Slashdot Mirror


FBI to Put Criminals Up in Lights

coondoggie writes "The FBI today said it wants to install 150 digital billboards in 20 major U.S. cities in the next few weeks to show fugitive mug shots, missing people and high-priority security messages from the big bureau. The billboards will let the FBI highlight those people it is looking for the most: violent criminals, kidnap victims, missing kids, bank robbers, even terrorists, the FBI said in a release. And the billboards will be able to be updated largely in real-time — right after a crime is committed, a child is taken, or an attack is launched. Chicago, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Miami will be among those cities provided with the new billboards."

315 comments

  1. Free publicity? by five18pm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now how many want to bet that some idiot will commit a crime just to get on the billboard?

    1. Re:Free publicity? by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would, I think, require even more stupidity then normal, considering the number of ways one could achieve a similar level of publicity without the risk of going to jail for a great many years.

      Now, how long before someone hacks a billboard to show the President's face... that should be the question asked.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:Free publicity? by foobsr · · Score: 2, Funny

      require even more stupidity then normal

      You did not yet realize everything is about growth?

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    3. Re:Free publicity? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Now how many want to bet that some idiot will commit a crime just to get on the billboard? How about hacking the billboard ;-)
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    4. Re:Free publicity? by slashbob22 · · Score: 1

      How about hacking the billboard ;-) That's a Billboardin.
      --
      Proof by very large bribes. QED.
    5. Re:Free publicity? by ms1234 · · Score: 1

      And who would hide in a major city with a billboard? Just hide in some other smaller but not small enough city.

    6. Re:Free publicity? by iminplaya · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      100% Flamebait

      hehehehe...but you gotta admit...

      --
      What?
    7. Re:Free publicity? by badran · · Score: 0

      Imagine some gov employ puts someones face by mistake... sue sue sue.

    8. Re:Free publicity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've already seen what has happened in EVE-online. People put multi-billion bounties on themselves so that they appear on the huge billboards at every jumpgate in the galaxy. That's no doubt that is what's going to happen here.

    9. Re:Free publicity? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      And how long until someone hacks the billboards and posts a picture of someone and a text "Wanted child molester".

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    10. Re:Free publicity? by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

      How about hacking the billboard ;-)

      Ehh, we've got hundreds of these here in Vegas already, and I have seen criminals' "Wanted" ads on a few of them. They generally just flash up for 30 seconds or so on pre-existing digital billboards. That being said though, I haven't seen or heard of one being hacked yet... I mean, that's not to say that it -can't- happen, but I think it may be on-par with hacking one of the digital screens outside one of the casinos..

    11. Re:Free publicity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      than

    12. Re:Free publicity? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      How about hacking the billboard ;-)

      Ehh, we've got hundreds of these here in Vegas already, and I have seen criminals' "Wanted" ads on a few of them. They generally just flash up for 30 seconds or so on pre-existing digital billboards. That being said though, I haven't seen or heard of one being hacked yet... Ermm, how do you know? A hacker probably wouldn't write "0wnz0r3d" on it, but instead replace a few adds with that of the guy paying him best. Are you sure you are seeing the add for the casino that payed for the add?
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    13. Re:Free publicity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now how many want to bet that some idiot will commit a crime just to get on the billboard?"

      Like:
      http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/712808,CST-NWS-tvcrash26.article

    14. Re:Free publicity? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Flamebait?! Just do you think you're talking to? Larry Craig? Tom Foley? KC Armstrong??

      You're out of order!!

      --
      What?
    15. Re:Free publicity? by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      The federal tort claims act may allow it, or it may not. IANAL, and I am too lazy to look it up.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    16. Re:Free publicity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be a terrywrist just 'cause I'll steal all the damn LEDs out of it!

    17. Re:Free publicity? by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 0
      I wonder if defacing the billboard is a billboardable crime.

      Because I'd like to see that.

