Slashdot Mirror
London Tube Dangerous for Technophiles?
TsukiKage writes "Traveling on the London Tube is dangerous these days, it seems - and not because of terrorists. Quick as ever to try and protect against the attack that has just happened, zealous police will detain you at the drop of a hat." From the article: "The next train is scheduled to arrive in a few minutes. As other people drift on to the platform, I sit down against the wall with my rucksack still on my back. I check for messages on my phone, then take out a printout of an article about Wikipedia from inside my jacket and begin to read. The train enters the station. Uniformed police officers appear on the platform and surround me ... They handcuff me, hands behind my back, and take my rucksack out of my sight. They explain that this is for my safety, and that they are acting under the authority of the Terrorism Act."
The MBTA in Bostonhas instituted a search policy on the commuter rail and subway. They say the station I come into in the morning (North Station) has about 25000 people come in during rush hours in the AM, making it impracticel tosearch everyone. Ithink "random" searches are never random -- people gettargetted.
The ACLU has a detailed page describing how to deal with a search request. One of the primary differences in the US and UK is clearly illustrated -- I don't mean this as a slam on the UK, merely pointing out a difference. In the US every ctizen is supposed to be immune from unreasonable search. Of course the definition of reasonable is opem to debate. But it's only by people pushing against crazy things like these train searches that we are able to defend indivual freedoms.
With the recent supreme court ruling in the Hiibel case it's more important than ever that citzens defend the right that are given to them. I hope other Bostonians will print out a copy of the ACLU's advice page ann keep it with them when they travel on the T. If you are an American and live in a place that has unreasonable searches, contact your local ACLU and see what they advise.
Regretting that you can't do something in the war on terror? Here's your opportunity. Defend civil liberties at home.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's still a little better than the guy who got 7 bullets in the head, don't you think?
cheers
He should consider himself lucky they didn't throw him on the floor and pop five caps in his head.
Be glad you didn't get shot eight times.
Terrorism Act = Patriot Act? Its funny, they don't sugar coat it like the US does.
explicitly forbid to use digital devices while on the train? Ta-da, end of "problem".
After you are detained, you are taken to the ministry of love for evaluation.
0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
Either you detain them and we get stories like this poping up, or you don't and once it is a actual bomber or something and people looking for someone to blame start asking "well he was clearly suspicious, he should have been stopped, detained, and questioned. Had that happend we wouldn not be dealing with one of the worse tragedies of our time." Sad but true.
Not being a flame-bait person here, but I think this is interesting. It's no secret that the posts here in /. seem to lean a little to the left.
England is usually held up as a model of a successful "socialist Republic", with free health care, extermely restrictive gun laws, etc.
This is an interesting slant on things. Just out of curiosity, what is the reaction to this unilateral restriction on the view of England as a model we should be striving to emulate?
just wonder if I wiped that copy of "The Anarchist's Cookbook" I downloaded in curiosity five years ago from usenet... not to mention the fact that my education and armed forces experience gives me the capability of designing and building timer devices... and of cooking up explosives...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
I'm not one to immediately yell "constitutional rights!" anytime a peace officer attempts to do their job. I think under the recent circumstances it reasonable for a police officer to stop someone and ask them what their purpose is, and assuming its done in a non-discrimatory manner to ask to look through your concealed possessions.
However, the en-mass encirclement of a single person (unnecessary use of intimidation/force), and the incarceration (handcuffs!) of a citizen w/o any evidence of a criminal act is preposterous. I am unsure of the legal system available to those in the UK, but at the very least I would consult a barrister to confirm what you real rights are... many times police officers use their authority to intimindate people into compliance, even if their own behaviour is illegal.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
There was a big marketing deal, where somebody with a web site had people send in pics with them carrying out their ordinary business (like shopping), while displaying a sign that said "we are not afraid!", i.e. that they wouldn't be cowed by the terrorist.
What's not shown in the pics, just outside the borders, is the phalanx of police.
This is what you get without a constitution, any freedoms or rights that you enjoy are at the largesse of the state, and although here in the US our rights are being violated on a regular basis there is the hope that the constitution will at least act as a break on the Federal government's campaign against it's citizens civil libertys.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Where we have a Constitution to protect us from unreasonable search and seizure!
*stifles a nervous giggle*
Seriously, if you want to save a lot of time at these searches, I've got a tip: toss a well-read-looking Bible in your knapsack. I don't know about the UK, but in the USA it pretty much guarantees you'll be moved through the line faster. And yeah, try and keep the gadgets to a minimum, wires==bombs to the geniuses working the line. I mean, most of these people can't even AFFORD an iPod.
How can you blame the police for searching you? You were reading a Wikipedia article. You might as well have been using Linux and p2p to trade government secrets with Saddam bin Satan.
Seriously though, that's messed up. Were you reading the paper in a threatening manner? I can't see them doing that to people for *no reason* (sure, maybe for an *invalid* reason, but there's a difference...)
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
Since this is in London, there's not much I can say about it being unconstitutional, but similar events are happening in the US. A lot of the detainments and searches are because of racial profiling. Terrorism is affecting the world in a huge way, and I don't mean the terrorists scaring everyone and killing people, I mean the governments are taking completely outragous steps to "prevent" it. Yes, it may have helped but is it really really worth sacrificing our freedom and rights for? There are other solutions..
The presence of a slightly suspicious person shuts down a train for a few hours? It seems that an organized civil disobedience effort could keep the entire London tube system offfline indefinitely by wearing backpacks and using cell phones in carefully chosen stations and times. How long could that go on before someone realizes it's not preventing terrorism and it's more trouble than it's worth for everyone?
Europe has always had strong state rights. That's the foundation of socialism. You should look at the other things they can do, that we're not allowed to.
I'm about to hit 40 next January and when comparing my life now with how things felt in the 80s and 90s I realize how much the country I live in (U.S.) and the countries I was raised in (all over Europe) have changed in the last two decades. Just go to downtown London or any British city: cameras and microphones everywhere!! Do they prevent any terrorist attacks? OBVIOUSLY NOT! Any of us could come up with a plot and blow up some public building if we put our heads to it. What's a LOT more annoying than the remote chance of dying in a terrorist attack is the increasing curbing of civil liberties for the sake of 'public security'.
As Benjamin Franklin once argued: A nation that gives up freedom to gain security deserves neither.
So... this guy was carrying a purse? Anyone else find that odd?
"They take off the handcuffs and start giving me back my possessions: my purse, keys, some papers."
... at least the author wasn't shot and killed.
I'd be scared to be wearing my mp3 player + headphones in the Underground. What if someone yelled "STOP!" and I didn't hear them?
On Thursday 7th July there were four bombers with backpacks.
On Thursday 21st July there were four attempted bombers with backpacks.
Are you really surprised that they were extra careful with people with backpacks on Thursday 28th July?
I do SERIOUSLY think the UK has gone too far. Taking DNA, fingerprints and more without serious reason (that was evident at the time of the 'arrest' in the story) is absurd, ridiculous and by all means totally out of proportion. If the arrest was valid and 'normal' in the UK the country is truly bonkers and out of whack. What will happen if the terrorism (not just the type done by the muslim fanatics) continues?
Clearly the bobbies saw he had an article about wikipedia, Microsoft acts fast.
This is also published on the victim's website. Also on there is a description of the suicide bomber profile the police use - which many geeks will also fit.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
BeBox is dead
Three uniformed police officers search my flat and interview my girlfriend. They take away several mobile phones, an old IBM laptop, a BeBox tower computer (an obsolete kind of PC from the mid-1990s)
suck it up bitch!
if a terrorist attack were to happen, the same people who would be complaining about the authority's actions now would complain about it's actions then as well. the point is simply that terrorism is not an easy situation to deal with, and all of the "you can't give up freedom to gain security" idealists are just completely missing the whole point: terrorism is real, and it has people concerned, and they're just doing their best. criticize constructively. empty headed criticism that flails histrionically at everyone and everything involved is not helpful.
so why some of you think it is more important to question the motivations of western authorities and not criticize terrorist's motivations instead is beyond me. do i trust the autorities with my freedoms? no. but i know they aren't the threat to me right now. i simply don't understand people who see more menace in western authorities than in terrorist's actions. and judging by who bears the brunt of the criticism after a terrorist action, you know exactly what i am talking about. how about criticizing the terrorists? i know, strange concept.
i now return you to your regular typical drumbeat of sith lords manipulating the situation for their powerbase and agent smith out to destroy your personal freedoms out of pure meanness and other derivative hollywood paranoid schizophrenic plots which passes for insightful analysis around here of the world we live in. pffffffffft.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I really hope that this will not happen in Finland, except there is a new copyright law coming.
:)
Well, never going to stop copying songs from my cds to my mp3 player. And I'll never let anything stop me from moving things from my laptop case to a plastic bag on my back.
Go to jail, be an activist.
Don't go to jail, be a rebel.
I'll go for rebelling if it comes to that.
PS. I suck at writing my thoughts... I'll stop now
They shot an innocent man to death. I wouldn't be worried about mere detention.
I actually paused trying to figure out what the hell Bostonhas was...
"This is considered plagiarism."
I just simply can't believe the British government would so unabashingly remove a British citizen's rights so quickly under an "Act". The British have always done this - the whole is more important than the individual. That is *exactly* the type of action that led to the American Revolutionary War when the Crown tried to tighten down more than the people were willing to let them.
It is sad that Americans have now, slowly but surely, allowed a domestic government to do the very same things that we fought for independance from.
I forgot to mention, I was wearing a balcava and screamed praise to Alah...but that is not the point.
I don't think he was one of the pasty white english blokes. I think that will pretty much explain why he was considered suspicious...
Sorry. You lost your rights when you lost your guns. Didn't they explain this to you?
While we're at it, let's just go ahead and point out the better aspects of the shooting. After all, the police didn't drag him into the street and burn him alive. Lucky bastard.
How does a 7-person democracy cut a pie? Into 4 pieces.
Or maybe you could realize that most liberals don't hate America, they just want to make it better. You can't make things better unless you look at what's wrong. It also helps to look at what other countries are doing that is working better. Despite the success the Bush Administration and Fox News have had in turning 'liberal' into some sort of insult, most of them are pretty reasonable people.
Britain is in over-reaction mode, just as the US was after 9/11. Unfortunate, but not suprising. They may get a bit more carried away since they are lacking some of the guarantees our constitution provides, but that doesn't negate other things that they're doing well. Spazzing out as though it did is just silly.
This should just serve to illustrate how important our civil liberties are, especially in times of crisis. This is why the patriot act was and still is a mistake. Further, the U.S. government is never above criticism. That is our right and our duty as citizens. During wartime, the government should be held to higher standards, not lower ones.
The ACLU (That's American Civil Liberties Union) probably isn't going to help this gentelman from London.
Since when is linking some text in a direct quote enough to cite a source? Would it be that hard to add on "According to an article on The Guardian" or something to that effect? Or has this practice become acceptable/mainstream through blogs?
Maybe it's just not a Canada thing, but we call them backpacks...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucksack
Don't know why Mr. May had such a hard time of it. Sounds more like an abberation than a trend, and it's impossible to contruct a trend line from a single point of data.
