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."
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.
from TFA:
"I am carrying a bulky rucksack, and kept my rucksack with me at all times;"
This was deemed suspicious. (Aren't we told not to leave our bags out of our sight elsewhere?)
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
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?"
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.
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?
Oh. OK. So, not being executed is the gold standard of good treatment by police now? What if they beat him senseless in the process? Still OK because they didn't kill him? Broke a couple of bones, still all right? Permanently crippled someone, still A-OK because they're not dead?
The bottom line is a lot of police forces around the planet are turning into bands of thugs, and the reason they're getting away with it is exactly comments from people like "it's not so bad, they didn't kill him like the other bloke"
people commited acts of terrorisms with backpacks
therefore everyone wearing a backpack is a terrorist
nice logic you got there, let me suggest you some more:
drug dealers use cell phonse to sell drugs
therefore everyone with a cell phone is a drug dealer
gang members wear hoodies and bandanas
therefore everyone with hoodies and bandanas are gang members
clearly we must ban all backpacks, cell phones, hoodies and bandanas. only then will we succeed in having a truly free society!
Socialist Republic? Are you smoking crack? It's not a Republic for one thing (the whole thing of having a monarch and no written constitution is a bit of a giveaway).
/. seem to lean a little to the left", I doubt you would actually know whether someone's comments were left or right leaning.
As for socialist? Well, only compared to the US. It's a social democracy, with much less of the "social" side than mainland Europe. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democrat for a good explanation. Yeah there's a welfare state, but it's not comprehensive, there are merely aspects of it present. Mostly European countries are social democracies - they aren't actually massively left wing on a global scale - being centerist really. Ireland and Britain more so than the others. You could say "centre-right" and "centre-left", but really compared to global extremes (US, Japan, China, Cuba), Europe is pretty middle-of-the-road politically.
What does "restrictive gun laws" have to do with the idea of a socialist Republic? It's perhaps an indicator of authoritarianism rather than liberalism (although on this particular topic, I would say "sanity rather than insanity"). But your comments make no logical sense.
So as regards your observation that "posts here in
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
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.
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!
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...
The reason Slashdot posters tend to lean a little to the left is because the average slashdot reader is educated and reasonably intelligent. They tend to seek out news for themselves without automatically accepting the news that the media spoon feeds them which just so happens to echo the corporate/political party line. I am not aiming this at republicans or democrats instead these are general statements. Becoming politically and socially conscious will expand your mind and tend to change your point of view.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
Still, quite chilling. Among other things, they (apparently) searched his flat without getting a warrant from a judge, took DNA samples (among other things), kept the SIM card from his phone (has he gotten that one back?), and will keep records on him in their database, which probably will be shared with other nations' police agencies, too (thanks to Interpol), even though he's innocent.
Considering that all he did was wear a "suspicious" jacket, look at the stairs he was walking down and carry a rucksack, that's quite a lot. What if he had looked like someone from an Arab country and ran to catch a train, too? I wouldn't at all be surprised if some over-eager officer had decided to shoot him dead in that case.
What may be even worse is that nothing's actually gained this way. Sure, there was a terrorist attack on the tube this summer, but honestly, do you think that the terrorists are gonna attack it again now? I don't know, but if *I* was a terrorist, I'd target something else next - an amusement park, a sports arena, a shopping mall, but certainly *not* the tube again; it's obvious that that one's being watched much more closely now.
But that's just the point: a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Guarding the tube doesn't do *anything at all* as far as the overall threat is concerned - it merely makes it more likely that other targets will be selected.
What's more, this story makes it clear that the police are pretty much running around like the proverbial headless chickens - that they're acting completely irrationaly. And *that* is something that makes it all that easier for the real terrorists.
Do you feel safer now? I certainly don't. I feel less safe because of random idiotic police actions like this, and I also feel less safe because I know that those responsible are not looking at the big picture and resorting to ineffective measures - counter-effective ones, even, as stuff like this not only not makes things safer, but actually makes everything *less* safe.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
The ideal we're supporting is a willingness to live with danger in order to live free. That is what our country was based on.
i simply don't understand people who see more menace in western authorities than in terrorist's actions.
You don't understand?
It's because I am about a billion times more likely to be negatively affected by bad or rights-limiting policy than I am to be killed by a terrorist.
I'd rather take a 1:1,000,000,000 chance on not getting hit by a suicide bomber while living a nice life than take a 1:2 chance that I'll suffer at the hands of the government so that they can ensure (and really, they can't even do that) that I won't get hit by a terrorist.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
... and we've only heard one. Bear that in mind before you blame the police, or profiling, or whatever.
-everphilski-
It's tempting, because profiling based upon race, gender, age, religion, and political affiliation are effective measures for combatting crime from specific and known types of person. For example, men are a couple orders of magnitude more likely to commit any violent crime than women are, so at first glance it seems to make sense to focus all your investigative efforts on men; it'll yield the most bang for you enforcement buck, right?
It works, but the price is too high. I have much greater fear of living in a society where it's a crime to be male, or young, or dark-skinned, or muslim, than a society that suffers very rare and mild terrorist attacks. (Killing Americans at 0.001% the rate of common car accidents.)
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.
I think that being a coward would be someone who is scared of being searched, someone who wants terrorists to be able to bomb up whoever they want because they can't be searched.
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.
It doesn't take a lot of courage to bend over in front of any authority figure who claims to be "keeping the children safe".
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I would argue the reason most slashdot posters are slightly left leaning are they are from major urban areas.
I don't agree that education is the sole determining factor. I believe the difference is rural vs urban.
I am a City Councilman in a small town in Idaho (population 5,000). My experiances in this office have colored my opinions about how people approach government. I experianced life in major urban areas only during my 6 years in the military. I am college educated. I am the child of college educated parents. My father was a social worker, my mother was a teacher.
My thesis is that urban populations are raised more dependent on government services. Water, roads, public transportation, schools, recreation, police, fire, social services and so on. When there is a problem, it is usually government related and they expect government to solve the problem. To a smaller extent, rural populations see less government in their daily lives. Local governments have leaner budgets and there is never enough money to go around. So rural people learn to look to themselves and their neighbors for solutions first.
I'm sure its more complicated than that, but that basic viewpoint is very strong. The personal belief that less government is better vs more government is better is very strong. Two people the same education and opposing viewpoints can look at the exact same incident and arrive at diametrically opposite opinions about what was the root cause of the problem and what would be the best solution. And in reality both may be exactly right. What is the proper solution to fix the problem in an urban environment vs what would fix it in a rural environment.
That is why I am an advocate of States rights and local governments. Federal solutions and programs tend to be monolithic and are compromises. They rarely, if ever, meet the needs of everyone. Local solutions tend to be better tailored for their communities. But again, my opinion is colored by my experiances. But I am open minded enough to admit that.
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.