    18. Re:Free publicity? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      That would, I think, require even more stupidity then normal, considering the number of ways one could achieve a similar level of publicity without the risk of going to jail for a great many years.

      So, how long before you think it's going to happen?

    19. Re:Free publicity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now how many want to bet that some idiot will commit a crime just to get on the billboard? They can punish this turrurist by putting his face up in lights.

      Oh, hang on...
  2. please, no new billboards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I really don't mind this idea as long as they use existing billboard space.

    1. Re:please, no new billboards by tristian_was_here · · Score: 1

      So you don't think there will be any Google Ads on the billboards?

  3. Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can we do a daily minute of hate as well?

    1. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's on the billboard.

    2. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember how we scoffed that politicians just don't "get" computers? I think they understand now. We'll soon wish they had remained ignorant.

    3. Re:Cool! by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Running man and 1984 come to mind more frequently than ever.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    4. Re:Cool! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Sure we'll serve freedom fries to the people at that time as well.

      Minute of hate schedule for this week:

      Monday: Muslims - goulash and eggplant to be served
      Tuesday: Christmas Hate suspended Cafeteria closed
      Wednesday: Irish - Pizza and walking tacos to be served
      Thursday: Albanians - American Burgers and Freedom fries to be served
      Friday: Shao-lin Monks - ala Carte with salad bar served today.

      and suggestions for the national minute of hate need to be sent to the Czar of thought.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Cool! by Sigma+7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remember how we scoffed that politicians just don't "get" computers? I think they understand now. We'll soon wish they had remained ignorant. Remaining ignorant means:
      - Jack Thompson can disable a primary use of computers - video games. While technically useless, these were able to make computers as powerful as they were today. Furthermore, they give access to a wider variety of games should they be in a position of not liking this one.
      - People such as Kevin Mitnick get treated much more severely for computer crime than they should be. Granted, there's a lot of work for ensuring that your systems are secure once again, but some damages were inflated and inconsistently reported (i.e. damages ranging in the millions were allegedly reported to the FBI but not shareholders.)
      - Various politicians can do fear mongering, such as claiming a kid interested in computers is going to be a future basement hacker that could launch nuclear missiles. Even if they can't directly act against those children, they could easily turn their peers against them with this propaganda.
      - And finally, you'd have civilians driving loudspeaker vans saying things similar to "It looks like you're writing a letter". This would usually appear before elections (and IIRC, there were a few personal accounts of this still occurring in Japan.)

      Since computers are now more mainstream, people can more easily recognize BS - at least that's the theory anyway. The average person won't easily believe that computers can easily explode (but remain gullible enough to believe pressing ALT-F4 activates an IRC exploit), and computer experts will more easily lock onto incorrect statements that they've seen before.
    6. Re:Cool! by kalirion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is this a gutshot reaction or something? Seriously, I don't see what the problem with this is. They're not planning to put up pictures of recently released criminals. They're not planning to put up pictures of sex offenders in your neighborhood. They're not planning to put up pictures telling you to vote Republican. This is to be used same way as America's Most Wanted and backs of milk cartons. At least for now. If that changes, then start complaining.

      They just have to make sure they display a context label with each photo. Wouldn't want a kidnap victim to be confused for a terrorist.

    7. Re:Cool! by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As I have, er, ahem, met some interesting people here in Springfield (although I haven't met Alderman Simpson), there's something I know about these "wanted" lists most people dont.

      Many of these criminals are low level petty thugs, thieves, and especially dopers. I've mentioned my friend Tami in my slashdot journals, here's a true (AFAIK, I have no reason to doubt her) and I think hilarious story she told me.

      Tami's been in jail before, but she's not what anyone would think of as a "hardened criminal" and in fact comes from a well to do family with political connections that has (sucks to be me) pretty much given up on her.

      One time she'd had some sort of run-in with the law; "failure to appear" for a speeding ticket or pot or some such nonsense and didn't even know she was wanted. She got tickets to some shindig some friend of her father's was throwing and showed up. The affair had to do with these "top twenty wanted in Sangamon County" lists.