Crow T. Trollbot
I can understand the mistaken arrest, but not the way they seem to think that the offended individual should simply accept an apology while the authorities keep all the false accusations on record and fail to return confiscated posessions.
Et cetera, ad nauseum.
The way to overcome this, of course, is to have a day when everyone agrees to wear backpacks to work. When all 25k rush hour commuters are carrying something, the searches will eventually stop.
As far as I could tell from the article, the police weren't exactly acting like bands of thugs. I think they they did over-react, and arrest this guy on very little evidence. But, it sounds like, they are just doing what they are expected to do, as handed down by the politicians.
Thing is, from the article, it seems to me like, at least at the start, it wasn't necessarily completely unreasonable for the police to stop the guy and check his things. Although, it does seem like they should have had a bit more cause than just that he didn't give them a smile going through the gate, and had a rucksack and jacket.
The point of unreasonableness came when they inspected his stuff, found NOTHING, and still arrested him. And then, going through his apartment, taking his stuff, building up this dossier and putting it in the national computer, all when he had done *nothing* wrong.
If the police stopped me in a subway or bus station, checked the contents of my bag and frisked me, sure I'd be a little upset about the treatment, but I'd get over it, realizing they're just trying to keep everyone (including me) safe. But to just carry on the way they did when they determined he wasn't a threat, seems truly unreasonable.
But that unreasonableness comes down from the politicians, it sounded like, from the Terrorism Act that was passed by them, not from the police themselves. Sounds to me like they were just doing what they were instructed to do from above.
Oh, and, I think the grandparent was being sarcastic, man. Not serious.
If the present goverment gets its way you could have said goodby to three months of your life as well, still better than a few bullets to the head tho'
The following is a beautiful quote which i find as relevant today as more than half a century ago...
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." Quote by Martin Niemoller
Here, most of the educated folk realize the folly of the patriot act (voted in, even though most of the voters had not even read the document). My professors, collegues, bosses, all educated people know the damage acts like the patriot act can do and are yet silent.
As the article seems to imply, the day isnt that far away, when THEY come for YOU!
Staying one step ahead!
They took his BeBox? Inhumane they are!
Now, eventually you might find yourself in the position of having to defend yourself from foreign nationalists bent on paying you back for some of the supression, meddling, back-alley dealing, intimidation, bombing, killing, etc.. that you got you to the top of the food chain in the first place. Well, all those nukes you built won't help you there - unless you find a single country to drop a few onto. But that country you just invaded provides a great launching point for even 'more' meddling and 'democratization' - it'll cost you a fortune but you're hooked on oil and after all, the end justifies the means. We're the mighty and proud United States of America after all - the land of the free!
Damn, I'm so fucking pissed at this world - I could puke everytime I watch the news...
What did this guy do that was "clearly suspicious"?
If you had read the article, you'd see that the cops grabbed him because of him using a cell phone then pulling out a piece of paper and a lap top while he was wearing a jacket and a ruck sack.
This is what is known a "stupidity" because the next round of terrorist attacks will involve guys dressed in suits and carrying briefcases. That way, they will get past the idiots doing the "profiling" who don't have any idea how to profile correctly.
It is easier to get past a badly done profiling system than it is to get past a system of random checks.
If I were that guy, I'd do a quick test and wear the same outfit to a different station, do the same things BUT wear thick glasses and a yarmulke and see if he gets picked up again.
If he does, then the cops are being consistent (even if they're doing it wrong).
If he does not then the cops aren't providing ANY protection against ANY attack.
Thank god I don't suffer under your "American Freedoms"
"Papers, Please. No? You're Under Arrest."
http://papersplease.org/hiibel/facts.html
http://papersplease.org/hiibel/video.html
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Were this mans rights violated? I did not see anything in the article that he wrote that would have violated American law. I do not know British Law. I also did not see anything that would have violated his basic human rights. Everything he owned was returned to him. He was not physically or mentally harmed or tortured. He underwent a little (in his mind a great deal of ) hassle, but he was not debilitated in any way. This comes down to the fact that he was acting suspiciously (at least under the given circumstances) and the police had a responsibility in the heightened state of awareness to follow up on that suspicion. They also have a right, and responsibility, to maintain records of their actions. The statements of the officers, as long as they are accurate and not purposely altered, are absolutely necessary to maintain an auditable account of the situation. He may be arrested again for something and find that those records insturmental in proving he has no prior record of wrongdoing. If they were maintained in his possession he would have a much harder time validating they are genuine. I think this case is a model of what should be done. Note he was not whisked away to some unknown location and denied legal counsel...in fact the article makes no mention of legal counsel being offered, requested, or denied. This is a fully acceptable and encouraging account of how a terrorist prevention system should work. The investigation was thorough, quick, and ultimately vindicating. He was let go in a reasonable time frame and the investigation was concluded. I am sorry for his inconvenience, but I think the officers were justified in their actions and were respectful of his rights.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
Before the endless stream of quotes from 100-200 year old dead guys starts rolling in, has anyone considered actually doing something today about this problem? If you know your government is corrupt, your police force is corrupt, your judicial system is corrupt and your military is corrupt (where 'corrupt' can be replaced with any other synonym) why don't you actually take steps to change the system. There are many ways to do this naturally like voting in elections, but if all these parts of the system are corrupt your elections might also be. Another way would be the old fashion way; revolution, a coup d'etat. Why don't just gather big enough posse and walk to White House, and the Congress in US and whatever the equivalent buildings are in UK. Of course this would be considered very bad, but if that's not Ok, then the other choice is the voting. Good luck. Stop quoting the dead guys. :)
I have no problem with profiling whatsoever... If you have repeated occurrences of old ladies in pink shawls (for example) committing specific crimes in a given area, then the authorities should be keeping their eyes on old ladies in pink shawls, not red-haired Irish men in kilts. Profiling is a dirty word because people let the liberals make it so: simple fact is that the authorities must keep an eye on individuals who meet the "profile" of people who commit the given crime. Someone whining about getting searched would be just as pissed if he/she was on a train that was bombed, and found out that people within a certain "profile" weren't being searched. The whole argument is ludicrous to me.
Or do you agree with their means of retaliation? Sure... go ahead and blow up a bus of innocent people and your neighborhood will have 5 cruise missles on target in the morning.
Seizing a BeBox just can't be legal. Where's he gonna get a new one? So sad!
No, no, no. You're thinking of the "Terrorist act". Big difference.
See, the "Terrorist Act" is where they can search you without probable cause and arrest you if they think you look suspicious in the UK.
Then you have the "Patriot Act", that is completely different. That's where they can search you without probable cause and arrest you if they think you look suspicious in the US.
See? The differences are remarkable.
The suspicions about coworkers taking pictures is worth considering. I have gotten in the habit of never carrying any type of camera in foreign countries. If picture taking is considered suspicious in England, imagine how an innocent picture around Beijing might be interpreted. Taking pictures of landmarks is now grounds for suspicion of terrorism!
...or at least it's very misleading.
The MBTA does walk through trains with bomb-sniffing dogs, but they do not search people's bags at random.
They insituted a random bag search for when the DNC was being held (it was at the Fleet Center which is the same building as North Station, a major hub.) They searched bags for that week but haven't done it since.
most posters here seem to think this couldn't happen in the US.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
It's easy to extend your authority by claiming that you're protecting people from "evil".
Once people lose a right, it is very difficult to regain it.
Once people become used to "random" searches and such for "suspicious" people, it's just a matter of extending the definition of "suspicious".
In the end, it's all about contol of the population. Power is very addictive.
police.slashdot.org
Wouldn't it be a part of the Brave New World to include a police-department in Slashdot ?
Ofcourse, you would have to include a few drops of lead with that...
Having said all that, the man shot at Stockwell was plainly murdered in cold blood, and I believe charges should be brought.
ObDisclosure: I'm a Londoner (born), grew up elsewhere, spent my 20s there until moving away after 9/11. (A month before 911 I was working next to the Nat West tower... and I frankly admit that the WMD stories were frightening me. Still do, as a matter of fact; it's only a matter of time before amateur WMD of some sort kills 5, 6 or 7 figure numbers of people somewhere in Europe or the USA.
PS final note - I was once jumped by the Special Patrol Group (wrong place/time), forced to lie on the ground with cuffs on, searched, briefly questioned and released. At the end they filled in a couple of forms & handed me reciepts, they explained that these were so that -they-, the police, could be identified if I wanted to complain about them; that the record of the stop & search would stay on file for six months, and would be destroyed after that. Assuming that this was accurate (which I think is probable) I think that's the way it should be. I now have a rather sensitive job; I'm not security cleared but others I work with are, and I may have to be formally vetted / sign the Official Secrets Act at some point. I don't expect the search incident to cause any problems with that. However, I've just realised I'd better post this anonymously...
Are you people really serious?
First of all, so what that the terrorists had backpacks? The next set could have bombs in the soles of their shoes (US Flight that had that happen after 9/11). So anyone with shoes is suspect? The terrorists could've had an egg salad sandwich. All egg salad purchases are suspect? This makes NO sense. How many people go through the Tube each day with a backpack? It can't be that few!
Similiarties do not constitute guilt, and should not constitute suspicion.
... and we've only heard one. Bear that in mind before you blame the police, or profiling, or whatever.
-everphilski-
The TPA is supposed to have safeguards, preventing wanton abuse by the police - otherwise they'd just call everyone a terrorist and sort out who was what over the week they get before having to present some evidence. The police can't just arrest anyone they happen to feel like. Well, they can, they're just going to get bollicked by the courts if they try, as happened in the aforementioned case.
This is no different from in the US, where anyone can physically be arrested by the police and subject to whatever searches the police feel like. The Constitution is just paper, it can't physically intervene. All a person can do is plead their case in court and hope for a sensible judge. (More than a few convictions in the US have been overturned on appeal, because the Miranda rights were violated - deomonstrating that it can take several rounds before anyone pays attention.)
It's also important to note we don't know ALL of the facts of the case. For all we know, British Intelligence may have tipped the police off that an attack was likely on that route, sometime soon. In which case, you're dealing with an entirely different scenario to one where the police were acting spontaneously, without due cause. All we can do, at this point, is guess as to the motives involved and the information the police had posessed. (I shall refrain from drawing inferences about the demonic nature of anti-terror squads that posess.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You really think the next bombing will be people carrying cellphones, laptops and rucksacks? No. The next bombing will be people who are completely outside the narrowminded profiling the police are using.
This actually makes the population less safe because police are focusing their attention on the wrong things and wasting precious resources chasing shadows. While they are busy jumping all over innocent bystanders, it will provide the real criminals the distraction they need.
Way to go!
As a motorcyclist, I routinely wear unseasonably warm jackets (heavy and fully armored) in the summer time. It's a lot better to be slightly hot than missing skin. A 50 mph breeze does wonders to keep you cool when on the bike. But when I'm off of it, all I can do is unzip it - it very heavy to carry on my arm, and even if I wanted to, the armor plates keep it from folding. Plus, the armor is sensitive - it could break if bumped against in a way it wasn't meant to bend.
