form factor and, perhaps, endless loop DAT tape storage and a solar power source. Journalists could knock on doors the day after an event (or dig through the rubble) and copy these tapes for later perusal. The data would ideally be encrypted, to help with authenticity and make it difficult to view in the field. Some cheap equipment actually does see outside of human visible range, so these might actually be useful at night time too. This sort of form factor might make the devices cheap enough to make it practical to distribute them to thousands of homes in each world trouble spot.
I suspect that even though people in trouble areas might be suspicious of these things, that most of them would realized the advantages of having them and be willing to participate. Since the devices are automatic and easy to hide, the danger to the operator is minimal. Also, the collection process makes them pretty much useless for military use, so there's no real danger of "bad guys" collecting the tapes for use against "good guys". The only real practical use would be reporting of abuses or setting the story straight. Regardless of which side you're on, having more info is generally a better thing for the innocent victims of any conflict.
Imagine what things might be like if there was one of these in every tenth house in Baghdad or the West Bank...
Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)
Actually consider this: elections are on tuesdays. You have to vote in your home county. Many people work over an hour from home. Lines at the polls can be over an hour long. Polls generally close at 7:00.
If the boss tells you you have to stay until 6:00, you can't vote.
This happens a LOT.
Generally the people affected are unsalaried and in the service industry or low on the white collar totem. The boss can take 3 hours off to cast his ballot, but the phones still need to be answered, and the floor still needs to be washed.
Apathy is a large problem, but it isn't the only problem.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Dude. Seriously. "I couldn't get to the poll?" I bet in school your dog ate your homework.
Register as a permanent absentee voter - you vote on your time, you mail the vote in (or drop it off at the county) and you avoid last-minute crap like people reregistering you in a different precinct.
If voting ain't a personal priority, that's your deal. But if you don't vote, then it's not, "because I had to work late," it's because you're a lazy bastard. Own it.
Oh, go on, check out my job.
That's horseshit. The vast majority of those that don't vote do so because they are too damned lazy to either a.) get their asses to the polls or b.) educate themselves enough on the issues to be able to make an informed decision.
You're begging the question. There are no issues that matter in the election, as I noted in this post Therefore, it's not surprising that people are lazy about elections. Their apathy is a direct result of the impotence of our democracy. I agree that very few people think of it in terms of "legitimate government" and "sovreignty", but you really can't expect people to think in those technical polisci terms. The proof, as they say, is in the tasting.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Consider the laws that limit our abilities to protect ourselves,
even from telephone abuse, using an audio recorder...
Getting the runaround from a government department?
You need the other party's permission before you can
record them while on the phone together.
I would expect to see similar "privacy" laws enacted
that could limit use of video devices, like those
suggested here.
You could always move to place with a different form of government. Why don't you try a middle eastern Muslm controlled country? Of course if you are not Muslim you would be arrested(worse?) if they found you worshiping a non muslim god. How about Cuba? That's different. I hope you don't like expressing this type of anti-establishment rhetoric in public, because Fidel would have you locked up(or worse) and throw away the key.
Or maybe you'll just have to stay where you are with all your freedoms that others have provided for you with their lives and hold your nose in disgust.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
Not voting means elections are decided by people who are not you. If everyone insightful enough to perceive flaws in the electoral system doesn't vote, you get a government elected by the dumbest, most apathetic, least observant, and most single-minded.
If you don't like the system--and sure, there's plenty not to like--then agitate to change it. There are many sensible ways to do this. Abdicating your right to be heard isn't one of them.
I should buy some cement.
Microcams won't get used much because they will catch both sides at their worst.
The 1968 Democratic convention riots were caught on camera by news organizations recording it from the upper-level floors of the hotels they were in, safely above the street. They showed "brutal" Chicago cops charging after innocent protesters and beating them bloody. What the cameras failed to show was the urine and feces that were thrown at the cops, provoking them to go after the "innocent" protesters. Yeah, tell me again how, if you were a cop, you could remain perfectly calm after being showered with piss and shit.
Other demonstrations, other forms of not-so-obvious violence are used by protesters. Before every WTC demonstration there are grass roots classes in how to incite the cops.
Dear anonymous coward,
I WAS IN THE STREETS IN CHICAGO IN 1968. *IF* there were any things thrown at the cop, it was they were isolated incidents, and quite possibly by agents provocateurs.
I can personally tell you about the cops attacking with no warning, and the first time I'd ever seen two-and-a-half foot riot batons. I have a picture etched in my memory of one pig (not to be confused with the regular Chicago cops) swinging it at someone's head as they were falling to the ground, not 10 yards from me.
The federal commission on the riots declared it to be 100% a police riot.
So take your lieing revisionism and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Oh, and I saw *reporters* with they heads bleeding, so take that "from upper floors of the hotels" back, too.
mark