      She showed up for the free food and alcohol (Tami's no beanpole and likes to drink) and of course most of the people there were from law enforcement. There was one of the top-20 wanted posters prominently displayed, and she was on it!

      "Boy, I got the hell out of there real quick!" she told me.

      Living in the future is so cool!

      Then this might interest you.

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    8. Re:Cool! by eck011219 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only potential problem I see is that if they can put something up moments after a crime is committed, sooner or later you're going to end up with surveillance video of some poor slob who walked in or out of Wal-Mart right before or after an actual child molester did. Whether this will happen more or less than other forms of false accusation, we won't know until they do it.

      That's really the problem with speed and ease of use -- it's much easier to accidentally put the wrong face on a digital billboard than it is to put the wrong face on the back of a milk carton or on a poster or flier. The latter takes time and has several stages at which errors can be caught. Whether this problem is worth foregoing the advantages of it, I don't know. Probably not.

      Around here (Chicago area) we've had message boards over the highways for years -- they give traffic times, alternate routes, and occasionally are used for Amber Alerts (descriptions of cars or people suspected of child abduction). So the same concept, albeit in a non-graphic form, has been used with great success for some time. They got a kid back from a bad guy just recently using this technique. But I will say that I idly worry that I (big hairy stranger-danger-lookin' guy) in our very common (Honda Accord) car with my daughter in the back will someday experience the harsh hand of the law of averages. I guess I'd still rather have to deal with straightening out that type of confusion once in my life if it means that more actual bad guys get caught.

      Oh, and another problem is aesthetic -- the world will rapidly become a lit-up, post-apocalyptic place full of advertising and scrolling messages from the authorities. But that's kind of a matter of taste -- I think they amount of visual noise we live with is already numbing. Add more and it further reduces the impact of any given piece of it.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    9. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can still do all that, because they only need to adjust the fearmongering a bit if people catch on to them. But now that they understand computers, they can divide and control us more efficiently than ever before, while the (mostly young and naive) people who use computers and networks to open up the world lose the technological advantage.

    10. Re:Cool! by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Much as it might disturb some to acknowledge it, Mitnick was found guilty of outright fraud. That he happened to use computers to steal people's credit card money is somewhat incidental. He was caught and convicted and is in no way a hero figure. Ethical hackers will keep him at arms length, because... well, he was just another swindler.

      And now he's just a has-been trying to cash in on his name. Oh well.

    11. Re:Cool! by trav242 · · Score: 1

      Yep, Orwell got everything right... except the year.

    12. Re:Cool! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      And finally, you'd have civilians driving loudspeaker vans saying things similar to "It looks like you're writing a letter".
      Would you like help?

      Sorry, couldn't resist. But I'm curious if you were trying to draw a Clippy comparison to civilian loudspeaker vans. If so, I'm not sure I'm getting your point.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    13. Re:Cool! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously, I don't see what the problem with this is. They're not planning to put up pictures of recently released criminals.
      Yet.

      They're not planning to put up pictures of sex offenders in your neighborhood.
      Yet.

      They're not planning to put up pictures telling you to vote Republican.
      No, it's more subtle than that. Just as "terror alert" levels were used politically, so will these billboards. Make the people scared, and they'll vote for the party of perceived protection.

      If that changes, then start complaining
      Incremental change is hard to object to. Slippery slope and all that.

      I think the OP makes a humorous, but very valid, point. Our world more and more resembles the dystopias written about several decades ago, and pointing that out might help more people consider whether they really want to support that kind of society.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    14. Re:Cool! by blincoln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're not yet planning to put up pictures of recently released criminals. They're not yet planning to put up pictures of sex offenders in your neighborhood.

      There, fixed that for you. Of course, I am only joking. When did any government ever introduce a fairly useful technology on a limited basis only to dramatically broaden the scope over time until it was used oppressively?