I carry a backpack, too.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
This is really disturbing, I hope this guy knows he has everyone on /. on his side. I can see that this was a relatively special case, with the things happening at his workplace before etc, but the police need to get the fuck off their high horses. I always felt they were approachable and decent people but recently that respect is slipping.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
# 1. The cops catch the people after they have committed a crime because the person was filmed?
...
Or
# 2. The cops stop a crime from being committed because someone is watching a camera and gets the alert out in time?
Only 2 will help you in a terrorist attack. If you're talking about 1 then your point isn't valid. Film can help catch crooks, but it does nothing when dealing with a suicide bomber.
Or at least learn to capitalize.
1) If this is the London police "doing their best", then terrorists probably don't need to be worried.
2) Criticism of the authorities may bring constructive change. Terrorists are less easily swayed by public criticism.
3) I'm pretty sure public sentiment is foresquare against terrorists, the killing of innocent people, etc. That's one bandwagon I don't need to jump on.
4) The actions of the terrorists cannot rob an entire society of its fundamental freedoms. The actions of the authorities can.
5) The authorities are supposed to represent the will of the people. When they abuse the power which we've entrusted to them, they deserve to be called on the carpet.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
If freedom isn't worth dying for, it's not worth having. People in England have decided their safety is more important. Same story on this side of the pond. Still it's nice to see someone else being the asshat of civil rights for a change. Now we have someone we can point fingers at a claim the moral high ground because "we're not THAT bad". Thanks you guys!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I don't know whether I should laugh or cry.
It's uncanny, however, how perfectly the Al Qaeda's plan is working.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
I was trying to post a message on topic. So I think the off-topic rating is unfair because I was wondering if it was the story. I'm seeing a lot of changes to the site besides the CSS changes that bother me. Oh, well I guess it's better than being modded troll.
I read the article and they really fucked this guy over. He will be stigmatized for the rest of his life, no matter what he looked like. How many others have they done this too?
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
You'd see that he was about to be apologised to for having his time wasted at the station, before they correlated his workplace with a firearm incident, and a hoax firewarm call, and staff at his workplace photographing tube stations. That's what prompted the arrest and house search. He had a radio scanner and "odd stuff" (to the average copper, anyway) at home, and they reasonably quickly then cleared him and apologised for the inconvenience.
Frankly it seems to me as though he (in particular) was under surveillance, and the copper on-the-spot thought "I don't understand what he's doing, lets stop him". Cue the whole series of events. I don't think this is indicative of a general policy for just anyone walking around London.
Just how much protection would your constitution provide if the CIA had been observing you, and decided to arrest you ? Really ? If they didn't want to let people know ? The UK does have a constitution anyway, it's just not in a single document. It's easy to make a constitution if you start afresh, but when your country is as old as ours, and has the complicated history of ours, it's not so easy. Besides, our officials are accountable, at least as much as anyone else's, (which is the prime purpose of a constitution - the govt *can* do this, and the govt *cannot* do that) so why "fix" what isn't broken.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Anyone ever tried to fly on a short-notice one-way ticket inside or out of the continetal U.S? Just about every time I fly, I have to.
In short, I am usually:
- Flying on a ticket purchased by a DOD-Affiliated Corporation.
- Flying on a ticket purchased within 5 days of the flight.
- Flying with minimal luggage (1 carry-on, 1 checked)
- Flying one way.
- Travellling alone, carrying electronics.
Seems like ever time I have been "selected" for more screening I see the same type of people standing in the line with me: Army, Navy, Air-Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and DOD employees, all travelling with Government tickets, government ID, with government papers telling us to go somewhere. Occasionally there'll be somebody with a beard, but for the most part, we're all clean shaven with military or short haircuts.
You know what I've hardly ever seen in the "more screening" line with me? Women or anyone even slightly "non-WASP" looking. Oops.. There was that one USN Ch. Av. Tech. in the last line at LAX who was Puerto Rican.
These are the reasons given:
they found my behaviour suspicious from direct observation and then from watching me on the CCTV system;
I went into the station without looking at the police officers at the entrance or by the gates;
two other men entered the station at about the same time as me;
I am wearing a jacket "too warm for the season";
I am carrying a bulky rucksack, and kept my rucksack with me at all times;
I looked at people coming on the platform;
I played with my phone and then took a paper from inside my jacket.
Long story short, another "shifty foreigner" falls victim to dubious police work.
1) Look the police in the eye
2) Don't mess around with your phone
3) Throw your bag down on the platform
4) Don't wear a coat
This guy is DAMNED lucky they didn't just sneak up and shoot him in the head. Face it, London is under martial law. The United States and Britain are increasingly emulating Germany as it was in the 1930's. Increasing restrictions on free speech, increased corporatization of public institutions and the news media. Decreasing restrictions on police behavior including outright murder of people going about their normal daily buisiness. Do not wear certain clothing, do not have any extra accroutement such as backpacks or breifcases or carried baggage of any type. Keep your hands in plain sight at all times while in public places.
Its going to get a lot worse before it gets better. The third reich was about privatising everything, the police, the prisons, the military etc. Reducing police to being enforcers for the corporations. It is only a matter of time before people are not only being arrested for "suspicious" activity, but prosecuted for it as well. Even though their actions are the normal everyday activities we all do. In that situation, the law becomes arbitrary and is used to target certain "unfreindly" people. (liberals, hippies, intellectuals etc., anyone who doesn't fit into an arbitrarily dictated "normality")
For years I've wanted to visit the country of my ancestors, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. I would not dare to set foot in those places now, with my hair being long, my backpack being large, and my attitude towards police states being what it is. I like my freedom to wander without fear of being murdered or detained because I don't behave within certain parameters dictated by the State.
Welcome to the Fourth Reich. Enjoy your stay, but dont let anyone see you doing it. But dont try to hide your activities either.
Stupid Humans.....
The Wachowskis and Hugo Weaving, they will clear that shit hole up... remember remember .NO CARRIER
Yes you are right. Clearly this situation is *exactly* like the American Revolution. The British political system and authorities today are *exactly* the same as they were 300 years ago.
I've got Karma to burn, so I thought I throw this out here...
Was he 'brown'?
That is all.
You trolling tart. What have you been smoking?
1) Britain doesn't just unabashedly remove citizens' rights. The Terrorism Act was a LEGISLATIVE act that was passed by their democratically-elected parliament. Now, it may have been a knee-jerk reaction, it may have been a vile thing to do, but it was still the act of a properly-formed democracy. And dammit, that's all we have over here in the US, too! Do I HAVE to remind you of the patriot act, or the subway searches that go on over here, or the arrests during the Republican National Convention??
2) "The Crown" is a figurehead, and that's it. The entire governance of Britain, including every law and regulation, is the product of a parlamentary democracy. They don't even consult with the royalty on making laws. The Royals are kind of an in-person version of our National Monument and stuff like that, and that's all.
3) The Revolutionary War happened more than 200 years ago. The government of Britain, and its international policy were COMPLETELY different. How would you feel if I started making conclusions about modern US policy based on the fact that we traded slaves, here, 200 years ago? Doesn't make any sense, does it?
(And, BTW, I'd also like to point out that Britain abolished slavery long before we ever got around to it, and they didn't even have to kill a couple hundred thousand of their own people to accomplish it.)
The average US civilian is more likely to be killed by someone in his/her own family than by a terrorist.
ANY US citizen is more likely to be killed in a car crash than by a terrorist.
But terrorism is the current boogyman that various governments are using to extend their control. Check out the "Red Scare" and Joe McCarthy to see what we went through before.
And anyone talking about how other people would say that the cops were wrong if they didn't stop a terrorist is and idiot who has no understanding of security or statistics.
Makes me feel absolutely ashamed to be British.
did you check the discription of his clothing, black top, black pants, dark grey cap, black rucksack, glasses.
Mods, you have it wrong. This is *exactly* the topic.
Slashdot has had problems with anonymous postings from a subnet, so anything coming from that subnet is denied the right to post anonymously. I realize slashdot is not a government authority, but this is exactly the problem we are complaining about. No authority should feel they need to stop people who have done nothing wrong, whether they are trying to board a train or post a comment.
And personally I don't care if they have a 4-digit UID or 7-digit. Or if they come from an IP in Nigeria or Redmond. Or if they're wearing a t-shirt that says "Die, caucasians, die!" and carrying a large and obviously heavy box with biohazard stickers on it. When you are stopping people in case they are going to commit a crime, you have crossed the line into being an enemy of freedom.
I don't know anything about British law, so I won't go talking out of my ass about it. (I live in California)
I have one question - why is it so damn hot in the Underground? Are the Hot Springs of London one of the great secrets kept from the public, or is it just poor ventilation?
Here in San Francisco, BART isn't nearly as bad, except on hot days when all the cars' airconditioners are broken down, which is a lot of the time.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
and again, like i already said, completely missing the point
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Founder of the University of Virginia (amongst other things). :)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
This really is a Double Edged Sword. If the police had taken this man down and he was found to be caring the said dangerous materials, then they would be heroes. If they hadn't and this situation occured, it would be CNN Presents: London Terror Revisited instead of CNN Presents: Hurricane Rita.
Officers have to make these judgements or people die. While I agree with most everyone here, that this sounds ridiculously extreme, and that perhaps the police should gather more evidence, or wait for proof, but they've been told to make those split-second decisions that affect the lives of many people. It's a difficult situation to call.Hindsight is always 20/20.
What should be being talked about here is the incident last month which resulted in someone being shot in the head 7 (or 8) times (Absolutely Ridiculous, I think "Police, STOP!" is a much better way to find someones intentions.
While I think it's fine for Police to investigate a potential suspect without proof or on "instinct", I don't feel that it's neccessary to use lethal force on a suspect (Go for the legs/knees at least).
It scares me that the UK is finally starting to get in line with the U.S. on their Fear bills. Scaring their citizens out of their rights to the point where people actually die because of it.
Oh, and by the way, we still have lots of land kicking around up here in Canada.Fractured Element
I'm kind of on the inside so have seen the orders pertaining to these powers. Nothing repeated below is restricted from the public domain in anyway by GPMS.
The officers do not need any reason, other than they are conducting a search for "terrorist" activities. The area defined in Section 43/44 powers becomes a stop and search zone. There does not have to be any ground for suspicion against the individual(s) searched, just that the powers are applied to the area because the area is at risk. If sufficient manpower was available *everyone* could be searched under Section 43/44 so long as a current order is in place. Your local Constabulary will be able to tell you if one applies in your area, and most publish notices on their web sites too (for "London" you will need to look at the Metropolitain, City of London, and British Transport Police sites).
Here's what Section 43/44 says:
43. - (1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
(2) A constable may search a person arrested under section 41 to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
(3) A search of a person under this section must be carried out by someone of the same sex.
(4) A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.
(5) A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise a power under this section in any Part of the United Kingdom.
44. - (1) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search-
(a) the vehicle;
(b) the driver of the vehicle;
(c) a passenger in the vehicle;
(d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.
(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search-
(a) the pedestrian;
(b) anything carried by him.
(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.
(4) An authorisation may be given-
(a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable;
(b) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police;
(c) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the Cit
I was very suprised it went so far, after reading this tidbit:
The train enters the station. Uniformed police officers appear on the platform and surround me. They must immediately notice my French accent, still strong after living more than 12 years in London.