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    15. Re:Cool! by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      There is no problem with this, people just like to make cheesy comparisons to 1984. You are absolutely correct in each of your points - just because something has the potential for harm doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. Just keep an eye on it and make sure it's used properly.

      But please stop being rational. I must insist you immediately bash this by waving your hands about and mumbling vague comparisons to 1984 and/or some other book about a dystopian future. Also, if possible, rouse some rabble by mentioning how racist this is and that "they" will probably use this to embarass political opponents and/or randomly target innocent people for the fun of it.

    16. Re:Cool! by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the use of the word, "criminal" mean the person has been convicted of a crime? FTFA:

      According to a CNN report, in September, Florida authorities arrested a drug suspect two weeks after his photo was displayed on a billboard in Daytona Beach

      Does the fact that the person is a "drug suspect" mean that they are not a criminal as they haven't been tried yet? IANAL, obviously, but I'm curious if I'm not understanding the definition/use of the term.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    17. Re:Cool! by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously, I don't see what the problem with this is.

      The problem is fear mongering. It immediately puts the populace in a state of mind that is submissive to the leadership. People drop into a us vs.them mindset. Criminals (or anyone accused of being a criminal) stop being thought of as real people, they simply become them. Anyone questioning the leadership must be siding with the rapists and murderers. There is already a growing divide between the common people and the government's agents (Homeland security and the police). No one feels safer when a cop is looking at them, regardless of if you have done anything wrong. The police are more and more inclined to treat citizens as "the enemy" The only way that the mass population will put up with these conditions is when they believe that it is necessary because they government is protecting us for a much greater evil.

      This is a game already played with the terrorists, but that's getting really expensive, and the military is stretched too thin. The government needs to bring the boogeyman home.

      --
      We are all just people.
    18. Re:Cool! by illumin8 · · Score: 1
      Your story doesn't add up.

      One time she'd had some sort of run-in with the law; "failure to appear" for a speeding ticket or pot or some such nonsense and didn't even know she was wanted. She got tickets to some shindig some friend of her father's was throwing and showed up. The affair had to do with these "top twenty wanted in Sangamon County" lists.
      Sorry, but you don't get to be on the top 20 most wanted in the county lists for a speeding ticket, or failure to appear. Usually it's only for a robbery or a crime committed with violence involved, aka armed robbery, or some other financial crime like fraud or bank robbery.

      She showed up for the free food and alcohol (Tami's no beanpole and likes to drink) and of course most of the people there were from law enforcement. There was one of the top-20 wanted posters prominently displayed, and she was on it!
      Sounds like she got caught by one of those parties they throw to try and catch criminals on their top 10/20 lists. She's probably not telling you the whole truth if she said she only had a speeding ticket or failure to appear.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    19. Re:Cool! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is to be used same way as America's Most Wanted and backs of milk cartons. Which are already tools of fear-mongering. You've just internalized the fear so much that you don't realize it. Every day for breakfast, parents wake up to a dose of fear from those milk cartons - that kid on the back of the milk carton could be THEIRS if they aren't fearful enough! Every day for breakfast, kids wake up to a dose of fear - that kid on the back of the milk carton could be THEM if they aren't fearful enough!

      What they aren't told is that parental kidnapping is by far the most common form of child abduction. Once you rule out parental kidnapping, voluntary runaways and kids who are kicked out of the home by their own parents, there are less than 300 cases per yer, nationwide.

      Same thing with "America's Most Wanted" - look at all the bad guys out there and all the bad things they have done and might do to YOU and your family if you aren't fearful enough. Treat everyone with suspicion, always be on the look out for these evil-doers. Get them, before they strike again! The life you save may be your own!

      And now big billboards telling everyone to be afraid. No thank you.
      I am not afraid and I don't the kind of country where my neighbors are afraid either.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    20. Re:Cool! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Sounds like she got caught by one of those parties they throw to try and catch criminals on their top 10/20 lists. Right. Because those stings are actual parties with people drinking and all and they always put the poster of wanted fugitives right out there for the fugitives to see themselves on before they nab them. Your theory doesn't add up either.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    21. Re:Cool! by phoebusQ · · Score: 1

      If you seriously believe that this is being done because "The government needs to bring the boogeyman home", you are giving the government way too much credit. As someone who's job it is to actually go after some of these folks, I can see the obvious utility of such a plan, and it's a massive violation of simplicity principles to suggest that that use isn't the primary (or even only) reason to go this route.

    22. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The effect does not need to be intentional to be a problem. Even if you think that the government has good intentions (which is becoming harder and harder to believe,) surrounding ordinary people with pictures of mass murderers and rapists wherever they go will cause unease and irrational fear. People already overestimate the danger of falling victim to violent crime or terrorism. Timid people don't support a free society.

    23. Re:Cool! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      This was Sangamon County, not the entire US. The feds won't have traffic violations, but they WILL have marijuana farmers.

      And this wasn't one of those "sting" parties at all, her family was politically connected. Everyone invited was in politics, law enforcement, or connected to someone in law enforcement or politics. Had this been one of those stings she would never have gotten out of there.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    24. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is to be used same way as America's Most Wanted and backs of milk cartons.

      I've never seen a wanted poster on a milk carton -- was that a 1950's thing? And the nice thing about TV shows like AMW is that they're just TV shows, and since I don't watch TV, I don't have to be infected with the aura of hating/suspecting my neighbors.

      Is this a gutshot reaction or something? Seriously, I don't see what the problem with this is. They're not planning to put up pictures of recently released criminals. They're not planning to put up pictures of sex offenders in your neighborhood.

      Yes, they're putting up pictures of people who aren't even technically criminals yet. Is that supposed to be better? (OK, so every other government policy ever introduced has been abused at some point, but *this* one won't be!)

      They're not planning to put up pictures telling you to vote Republican.

      True. And yet, they are putting up a message that perfectly complements the Neo-con platform: "Fear these people, who may be walking among you" / "If you vote republican, we'll make you safer from these terrorists". (Never mind that there's never been a terrorist attack within 1000 miles of me, AFAICT.)

      Can you imagine the government putting up billboards that complement the democratic platform ("minimum wage can't feed a family") or libertarian platform ("the federal government is getting awfully powerful")?
    25. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I guess I'd still rather have to deal with straightening out that type of confusion once in my life if it means that more actual bad guys get caught."

      Jesus christ... seriously? I have kids, not one, not two, not three, but FOUR, and not in a million years would I want to give up a founding tenant of being of a human being (or American if you so desire in this context) for something that provides me, or my family, overall, little security.

      This topic has been gone over several times before. The perceived comfort of security is NEVER, EVER, EVER a good reason for this.

      Your ignorance really shines through there near the end.

    26. Re:Cool! by jmdc · · Score: 1

      Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice.

      This is a bad policy - no question - but I don't think it is the conscious goal of almost anyone in government to make people afraid, and therefore submissive. It seems to me that President Bush, for instance, genuinely believes what he says about "the terrorists". The fact that he knows things with his guts and then makes his brain go along makes for terrible policy, but I'm not quite ready to put on my tin foil hat and buy into this conspiracy.

    27. Re:Cool! by L0rdJedi · · Score: 1

      How do you get a speeding ticket or a ticket for possession and NOT know that you either need to pay the fine or APPEAR in court to dispute the charges or pain the fine? It usually states pretty plainly on the ticket what you must do and in most places you can even go to the court and they'll tell you. Most places even send you a form to either pay the fine, appear in court, or do something else to get it off your record.

      But I guess it's all just "nonsense" if it ends up landing your ass on a wanted poster.