They handcuff me, hands behind my back, and take my rucksack out of my sight. They explain that this is for my safety, and that they are acting under the authority of the Terrorism Act.
Now, I don't know what London is like, but I'd imagine that there are very few
terrorist attacks by the French in recent decades on anyone.
(Tounge firmly in cheek)
Though, maybe they do have a point in arresting him, because of the fear of having their food, wine and women and culture insulted.
We can't have that, can we?
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/n uremberg/nuremberg.htm
i am also way more likely to die of cancer, or a car accident, or a lightning strike, or a shark attack, then a terrorist incident
lightning strikes and shark attacks are also way more scary than a terrorist attack to me
except for one small problem: all of these things are nameless and faceless and to some extent utterly beyond my control
meanwhile, terrorism is perpetrated by my fellow human beings
that means something: i can change human behavior
i can't control sharks or the electrical potential between the earth and a thunderhead
do you understand the difference?
here it is, in case you missed it: i make myself busy with what i can control, and i ignore what i cannot control, even if it is way more dangerous
it's a simple bit of wisdom, use it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Ladies and Gentlemen, Welcome to 2084 !!!
I will fuck you dead -God
What does slavery have to do with unreasonable search and seizure? Not a thing. Am I tart? Yes. Am I troll - only if you disagree with my opinion. And just like arseholes, everyone has opnions - and yours sir, stink.
I kept re-reading the article over and over again, but I couldn't find the part where the writer was beaten to a bloody pulp, shocked with a cattle prod, and where he had his fingernails pulled out with a pair of pliers. I'll go back and re-read it again because I'm sure it's there...somewhere.
After all, it would be just silly if everyone was so up in arms over the fact that someone was take aside, temporarily restrained, searched, and then allowed to proceed. He wasn't abused. No one beat a confession out of him. He wasn't shot.
I have been selected for a random search when boarding airplanes over the last two years. Each time I thank the screeners, and I am quite enthusiastic about being searched. When the search is done, I thank the screeners again, for I know they're doing something to protect me. They aren't trying to trample my rights, they're trying to keep me alive.
One thing conspicuously missing from the writer's "account" of the search was why he was handcuffed. This kind of thing does not happen to everyone who has a knapsack in the London Underground, but it does happen if you're belligerent when they ask to search you. Of course, if the writer was belligerent or combative towards the police, do you think he'd actually mention that fact? Of course not. That would get in the way of the agenda.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
...would be illegal in Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park. Or, for that matter, even remotely unusual...
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Officer pulls you over, and asks to search your vehicle.
You respond:
Officer, I have the utmost respect for the law, as I am sure, you do as well.
The fourth ammendment to the constitution assures that citizens are not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seisure, except in cases of probable cause.
And that the probable cause be supported by oath or affirmation.
I am within my rights to ask what is the probable cause related to your request for a search?
Then wait for an answer
If you are in Los Angeles, you can expect to then be handcuffed, and your vehicle searched while you cool off in the back of the squad car.
Get a lot of people to regularly go through and do these normal things to train them out of this nonsense (i.e. make it too expensive to do).
I didn't get handcuffed, but I was surrounded by police when I was a kid in Florida in 1977. I was talking on a friend's CD radio with a phone-style handset while parked in front of Krispy Kreeme and holding the antenna out the window of my 10 year old, beat-up Ford. I had long hair and was in jeans and a T-shirt. Three cop cars pulled up, one behind me, and one beside me. They detained me for about 10 minutes until they determined I was not a threat and not "monitoring police transmissions". My friend who was inside getting donuts was laughing his butt off! It helped when I told them who I was and that my dad was a judge....
Any rules are only good when everyone agrees to their basic principles. A Constitution should provide rules for checks against abuse, but you run into problems when those empowered to enforce those checks don't do their job because they agree or, more likely, don't disagree with the abuse.
how does guarding a water supply inhibit my freedoms?
;-P
when i say that "you can't give up freedom to gain security" idealistic trolls completely miss the point, as i said above, you are just demonstrating exactly what i mean: there is no automatic tension between security and freedom
you completely miss the point
because the tension between security and freedoms is one you assume, not one that actually exists
now there ARE stupid security moves which inhibit freedom, but there is no menace behind them: there is no agent smith manipulating terrorist attacks to steal your freedoms... this is paranoid schizophrenia
what there IS instead is stupid people in the government, who don't think things through... but they mean well
they DO mean well... it's an issue of trust, and some people would rather believe people in the us/ british govt are sith lords rather than just bumbling fools
to think this is paranoid schizophrenia, not wisdom
we don't live in a hollywood b-level movie plot
a lack of basic trust in the essential good will of your fellow human being is NOT wisdom
my point is is that we can reeducate bumbling fools: they are on OUR side! no, really, the people in western governments are on our side... imagine that bolt of lightning, such a weird concept
i consider someone stupid, who means well, who can be reeduated and shown the error of their ways, via democratic processes, WAY less of a threat to me than someone who has a clear and burning desire to kill me
do you hear me now? or do you still insist on the false conflict between security and freedoms?
there is no such conflict, it's a paranoid schizophrenic fantasy to believe in that
so, like i said, "you can't give up freedom to gain security" idealistic trolls completely miss the point
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Thank you, Mr George W Bush. Now fuck off and die, you retarded little chimp.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
is this what the uk is leaps and bounds ahead of the us in?
;-)
judging by your post, that seems to be what you are saying
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The thing is, it's very easy to use "Socialism" or "Communism" as a great excuse for what actually turns out to be a totalitarian dictatorship. The key difference is that in a Socialist political system, you give your money to the government, they keep some, give some to your neighbour, and give the rest back to you - but in a totalitarian dictatorship, you give your money to the government and they keep some, buy a sportscar and blow the rest on the military.
No body.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
I think the direct cause is terrorists. Or, have you forgotten about the attacks? They are clearly winning because you've turned on your own country.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
"well he was clearly suspicious, he should have been stopped, detained, and questioned."
Except this guy wasn't suspicious. You're really trying to tell me that not looking at a cop, looking at the people that go on the train, reading a piece of paper, wearing a raincoat, and checking your cellphone for messages is "suspicious"? This is gotten to be insane. Even added up they amount to normal everyday behaviour. If the police think they're going to stop terrorism like this, they've gone completely bonkers.
Also, it's very easy to find something "suspicious" about someone after they've commited a crime. Before the bombing who would have thought wearing jackets that don't match the season is "suspicious"? Now apparently it is. Next it'll be something like wearing boots in the summer, being fat and having a thin face, or wearing unfashionable clothes.
The other thing you've completely missed is that he wasn't simply stopped, searched for anything suspicious and then let go. No, he was then arrested, put in jail, had his home searched, and will likely have a record of the incident that will forever cast false suspicions on him. This isn't a minor case of the police stopping someone and asking some questions.
AccountKiller
Pirates in Cornwall used tunnels all the time. So did the wreckers and the smugglers. Actually, the wreckers were the worst menace - they'd create fake lighthouses and use them to steer ships onto the rocks. They'd then just wait on the shoreline for wreckage from the cargo holds to come ashore. These days, they're mostly working as advertising execs, American lawyers and SCO advisers.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
All they prevent is shops being broken into, the criminals move out from the center and start targeting peoples homes.
Where I live we have cameras everywhere, well everywhere there are shops to protect, places like the underpass where a woman was attached have no CCTV at all.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Just to refresh people's memories of how absurd the reaction to terrorist behavior is, 2 months ago Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead inside Stockwell Tube, in London. Read it here
Hi,
I am a grad student and was traveling to Reno for a conference. At the airport, I thought of working a bit on my thesis and booted my laptop which had linux on it. I was suspiciously being observed by some Men In Black, but I ingnored them. When I typed "ls" and the many many files just scrolled by, they came and arrested me and said I was hacking and doing some malicious activity.
I am now at Guantanamo Bay.
Stupid laws!
Hmmmmm.... Governments violating the rights of its citizens. Police shooting/detaining/beating innocent people. People thats the point of being a terrorist. To spread terror. Only they have wised up over the years. Now all they have to do is do one or two suicide bombings a year and let the government finish the job of terrorising the citizens.
Don't get stuck on 'stupid'. We're aware of the problems of the past. Now, how do we deal with them in the present? Do you have a reasonable solution, or simply "a reasonable proposal"?
From what I see, there is no way of backing out of the current situation at any time in the near future without drastic impact to the economies of the USA, Western Europe, China, and the rest of the (undeveloped) world which relies upon "imports" from us (such as "welfare aid" and various other monies and technologies). A drastic shift of agenda in the West (specifically the US) would result in irreperable damage to our livelyhoods.
What would happen if, over the next 5 years, the US and Europe were to become energy independant from the Middle Eastern countries? We would have inadvertantly launched the entire region into war, as they no longer have their - essentially sole - source of national incomes. This is largely due to corrupt governments in the region who take all the profit from the oil and allow their citizens to eck their own way through life through other means. To help avert this problem of widespread regional suffering, it's best to get stable, representative governments in place who are not as likely to abuse the livlyhoods of the "common citizen" as an unbenevolent dictator.
There are efforts underway to help relieve us of foreign oil demand. It's all in the "Plan" the the current administration has - Kerry was partial to this same plan as well, in case you didn't know. This plan involves retaining control of Middle Eastern oil assets for the immediate future (and beyond, as necessary) to both keep their society stable as well as our own, for as long as possible, and allow the gradual oil price increases and gradual decreases in supply to spur on development in other energy sources.
There's no other option right now - unless, of course, you'd like to see the Middle East in total war and the Western worlds in cultural, civil, and economic upheaval that the world has never seen before. (Don't kid yourself - China would never 'ease up' on oil consumption until forced to by a complete lack of supply. And they're fairly bent on actual conquest, as opposed to what we here in the US are doing.)
Current 'alternative energy' sources are not in the least bit viable, as their input/output energy is significantly lower, and in some cases (such as solar) negative. Wind is not even close to the energy output necessary for the US, even if we plastered the MidWest with the damn things - and they only have a lifespan of about 15 years costing millions to produce each. Most places that can support hydroelectric dams already are, or are in the process of being developed to meet current demands.
Research is being done into "electric" vehicles and hydrogen cells, but their energy efficiency isn't near substantial enough to even put into widespread production. Personally, I think the best thing is to gradually get rid of the widespread "suburban" communities we have and localize as much housing to the places of work. We're no longer an "industrial" society for the most, so this is much more practical (and safe) than it was 100 or even 50 years ago. Unfortunately, auto makers are so entrenched in our collective societies that they're likely to not disappear. (At the very least, I think substantial rail systems should be put in on the east and west coasts of the US, but there isn't enough population density to make that economically viable.)
Now, if you simply want to hate on America, fine. But you won't be solving any problems, and you will, more likely than not, be making things more difficult for the people that are actually trying to do some good. If you have a good and practical solution, speak up. We're looking for answers.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The moral of the story seems to be if you want to be effective as a terrorist you need to be wearing an Armani suit, black shoes, brief case, have huge amounts cologne and look at the police when you walk past. Seems to that to blend in you need to stand out. This is why things are so screwed.