    28. Re:Cool! by Reziac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can see the utility, yes -- but I think the parent poster was talking about the side effect of making average, law-abiding citizens feel like Big Brother Is Watching. Which isn't where a free country is supposed to be. :(

      Second, with the current "turn in anyone who looks suspicious" craze, and the relative lack of accountability and just plain common sense we've been seeing lately, I think you'll have a lot of problems with false leads and accusations that bear little relationship to reality.

      Third, if one of the sought-after sees it (which is likely, if a perp is in the target market area), he's just been informed in the most public way possible that it's time to change his appearance!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    29. Re:Cool! by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      A mild case of dyslexia. It was already happening in 1948.

      --
      What?
    30. Re:Cool! by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Nice speech, but be honest with yourself. Once this is implemented, how are you going to keep it in check and if it is abused how will you stop the abuse?

      The answer? You won't. Governments and their agents never cede power they've already taken. Once a government program gets out of control it's already too late.

    31. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - And finally, you'd have civilians driving loudspeaker vans saying things similar to "It looks like you're writing a letter". This would usually appear before elections (and IIRC, there were a few personal accounts of this still occurring in Japan.)

      I don't get it.
    32. Re:Cool! by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      How do we keep track of anything the government does? We don't. If they were asking for warrantless wiretap power, or something else behind the scenes them I'm all with you. This, however, is fairly blatant and easy enough to monitor. It's what the media's supposed to do. If it's abused, we should hear about it.

      Your argument could be used about absolutely any government power, I'd say this is a fairly benign one overall. They already have the power to chase people who have warrants, this is just an extension of that. Worry about real shit those scumbags (Dubya et al.) are trying to do.

    33. Re:Cool! by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      I'll still love him for the worm and live in blissful ignorance while turning a blind eye thankyouverymuch.

    34. Re:Cool! by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Quite simply the problem with it, it is political marketing hammering home the message of fear. This person could be pursuing you, you or a family member could end up missing, be afraid security alert eg. vote repuglican or die.

      Secondly, it is one law enforcement agency telling people to ignore another law enforcements agency rules ie. don't watch the road and where you are going read this stupid sign instead, if you don't people might die. The reality is of course reading the sign and not paying attention to traffic means people will have accidents.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    35. Re:Cool! by eck011219 · · Score: 1

      Simmer down, please. Oh, and fuck you for calling me ignorant while hiding behind the AC. If you want to pick a shitfight, use your real name.

      But our respective tantrums aside, here's the thing -- these mistakes happen. I appreciate your belief in the tenants of personal freedom and liberty. Honestly, I do. But I appreciate them in a vacuum. The U.S. Constitution (and other protective documents around the world) put forth the best-case scenario for personal rights and freedoms. However, on a practical level, police are going to make mistakes. Citizens are going to make mistakes. In fact, without any external prompting from a roadside sign, billboard, or anything else, I have a friend who was detained in a mall for hours because he took his daughter to a mall without a diaper bag (they live two blocks away) and was reported by concerned citizen to the mall cops.

      It probably seems like I'm making your point, and perhaps in some senses I am. But do you have a problem with the pictures on milk cartons? With news coverage of abductions with surveillance footage? With reports of suspicious behavior of people by concerned neighbors? With reports by your neighbors of someone poking around your car in your driveway at night?

      Every one of those things is prone to human error. But many times they prevent crime, and many times they are simple examples of a community working together to care for itself. The only difference here is that the officials might be making the mistake, not the citizens.

      I know there's a difference (despite my well-documented ignorance) between my chowderhead neighbor making a mistake about a potential crime and my local police making the mistake. However, expecting complete and comprehensive protection from the police while holding them to an impossibly narrow standard of decorum is wrong. I'm not suggesting that they should be allowed to beat people up. I'm not suggesting we allow them to abuse their power in general. I am, however, suggesting that situations often are complicated enough that the police need to momentarily pin everyone involved down and THEN figure out the details.