If you are a nerd who doesn't give a damn, has no sense of dress and is also working in the electronics field, then you are screwed - just keep out of London.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
They'd still believe it couldn't happen in the US, even if it happened right in front of them. Even if it happened to them, they'd just go to court, perhaps win some compensation, and then still insist it couldn't happen in the US. The only exceptions are those who are convinced that everyone's out to get them, which means they not only lack credibility when it's true, but they'd also fail to identify those things which were important. If you're convinced it either never happens to anyone OR it always happens to everyone, you're simply not going to be capable of observation and critical thinking.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Is the blatant disregard for his person or property. I can understand detaining him, perhaps. But after they have detained him and proven that he is no threat they are then unable to admit their mistake and backpedal. It's the bureacratic limbo and outright audacity that chaps me.
So they think he was a terrorist. Turns out he's not. So return his belongings all ready.
Or at least acknowledge you have a grey area and figure out what he can do as a "good citizen" to gets his belongings back when you make a mistake. Reimburse him. Give him a copy of his data. Something.
Acknowledge that what you are doing is the most dangerous thing. Turning law abiding citizens into criminals by a mere human error. I donot have the adequate skills to evoke how BAD that is.
But because of their own incompetence (which they won't admit) they won't give this guy remedy for what they have done. It's all about fear. The police's fear. Fear they may incorrectly let him go, fear they may give his stuff back when they shouldn't. You know if I went to any other professional that had such a lack of confidence I'd run! But this is what we have to protect us?
If all they run on is fear and incompetence no bomb is required. We're already screwed. All the terrorists have to say is boo and we'll slit our own throats, hopefully metaphorically.
Where's the camera? I'm in some sort of action film? Can someone say cut and let me out of this B movie?!?!?!?
"Don't fear death... fear not living..." -me
Here they are for your reading pleasure:
Thanks for pointing out my blatant idiocy... really should read before I post, my mistake.
White, middle-class people wear clothes from Burtons or Marks & Sparks. Gap is for people who want to seem trendy so badly that they'll wear clothes with a designer label larger than the outfit just so people know what they have. That means it'll be restricted to Yuppies (who have no class) and people who are both idiots -and- of non-European descent (one or the other doesn't count).
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
- I would remind you all that it is not Britain that is uptight, it is the Home Office.
- All these Americans do very well to say that we are overreacting, but at least our PM bothered to make the journey from the G8 to London. President Bush would have sat in that classroom trying to comprehend The Three Little Pigs all morning if it were up to him.
- The reaction of Britain to the attack was admirable. After one day of slight inactivity, London was completely back to normal for 98% ish of everyone living and working there.
You weren't the person behind Become A Republican, were you?And if so he should count himself lucky that he didn't get shot in the head while being held down. I'm sure that he himself will admit and understand that this sort of thing has to happen for the greater good? After all who wants a repeat of the terrible events of whichever terrorist incident you're having as an excuse for stripping civil liberties today. THEY MUST NOT WIN!
And every other person is carrying a fat backpack or suitcase. They all look out of place and/or suspiciously foreign.
Many carry curious electronic gismos and have difficulty with the english language. Some are obviously looking for high security Physics departments.
That's the problem with non-random targetting. It lacks context.
The train enters the station. Uniformed police officers appear on the platform and surround me ... They handcuff me, hands behind my back, and take my rucksack out of my sight.
Lucky bastard. If he had gotten on the train, they would have had to empty a magazine into his head.
(I'm trying to figure out who in the House of Commons was the re-incarnation of King Canute...)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
...means nothing when the bombers are people like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph.
The Chronic *WHAT* les of Narnia!
Morpheus: Welcome to the real world.
of future orwellian fascist governments
i have concrete real ones from the here and now: terrorists
which one of us is more grounded in reality and what to be concerned with?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It was my understanding that American police were immune from personal lawsuits involving actions when they were in uniform and on duty. It's this immunity that's usually been quoted as preventing unlawful death or personal injury lawsuits that are brought through civil law.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
are you trying to change my behavior?
;-P
(snicker)
of course you change human behavior
it's why we talk to each other
if you could never change human behavior, no one would ever talk to anyone else
and so ends today's installment of the painfully obvious
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Terrorism is a weapon, because western civilization holds two important values: 1) every life is important (or at least almost every) and 2) personal liberty is important. In most cases these values are complementaty. They cease to compliment when someone uses one value to attacks the other.
A terrorist has liberty to move throughout society unhindered. This freedom allows him to place a bomb that kills innocent people. His hope is that we will be so offended by the death we will do what he wants.
We have three choices: 1) give up our values and do what he wants (something that the USA and Britan are not prepared to do), 2) restrict liberty and try to prevent the terrorist act or 3)leave our liberties intact, admit that there will be many more terrorist acts and admit the resulting deaths are the high cost of freedom.
Once the terrorist act becomes a "ho hum" event, the terrorist will discover that the terrorist act does not accomplish what he wants and it does not inspire terror among the populace. Only then will terrorism cease to be effective.
It is only when the society reacts by saing "nothing newsworthy here move on" will the terrorist give up the terror weapon.
You can not have security and freedom at the same time. Pick only one and you will loose both.
The person testifying here is an example of a coward. Notice anything familiar...?
How on earth did you get modded up to 5 without actually saying anything?
If succinct styles or literal subtlety elude you, studying poetry can be beneficial.
Why is it that naive, idealistic comments get modded up, but harsh realistic comments get modded down?
Why do people who make naive, idealistic comments think they're stating something worth modding up?
Please, don't consider this a personal criticism, I simply dislike your thoughts on the subject.
= 9J =
> They handcuff me, hands behind my back, and take my
> rucksack out of my sight. They explain that this is
> for my safety, and that they are acting under the
> authority of the Terrorism Act.
Well, this certainly isn't the first time that
English authorities have exercised an iron fist.
People whose only crime was speaking out against
massive and innappropriate immigration in England,
or people who oppose goverment imposed and forced
racial integration have been fined and imprisoned.
Hey, tyranny is tyranny. What goes around comes
around.
What part of my criticism of the Bush Administration, Fox News, and the patriot act gave you the impression that I could possibly be a Republican? How does my tearing-apart of the AC's anti-liberal hysteria make me conservative? Are you quite certain you can read English?
There's no such thing. There are British subjects, and I guess the European Union provides constitutional rights that could arguably create "European citizens"; but until Crown Perogative is removed (along with the Monarch's head, as far as I'm concerned) there is no such thing as a British citizen.
here's an example: you responded to my post, attempting to dissuade me from thinking a certain way
therefore, you are trying to change my behavior
if you couldn't change human behavior, no one would ever talk to anyone else
terrorists bomb for a reason... you can talk to them and find out that reason, and convince them it's not the best way to behave
if you are referring to the teenager psychology of being obstinate and not doing anything anyone ever tells you, well i agree that such people exist
but such people hardly matter in this world
there are, meanwhile, people who are willing to listen to you, and visa versa
these are the only people who will ever matter in this world: honest people, people who are willing to listen and change their behavior, and you are willing to listen to them and change your behavior
the obstinate teenagers who will listen to no one meanwhile, they simply don't matter, they are a dime a dozen, a story as old as time, they are simply static noise in the background, they don't figure in the discussion
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
human behavior figures in car accidents
therefore, that variable can be addressed to stop needless loss of life
just like terrorism
so i'm glad we're in agreement here
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And please also realize that the world (at least the sane people in it) do not hate the American people.
They may, however, hate the US government, which is running rampant and out of control by its people around the world.
No he did NOT - RTFA.
The "previous incidents" were things that other people at the company he worked for had done. Are you guilty because someone in your building that you may never have met did something questionable?
> The British justice system does not have an automatic presumption of innocence
Yes it DOES.
British Common Law is the source of the US's "innocent until proven guilty" approach to legal cases. You may be thinking of Roman-derived Civil Law, which does not have that presumption, and holds in many other parts of Europe.
> It would be fortunate if he hadn't been under suspicion
For what?
From TFA, they considered him suspicious because:
- other people entered the public transit station at the same time. Had he waited until nobody else was about to enter, he'd be "suspicious" for entering when nobody else did.
- he didn't leave his backpack unattended. Had he done so, he'd have been suspicious for leaving an unattended bag.
- he looked at other people. Oh no!!
- he didn't look at officers. Is he supposed to look or not?
He wasn't "suspicious" for anything he was doing, and he wasn't "suspicious" for anything he had done (unless you have information not contained in the article). Considering how bad your information was about British law and and how your version of events bears very little resemblance to the happenings in the article, I can't help but wonder if you even read the damn thing, or just started making stuff up.
Actually if you have the Anarchist's Cookbook they will be relieved. It is a piece of crap, the author actually admits this, and you will have identified yourself as a threat only to yourself.
The ACLU is the reason why 9/11 happened to begin with. If the security at the airport were allowed to act on thier suspicions then none of the hijackers would have boarded the plane.
While random searches are not very convienant, they do make sense. It also makes sense to search only those who look suspicious. If you don't want to be searched then don't take public transportation.
> lightning strike, or a shark attack, then a terrorist incident
>
> all of these things are nameless and faceless and to some extent utterly beyond my control
Shark attacks? Not at all - just don't go swimming in waters known to have shark attacks---they're really quite spatially clustered.
Lightning strikes? Not at all - just don't be out in the open without tall, grounding objects nearby while there's a storm on.
Car accident? Not at all - drive at a safe speed, obey traffic laws, and never drive after drinking.
Cancer? Not at all - eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, don't smoke, exercise three times a week.
Terrorist attacks? You, personally, have very little control over those, and even major governments have proven to be very poor at reducing the risk by clamping down.
> here it is, in case you missed it: i make myself busy with what i can
> control, and i ignore what i cannot control, even if it is way more dangerous
>
> it's a simple bit of wisdom, use it
Yes, you might like to try.
Of all the things you listed, terrorist attacks are probably the one you personally have the least control over. If that's where you're spending your time and energy, you're being rather less rational than you seem to believe.
An extra five minutes is over eight man-hours lost per hundred people present.
So, given that they're all commuting to work, 1% of them could have stayed home that day...
When applied to large groups, 'minor' inconveniences aren't so minor anymore. Let's take air travel as an example: approximately 630 million commercial airline passengers flew over the last 12 months within the United States. Add an average fifteen minutes for additional 'security' measures such as shoe removal searches, pat-downs of hotties, and nail-clipper confiscation, and hey presto, you have nearly 18,000 man-years wasted... and I'd say fifteen minutes per person is very much understating the extent of the problem.
Inefficient and useless security measures do far more harm than good, even when disregarding the morale effects they have on society as a whole.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
They sure as hell terrorize me. I don't care about muslims or whatever coming to bomb me cause that's statistically never likely to happen, but cops coming to put me in jail for being different? Now there's something that might happen.
please describe to me, in concrete terms, how the patriot act is threatens you as much as 9/11 threatens you
more importantly: it can be overturned via democratic means
i don't see the lives lost on 9/11 being resubstantiated anytime soon meanwhile
see my point?
so, like i already said: what a moron who means well does badly (the patriot act) is less of a threat to me what genuinely hateful assholes do (9/11)
you can educate a moron and you can show them the error of their ways, because the point is that THEY ARE ON YOUR SIDE
or are you a paranoid schizophrenic, and believe the us govt is out to get you and steal your rights?
to believe agent smith or a sith lord is behind something like the patriot act, and at the same time, to downplay the genuine threat posed by people who perpetrate something like 9/11, is utterly beyond me
it's not wisdom that says this, it is paranoid schizophrenia and an inability to trust your fellow human being
the us govt is composed, via democracy, of your fellow men and women... why do they seem threatening to you, and not those who perpetrate 9/11? how does that work in your mind?
again, to be perfectly clear: an idiot on your side is less of a threat to you than someone whose intent is to kill you
do you hear me?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Or maybe you could realize that most liberals don't hate America, they just want to make it better. You can't make things better unless you look at what's wrong. It also helps to look at what other countries are doing that is working better. Despite the success the Bush Administration and Fox News have had in turning 'liberal' into some sort of insult, most of them are pretty reasonable people.
Why don't you drop in at the Daily Kos and see what some of the "pretty reasonable people" who "don't hate America" have to say on the issues of the day and then come back here and see if you can bring yourself to write the above paragraph again.
Somehow I don't think you'll be able to.
you'd better get used to it.
I used to be a customs officer in Canada (unfortunately). Management told us never, ever to say to any traveller that 'it was a random search' -- precisely because there is no such thing as random. (If we ever did get to court with that phrase, that would be our last day working for customs...)
Think about it. In order for a law enforcement official to check you out more carefully, you have to be providing some evidence that would lead a reasonable person to think that you might merit further inspection. Being furtive. Fiddling with wires. Acting 'strangely'. The point is, if you aren't doing these things, you are therefore not providing that evidence to law enforcement, and consequently, you are no more likely than the next person to warrant / merit / deserve - a search. This means your search is, for lack of a better term, illegal.
Caveats?
- This is only true for Canada. The US and UK may have different jurisprudence (I suspect not though).
- Individual LE officers can (in practice) and often do ignore these rules. Increased legal hurdles such as these ones (like your rights!) often translate into cases being thrown out in court, not against their being prosecuted in the first place.
Note:
I am not saying I agree with any activity to get around these rules -- in fact, I think these rules should be better enforced. But they often are not.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
Nuke Mecca and kill all MOOslems
i think that i was repsonding to someone who said you can't change human behavior
i'm saying you can
so, thank you for nitpicking my words, but none of your nitpicking matters
can you change human behavior or not?
do you disagree with me or not?
or are you only good at nitpicking and criticizing others?
are you unable to say anything independently yourself?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm not sure what the US/UK terrorrism policy is about. It may be sincere attempts to prevent it, it may be in part attempts to instill fear and through it control the population.
What I do know is that in any case it helps create an awful fear-laden atmosphere that makes everybody jittery, and for sure causes things like this (see below) or others like random killings of law-abiding turban-wearing or olive-skinned people.
Plus, just do the math. How much does it cost to set-up and blow a car-bomb or a suicide bomber? How much does it cost to try and prevent it? Probably at least 100 times more, and the prevention is most likely to fail at some point. Meanwhile, billions of dollars that could be helping people are badly spent, we cant bring nail cutters into airplanes, etc.
Can't we do it some other way? Try peace for a change. How hard is it to just show other people we don't hate them and that they have no reason to hate us? Can we spend a little bit on that as a means to prevent terrorrism?
About Jean Charles, the Brazilian shot dead:
From the BBC:
"22 JULY
Police shoot dead a man dead at Stockwell Tube station in south London. They say he was challenged and refused to obey an order.
Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said the shooting was "directly linked" to the ongoing London bombs inquiry.
Police say it is not yet clear if the man was one of four suspects involved in the failed 21 July attacks.
They say he was under observation because he had emerged from a house that was being watched.
He was followed by surveillance officers to Stockwell station, where his clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions, police say.
(...)
17 AUGUST
Leaked documents contradict previous accounts of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.
Appearing to be from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) inquiry into the shooting and leaked to ITV News, they suggest the Brazilian was restrained before being shot eight times.
ITV images show Mr de Menezes lying dead in a Tube train
They contradict eyewitness reports suggesting Mr Menezes jumped a barrier at Stockwell Tube station and was wearing a padded jacket that could have concealed a bomb.
They suggest he was wearing a denim jacket and walked into the station, picked up a free newspaper and walked through ticket barriers. It is suggested he only started to run when he saw a train arriving and was sitting down when he was shot.
(...)
"
For more see Google News
/* TAANSTAFL */
here's the meat of the matter again, because you obviously missed it:
if something is perpetrated by another human being, i have more control over it than acts of nature
gee, i know, i'm kind of a wacky guy to think that way
here's a nice quote for you, study it:
"give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that can be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish one from the other"
you've probably heard that quote in one form or another before
so are you honestly asserting ot me that acts of nature are more controllable than acts of my fellow human beings?
then you fail the "wisdom" part of the quote above
you can talk to people, you can reason with them
you can't reason with a hurricane or a tsunami
again, i know, i'm a wacky guy to think like this
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As it happens, the first article is criticizing Karl Rove for attending a Republican fundraiser in North Dakota when he's supposed to be 'in charge' of managing the reconstruction efforts on the coast. That seems like a pretty fair criticism.
It's pretty pathetic that you try discredit anyone that isn't in love with your precious Bush administration by calling them unamerican.
Yeah, right.
is not returning property. OK, they were trigger happy after having a lot of people die horribly, it happens. This seems extreme, but then some of those police officers have probably been involved with trying to pull people out of blown up subway cars - I'll cut them some slack.
HOWEVER. Once it is clear the guy is OK, it should be wiped off his record and his belongings returned. I will be very interested to see if he gets his stuff back - taken to an extreme this is basically legal theft. He did nothing wrong, but his stuff is no longer his???? What on EARTH? I sure know I would be mad if I lost a BeBox to some nonsense like this, after I cooled.
Sorry, hit submit rather than preview, the previous post was missing the final comment. Everything is repeated here for convenience.
... However, the en-mass encirclement of a single person (unnecessary use of intimidation/force), and the incarceration (handcuffs!) of a citizen w/o any evidence of a criminal act is preposterous ...
...". Actually handcuffing the person would not be part of normal procedure, a violent history, intoxication, or some overt act would be needed. That said my training is 10+ years out of date.
I was trained (Reserve Peace Officer, California) that "swarming" a person is legally justified via safety, both the person being interviewed and the officer's. Similiarly searching a person to be interviewed is legally justified via safety. In fact I was trained to begin the instructions for the search with the phrase "For your safety and mine
Now I was not trained to deal with suicide bombers but it would seem a natural extention of past policies and law that handcuffing a person being interviewed and/or breifly detained regarding suicide bombing would be appropriate. The safety of the officers conducting the interview being the legal justification. It seems necessary to prevent a bomber from reaching for a detonator switch.
FWIW, handcuffing is not incarceration, it is not even arrest. It is retraint to facilitate safety, a judgement call where reasonableness varies wildly with the situation. It can be used during interviews and brief detensions before deciding to place someone under arrest and taking them to the station. It is merely uncommon to use handcuffs during interviews.
Presumably that "He was not in the least bit scared to be killed in nasty ways" and that he would fetch the Law Lords "A Shrubbery".
Your typical cop is a dude that failed maths in Grade10 and left because his daddy was a cop and was
spanked real bad as a 5yold. Yes, generally cops are good guys helping us out in victim situations, but
sometimes the cops become the 'crims'.
So wheres the logic, "Hey Mr can you open your bag - random search" is that difficult?
If the cop displayed a high inteligence and common sense, he would be working for 3x pay as a detective/agent - not a street
Judge Dread.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
they probably figure anyone working for that newspaper has ties to terrorist organizations.
That's just so narrow minded. Who'd do that? You use the same profile. No-one's expecting the same again. All the narrowminded people are expecting a change of tack!
You can't tell.
Unless you're the next bomber. In which case I apologise, I was wrong, Allah hates your cold blooded murder and will condemn you to eternal separation from him.
>>> guys dressed in suits and carrying briefcases
I thought it was going to be 80 year old grannies with knitting bags.
You could have been fusilladed.
What the? You can barely play an mp3 on a BeBox, let alone use it to plot a bombing or similar. Damn, I'm glad I live in a country where the police are utterly powerless. Copper comes over to you in a train station and tries to talk to you and you demand to talk to his superior and know his badge number, instantly - and they go away. Always.
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Sounds more familiar all the time, doesn't it?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I call BS on that... elitist BS. The reason so many posts lean to the left is that it's the new 7337. People think they are smarter/better because they 'question authority'... like that's some kind of badge of honor. Throwing around statements like "The reason Slashdot posters tend to lean a little to the left is because the average slashdot reader is educated and reasonably intelligent" is so presumptious that it's pathetic.
It looks like you've just recycled some one elses arguments about how much better they are than the script-kiddie because they actually write PERL scripts. Simple cut and paste political terminology and viola "+5 Insightful". And the bigger problem is that someone had to burn mod points to get this up to +5.
Where is the insight? What value did the readership gain from being told that if they are educated, they must be left leaning? Otherwise they're just dirty stupid rednecks.
You want to open your mind? Stop listening to Michael Moore and Noam Chomski and start looking at the natural progression of things around you. Why are things the way they are and more importantly how did they get there? What the hell would you do better? (This is where most people trip up.) Get out of your mom's basement long enough to meet people very different from you. I'm not talking about the 'different people' you meet at your usual coffee shop or comic con, I mean people you don't even begin to understand. The god-fearing, the yuppies, the terminally poor, whatever. Your solution must be viable for them. And no matter what you might think, you're not going to change their minds by telling them about what was written on some blog you found linked at fark. In fact you can count on not changing their minds at all. It's easy to shake your fists on slashdot... it's damn hard to find a solution that works for the largest majority possible.
To use and already overused expression: If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Very few people can know everything or tonnes. How many of average joes spend 10 Hrs a day reading news events , history, laws etc... and philosophy. ????? None, they spend 70% of their time working, 10% eating, 20% having fun (1% sex) leaves no time
to analyze what the real world really is. Very few people can read every single newspapaer magazine and know how every persons perspectives are. ie. trying to be like a robot or god. Sure maybe a crack team of 50 in a command control centre would know better or NORAD with 50000 people. But average joe? no way, lifes too complex, back to watching Simple Life and crack open a beer and then some erotica. To know all would make you crazy - perhaps THATS WHY Politicians ARE CRAZY Mother Frackers - they are getting inteligence briefings and analysis from a team of advisers and military people - they probably are damn shit scared. Yes, - once you know more and more you, every little things makes you more paranoid than ever.
You got to trancend to the next level of conciousness and understand - dont bend over to paranoia, the paranoid only get insane and DIE. You have to switch off your emotional brain and start thinking like a computer/bot. DOnt pander to other psychos/insane poplous, do whats right and whats statistically possible as a threat vs probability.
If you want to know what real paranoia is like vs your pussy little so called imagine paranoia, go take some LSD and then come back and re-rate your daily paranoia , you will be much supprised.
To the average guy, how do you know what SANITY is if you never experienced INSANITY to compare as a reference, its like never being SAD, and always happy and you have no frame of reference.
Experience total insanity/paranoia breakdown - core dump of your mind, then come back to normal to realise - WOW this is what normal is, those little hangups and moments are just pussy/nothing so why bother being ALARMED 24/7.
- Robbie Williams believes aliens will visit in 2012, I hope they do - we need a take over from all these insane politians we have.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The MOFOS israeli mosad agents (btw dont trust icq - mosad has total access to all israeli corporations for their use)
.00001 of the population at once. Unless they have a nuke - but then in that case - only China or Russia is the threat and NO ONE ELSE.
The real instigators/people of threat are laughing their ass off.
If you want the population safe, - WHITE LIST everyone, anyone thats not in the system (matrix) will be
evicted from the country. Period - so unless you can hide in the basement , your toast.
Oh hang on, this is just what hitler did in 1939-1943 (WITH THE HELP OF IBM counting machines AND THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES, which gave out all their historical records of births/mariages so they could find out who was a jew or married to a jew or had a long lost grandma that was a jew that made them 3% jew and still got ROOTED)
So either whitelist all and deport the black list.
Or - just accept that no single terrorist/agent can hurt more than
Those aliens better land quicker or release a virii that kills paranoid people.
-= Agent MOFO from your paranoid schitzo dept of Mafia Govt =-
The standards for border control are different from those for internal checkpoints. Basically, Customs and the border patrol are allowed to search anyone crossing the border at their discretion. So racial profiling probably is involved, but there isn't a lot you can do about it. For decades, Customs has used vague, subjective criteria to decide who gets searched.
Once you're inside the border, the definition of what constitutes an unreasonable search is much more stringent.
We are the 198 proof..
People all around the world are giving up their rights in the name of fighting terrorism. I don't care anymore. It's now been conclusively proven that man is too cowardly to live in a free society, so now we're going back to the other kind.
It's been a long time.
Who is this Pat Riot person I keep hearing about and why is everyone so pissed at him? Is he a terrorist?
Jordan's BMI at the high of his career puts him in the obese range.
again, to be perfectly clear: an idiot on your side is less of a threat to you than someone whose intent is to kill you
there it is again
now do you hear me?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I wish you could get a holographic/chip ID thats says, "Safe Citizen X - threalevel 0.0000"
Yeah its damn national ID card, but at least its safe.
Speaking of ID cards, I noticed a lot damn lot of jobs need official govt approved Ids now. From anything
dealing with children to anything dealing with money or public people. Hmmmm... stealth ids?
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Yes, you heard me right. Deal with it.
Also, don't wear a long, heavy trench-coat.
Also, don't walk around with a water pistol in your pocket, squirting people as a "joke".
Also, integrate into the society where you live, not the society that you'd like to live.
you can't change tsunami, so you avoid it
and you are asking me to respect people's free will, because their behavior is potent with reprisal if you don't
that's why i want to talk to them, see?
so thank you for agreeing with me, in your own convoluted prideful way that won't admit it directly
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This guy is an ex-writer for exe magazine, and he works for a respectable technology company now. Sure, there was a firearms hoax there, but my wife's company have had 3 bomb hoaxes in the last year. Does that mean she's a terrorist ?
/. geek.
Also, note what the police have said caused them to pursue the case... The fact that he had a shortwave received and an RS-232 breakout box.
This guy could have been almost any
We don't really need the London police's side of this story because we know their frame of mind around the time this action was taken. Around this time, they held an innocent man down on a tube train and put at least 5 bullets in his head and chest at point blank range. At the time they made all sorts of outrageous claims, many of which have found to be stretching the truth, and some of which have turned out to be outright lies.
I don't trust my police force any more, so I'm more inclined to believe the 'victim' of this tale.
The single biggest bomber threat in Europe comes from French Muslims, mostly of North African descent - British Muslims are comparatively much better integrated. It is considered politically incorrect to point this out but Muslims of Algerian and Morrocan descent represent a huge social problem in many European countries but in particular France, which used to own Morroco and Algeria and to which many immigrated.
I can't find a photo of David Mery but, by his surname, he probably isn't Muslim. He may, however, like many French, be quite swarthy and it can sometimes be hard to distinguish between this and Arabic or North African looks - the innocent guy who was recently executed on a tube platform by the London police was, in fact, Brazilian.
You can't blame the police for not taking any chances although it is absolutely wrong for them to charge him with creating a public nuisance, we should all be concerned at that viscious little twist. As for stopping, searching and detaining him, however, that is just part of the price we have to pay because some Northern losers couldn't get girlfriends and decided to martyr themselves for Allah instead. All I hope is that things don't get as nuts as I saw them get at American airports in the years following 9/11, with semi-retarded airport officials pulling aside white grandmothers and frightening the bejaysus out of them. Unfortunately, for this particular problem, some intelligent racial profiling is going to be vital, let's get over ourselves and get the job done.
in your mind, which is worse:
a guy falls asleep behind the wheel of a big rig and plows into a school bus, killing 10 kids
another guy studies the school bus route for months, plotting the best time to drive his pick up truck into the school bus. he does so, but he only kills 2 kids.
which guy is worse?
what does the word INTENT mean to you?
So when the cops shot the other guy 7 times for "suspecting" he was a terrorist, which one were they?
the idiot on your side, who can be punished, reeducated, reasoned with, and feels bad about his mistake
Were they on his side, or did they have intent to kill him? The line gets kind of blurry there.
they had an intent to kill a terrorist, to PROTECT you, but they were idiots. there is no blurry line whatsoever: INTENT
do you see? do you understand?
why do you feel more threatened by idiots ON YOUR SIDE than the asshole who desperately wants to kill you on purpose
INTENT
what is the meaning of that magic word to you?
in my hypothetical situation above, did the guy who fell asleep behind the wheel of a big rig, killing 10 kids, is he 5x worse than the guy who killed the 2 kids... but did it on purpose?
it seems in your mind that would be the case, but obviously, you would be wrong
because INTENT doesn't inform your opinion
do you see your problem now?
INTENT
let it inform your opinion
what was the INTENT of the moron cops who shot the brazilian kid on the underground? what was the INTENT of the bombers on 7/7?
i hope you are beginning to see
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
nah. "Balance" would include 1 hour in a room with the cop who decided to arrest him, a katana, a Burdizzo clamp and a pair of handcuffs... At the very least, that officer won't be able to propagate his despicable genes after that hour.
-b.
My Female Breast Inspector shirt will come in handy now.
Yes, it is.
>>> Does that mean she's a terrorist ?
...
... suspicious materials. I'd want them to look into it a little. Perhaps call her workplace.
No.
But there are always going to be some false positives
If she was behaving suspiciously in a tube station wearing a large coat, carrying a rucksack (or other large package), perhaps wearing a yashmak, and displaying - after continued observation - signs of potentially threatening behaviour. I'd hope a policeman might speak to her, perhaps look in her bag and pockets.
If then they found electronic devices and
If her workplace then said she doesn't normally ride the tube, nor wear a yashmak and police HQ confirmed that members of her workplace had been spotted taking photos of tube stations and further that her workplace had been involved in firearms and bomb reports. I'd hope that they might consider further action.
If a judge then concurred that evidence from her laptop warranted a further check of her home then I'd hope that would be carried out. When they then found that she had a radio scanner (can be used to monitor police radio channels) and various unindentifiable electronic devices as well as a map of a large metropolitan airport at her flat. I'd hope that they ask questions.
It sucks to be falsely accused. Yes I've been detained by police (but not to this extent) and used to always get baggage searched at airports (I'm young and have a beard to match my rucksack!).
The police don't want to do this. But they'd rather do this than stand by as people get blown up. There were a lot of "indicators" here.
I don't doubt the "victim"'s report. I just feel his incredulous response is not warranted. But I expect I'd be pissed too.
That's silly. Taking up 5 minutes for 60 people is not the same as taking up 5 hours for 1 person, nor is it the same as delaying 1800 people for a second.
It's like the joke about the IBM man-year: 700 people trying to get a project done before lunch. In simplistic math, 700 people times 4 hours is more than a man-year of effort. In reality, a task that requires one man-year of effort is not going to get done in 4 hours, no matter how many people you throw at it.
Everyone has a certain amount of "buffer-time" in their lives. When you delay a large group of people a small amount of time, that time comes out of their buffer, and in many cases, they don't even notice it. On the other hand, when you take a lot of time from one person, that one person is really going to notice it.
For example, given that I usually walk as well as take the bus, if my bus was delayed 5 minutes, I'd just walk a little faster, and get home at the same time. If there was someone waiting to pick me up at the station, that person could also wait 5 minutes without too much hassle. Sensible people allow for small amounts of time being lost to unexpected events.
I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
How the terrorists won? Set off a few bombs, and we get a police state.
Don't complain too much, you voted them in.
This is where we all should draw the line. Random or target bag searches grows the power of the police without adding any value or safty. It's a simple fact. If the terrorists can't figure out an easy way to get around this (and I can think of some that I won't mention) they will just move on to a different type of target. In the end nothing police can do can make us safe from this.
So don't give your rights up so easy. Allowing the search at all leads to the type of police state behavior described in the article. You cannot have one without the other. It human nature for police to start acting this way when they are given broad authority with no checks.
I don't mean to overly hassle you, but today I was going into the subway and saw a man giving in to a bag search and there happened to be a class of small children, on their way to some event I suppose, who were watching what was happening. These are now children who will grow up to think this is normal and right when it is not. We have a responsibility to all the people in our various free countries who lived and died to give us that freedom. I am not going to let down my grandfather who put his life on the line in France in WW2 just because I am in a rush to get somewhere and letting a police officer search my backpack seems like not such a big deal.
Peace, or Not?
I just sit there and let it ring? My caller doesn't know I'm on the train.
Yay me!
I thought the headline read London Tube Dangerous for Pedophiles? They'll be glad to know it's not.
If you approached the guards and police on the and voluntarily offered your backpack/rucksack for a search one if three things would happen IMHO.
1. They'd search it and then you'd be on your way - problem solved
2. They can't in all likelihood day you were suspicious if they arrested you in the platform if you offered to let them search it and they declined
3. The police get the shits with everyone asking, understand the manpower implications and things settle down.
The ACLU article you provided is really quite excellent, but details my rights in the US. Does anyone have an equivalent UK guide to an individuals rights that includes changes made by the Terriorist Act?
I'm pretty sure I knew what my rights were before the Act. I'd like to know what I have left.
The terrorist no longer need to target the tube, the police have taken over the job of scaring the general populace.
Exactly! I live in Asia, I almost went to a sight-seeing trip to London in early August, but the trip was cancelled due to being sick.
When I chat with friends about it, we all agreed that if I were in London at that time, I would have more to fear from being killed by the London police than from any possible terrorist attacks.
Oliver.
Wow.
The train enters the station. Uniformed police officers appear on the platform and surround me ... They handcuff me, hands behind my back, and take my rucksack out of my sight.
You were lucky. They could shot you 7 times in the head.
I shot the sheriff
It's hard to sort out who's stupider when it comes to potential "terror" attacks, the police or the terrorists. Where did the terrorists get the idea that the only useful target is some kind of mass transit vehicle? Why do they show such infinitesimal imagination when it comes to choosing targets?
OK, let's set up metal detectors, bomb detectors, and ten layers of human security at the entrance to every train station, subway station, bus station, and airport in the US. I'm sure this will only cost about a trillion dollars. For this, we get endless lines of people massing at these choke points, trying to go about their lives while having their time wasted in the name of so-called security. Great, we're all "safe," right?
But what we now have is big, predictable crowds of people massing at these choke points waiting to get on their bus, train, whatever. So the suicide bomber with his rucksack and his cell phone and his giveaway bulky jacket can't get on to the plane and perform the only relevant act of terrorism, to blow us a mass transit vehicle, right?
Why the hell not just blow up the crowd of people waiting to go through security? Duh. Same effect--dead civilians, scared people afraid to go about their daily lives, afraid to get on planes, buses and trains, etc. There's no amount of security that can protect society against terrorism. Get a clue.
I think someone would be a coward if they were so willing to hand over control of their daily life to the "authorities" in the vain hopes that somehow they would be protected from all danger.
follow Christ and your soul will be saved from eternal hellfire
If some form of universal healthcare plan was instituted, we would be opening ourselves up to government interference that would be very close to what one would experience in a totalitarian police state. Only a weak correlation between an activity and its negative impact on one's health would be required to effectively outlaw it. Smoking, promiscous behavior, artificial or even natural tanning, drinking, and eating foods that are more likely to make you obese would all be in danger of being made illegal. Further, the measures that would have to be taken to ensure that one didn't do these things would be Orwellian.
Now, I have no problem if I can opt out of this. If I can say, "Fine, you can deny me your "Free" Universal Healthcare if I can not pay a penny for it in taxes, and while you're at it, prohibit me from ever benefitting from Social Security and any other social safety net, and give me back all the money I paid into that, too", that would be acceptable. But that's not how the US government has ever worked.
You should admit it's increadible they didn't lean from the U.S.'s folly.
Why, oh why, do soldiers hate America so? We have the right to torture anyone we want in a war!
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The ??? always goes before the final profit! line.
The police don't want to do this. But they'd rather do this than stand by as people get blown up. There were a lot of "indicators" here.
Personally, I'd rather live with the extremely minuscule chance of being blown up than have my civil liberties threatened as the article describes.
The sole point of a terrorist organisation is to create terror in a population, despite the fact that they are a threat to few if any members of it. After reading the article, it seems clear that the "War on Terrorism" is over, and that the terrorists have won.
I've yet to see a photo of him. Let's see his picture. If he looks like my 90 year old grandmother I'll be surprised.
If he looks middle eastern then frankly thats one more 'tick', official or not, on the list of suspected traits.
And if they couldn't verify your address... well, dude, you are there legally, right?
(Yes the police went too far as soon as it was discovered there was no bomb or bomb residue, and searching the flat is a permissible action as they want to be certain, but confiscation is not. But that's not the US there now, is it.)
Actually I'm thinking of the U.K. where they put 5 bullets in your head because you don't look anglo-saxon.
(Yes the police went too far as soon as it was discovered there was no bomb or bomb residue, and searching the flat is a permissible action as they want to be certain, but confiscation is not. But that's not the US there now, is it.)
But it does happen in the US. Assets are forfeited. In Volusia Co, Florida (Daytona Beach) Bob Vogel, Sheriff in the late '80's - early '90's, had drivers stopped and searched on I95 just because they fit a "profile" he developed for drugs. And if something like a few thousand dollars were found in the search it would be seized and he would keep it even if you could prove the money was your's legitimately. The only way to get it back would be to sue, which could eat up what was taken from you in legal fees.
FalconShould there be a Law?
No, they (and Spain, Portugual, The Netherlands) just killed a FEW MILLION BROWN AND BLACK people during their couple hundred years of slave trade. Notice how Britain left slavery intact in their colonies even after they banned back home. Out of sight and out of mind, just get that American cotton picked darkie! So the US took ~70 years of Independence from Britain to completely address the well entrenched southern slavery, not bad really when you consider Europeans foisted nearly 300 YEARS of it upon the Americas (including the Carribean Isles where the first slaves were brought in 1502 or thereabouts). Britain didn't ban Atlantic slave trading until 1807, the SAME YEAR as the newly formed United States did. Britain didn't ban all slavery in it's colonies until 1833. Up until then slavery was STILL PERMITTED in the British West Indies.
Just a tip. Don't ever, ever try to bash the US's admittedly slow remedies to that horrid institution by bringing up Britain or any other European power of the time. It's estimated that 500,000 Africans were sent to what became the United States. Compare that to the FOUR MILLION sent to Brazil. Couple that with an additional 2,500,000 sent to various other Spanish Empire colonies and the 2,000,000 sent to the British West Indies or the 1,600,000 sent to the French West Indies. It sure as shit wasn't American slavery that accounts for those numbers matey.
"Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty."
A wise person was Benjamin Franklin, and he lived in a dangerous tyme. Like Thomas Jefferson said, he knew there would be tymes when:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed by the blood of tyrants and patriots".
FalconShould there be a Law?
The real problem, and its to some extent a technical one, is happening later - they seem to have no quick way of clearing him, getting all that manpower turned to something useful, and moving on. So they have him come down with a solicitor, they spend time considering charging him when he's obviously done nothing, they keep useless records on file clogging up their database and obstructing later searches. This is bad for him, and an infringement of his civil liberties, but it is even worse for us, if its happening a lot. It means they are wasting time, but worse, have a database filled with useless junk, so it will actively obstruct searches. Needles in self created haystacks.
The technical problem is actually Bayesian. The occurrence of a phenomenon is extremely rare. So even quite reliable indicators of it only raise the probability of this being one of them to very low levels.
Aside from one recent example of a disfigured young woman all the suicide bombers are Muslim males.
You might want to tell the Black Widows that.
FalconShould there be a Law?
There use to be a time when the majority of Americans felt this way- nowadays? I guess not.
These are the times that try men's souls
FalconThomas Paine
Should there be a Law?
... was travelling all around the world and associated to many jihadists.
We may not know all the details but the bit we know seems to be enough to warrant the harsh sentence (and the judge lamented he could not give a longer one, so the evidence must have been quite damning, not just a bit of paper, which is what the sensationalist press is highlighting).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... tip-toeing into Stalinist like measures and there are people prepared to endorse it.
We have now to justify leading normal lives, as long as we appear supsicious (based on criteria not communicated to us) we are fair game.
I need one of those Soviet Russia jokes now, reading people like this is too depressing.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
They're on the lookout for terrorists, not ninjas.
Blank until
And guess what? That didn't work!
For further reading, check this out:
http://www.urbanarchipelago.com/
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
As usual, the literal truth lies in-between the competing extremes, of which 99.9% of the replies comprise. It is unfortunate, however, that NO issue can be completely devoid of political pundits these days. Hopefully it's just a cycle, as spatially-aware independents/centrists such as myself find it incredibly difficult to have a facts-based discussion in a completely bi-polar environment. A tip for anyone who thinks all conservatives are stupid, and for anyone who thinks all liberals are going to hell: be yourself :) Further, try to exercise the concept of a "gentlemen's disagreement" instead of a vitriolic, attack-based strategy. The adage about flies and vinegar/sugar is SO true.... so true in fact if you attempt to use a more respectful approach, you may actually get the remote party to actually consider your argument instead of immediately becoming defensive upon the appearance of 2-3 keywords in your statement. We'll NEVER be able to make a difference unless we are able to present a united front. That is not possible with vitriolic punditry and hateful rhetoric and name-calling..........
Think about it.............
Abandon your party lines and make a vow to weigh each and every item on it's factual merits, beginning today!!!
Be independent and proud!
I've got a similar story.
one - I am always friendly, although if any cop mis/abuses his power to show "(s)he is the man" I sortof react clearly back they are as equal as I am and police should be there to protect the citizens and maintaining order in "our society". I've had several problems with this behavior where I'd not shut up where I better shut up but I simply cannot take it someone is abusing the powers AGAINST ME granted with MY TAXMONEY!
two - I was waking photos around the groenplaats because I want to make an photobook about the "best things" of Antwerpen and the "worst things". The worst things are the continueing problems of trash on the streets, criminality to people that cannot even think how they need to park; using 2 to 3 spaces; not thinking about the next one that ALSO needs to park.
three - I was stopped by the police why I was making photographs; and that's where the problem came in; where I almost got arrested is when they wanted to SEE what else was on my camera. I've got some personal stuff on my camera which is not illegal but rather really *PERSONAL*. Why would anyone like any policeman on the street be able to get the right to SEE ANYTHING of data/information a citizen is carrying ? I was getting a little bit pissed off because I did not want to show the photo's on my camera and I demanded such official papers; I NEEDED to go with them, give all my stuff and explain why I wouldn't want to show my camera. Isn't that wrong ? In a country where they operate with rules like "not guilty until proven otherwise" ?
Same as with my book, I was asked why I made such statements in my book, because such things are being seen as being a terrorist because I'd not comply with the current society writing this book. I told neatly I am not a terrorist but rather a rebel if you got to name the child; where the clear difference is that a terrorist will force his words with actions/rampage and a rebel will force his words with words; no fights, no terror, WORDS.
The beauty of it all, I still have no official papers that clearly state I should change my book to fit in the current society full of greed, competition and corruption. From the time I get such a paper, a PV (Proces Verbaal); I know free-speech is officially outlawed in Belgium/Europe which would finish my book a lot faster. As the time of today I still do not have this paper. I am a EU citizen and will do everything to protect me and my younglings to arrive in a consuming-only-based-police-state.
Words are being misinterpreted and mis/abused lately. The word terrorism is a word that could be used for anyone that does not comply to the current society and who could be a danger to "overthrow" such society; what if this power gets more abused? I live in Belgium and already had these 2 facts happening. I protect my privacy and my rights by writing about it; does that make me a terrorist or someone with a clear mind wanting to share those thoughts ?
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Inocent until proven guilty my foot. Searching and detaining people just because they look suspicous ??? I better not take the train on a bad hairday then ...
Wtf up with that.
If they hassle u like that, almost wish you DID blow up something ...
"Sir, please step through the metal detector and roll one d20 ..."
Heard an amusing story: two medical interns are working one of those notorious 72-hour shifts together. One is coughing and sneezing, and obviously needs some bed rest. The other intern suggests this, with this response: "Show me non-anecdotal evidence that bed rest is an effective treatment for viral conditions!"
Rigorous science is important, but common sense does have a role to play.
I appreciate your view that I should die for what I have said. Your desire to return our society to the 1400's where people are put to death for their beleifs/statements is very reassuring that you have a firm grasp on the ideals a civilized nation should be striving to uphold. In fact your statement that people who do not agree with you should die reeks of irony as you cry foul that a man was "treated injustly" by his government as it buckled to the popular opinion of the day and snatched away personal freedoms in exchange for the safety of the herd.
Now back to the real world. If you are going to reply and tell me that I am an idiot could you at least offer some structured argument to support your claims? I mean if I should die you should at least tell me why. I'm pretty sure the constitution affords me the right to know the charges being brought against me.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.