      They need to do this quickly and efficiently and politely and with the Constitutional rights of ALL involved parties in mind. But if I need to sit tight for an hour while they figure it out, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me if I fit some description they're actively looking for. That's not profiling or hassling, it's diligence. If at the end of that they hassle me or somehow otherwise curtail my rights, that's another story. But sometimes things don't end as cleanly as Scooby Doo.

      My neighborhood currently has a lot of drug dealing and home entry right now, and the cops are doing their best to stop it. Some cops are good, some are bad. And unfortunately the descriptions of the guys doing the bad stuff will get more than few random guys around the neighborhood more scrutiny than they'd like. And that sucks for them. It would suck for me, too, if I fit that description. But the reason my neighborhood is in the pickle it's in right now is in part BECAUSE of the restrictions the police operate under. What is obviously drug dealing is not punishable unless the officers actually see drugs and money change hands. Is this a good place to draw that line? I don't know -- there are a lot of very visible bad guys around here, and they know exactly what they can and can't do in the public eye. And therein lies the difference between profiling and detention for criminal behavior. I don't want young black men in white t-shirts to be systematically rounded up, so I suppose it's where the line has to be drawn.

      But if some guy who meets my description is reported to have committed a crime in my immediate area, I don't know how ELSE I would expect the police to respond but to detain me for a short period while they figure out who I am. Does that make me ignorant? I don't think so. It indicates my awareness of the gray area that exists between the pure Constitutional rights you seem to live under and the right to protection we all pay for and wish to enjoy.

      And I'll thank you not to call me names, whoever the hell you are.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    36. Re:Cool! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you don't get to be on the top 20 most wanted in the county lists for a speeding ticket, or failure to appear. Usually it's only for a robbery or a crime committed with violence involved, aka armed robbery, or some other financial crime like fraud or bank robbery.

      Why not? If it's a relatively quiet community, they may get down to the speeders and jaywalkers when compiling a list of the 20 most wanted criminals at large.

    37. Re:Cool! by msromike · · Score: 1

      Not much of an imagination? or just a trusting soul?

    38. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "military is stretched too thin"

      Yah we have a solution to that problem and they are called robots.

      Towel heads who blow themselves up will be stretched thin.

      As usual nobody provides a reasonable solution with their disagreement with the billboards and FBI's criminals, as with any article around here people are so fear mongered up from the liberals screaming 'police state'.

    39. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People aren't denying that he was a criminal, but the way he was treated was ridiculous and not proportional to his actions. Not allowing him phone access because he might start world war 3? Claiming ridiculous sums of damage because he downloaded the source code to VMS?

    40. Re:Cool! by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      I'm a complete fool, but I'll be sober again around January. Please forgive my indiscretion.

    41. Re:Cool! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call it "nonsense", I'd call it "gross stupidity". The nonsense is that someone would wind up on a wanted poster for a speeding ticket. They should reserve the posters for violent criminals, it's not that there is any lack of them.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    42. Re:Cool! by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      Much as it might disturb some to acknowledge it, Mitnick was found guilty of outright fraud. Correct, although he wasn't allowed to use a notebook computer that had no network capability in order to view some of the evidence against him. Whether or not an individual committed a crime, this can easily cause problems with defendants that are falsely accused. This is relativly comparable to withholding a harddrive containing evidence.

      I know Kevin was a bad example, but it was the best I could come up with.
  4. Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Digital billboards? By the FBI?

    Living in the future is so cool!

  5. A NEW LIFE AWAITS YOU IN THE OFF-WORLD COLONIES! by wolfpaws · · Score: 5, Funny

    The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

  6. Its bound to work by Instine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because fame is such a big deterrent. Especially in the States

    --
    Because you can - or because you should?
    1. Re:Its bound to work by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Because fame is such a big deterrent. Especially in the States Because jail is such a big deterrent. Especially in the States.

      I don't think attention whores are going to turn criminal just to get their face on a billboard. As for those that are criminals and attention whores, they were going to act out anyways.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Its bound to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps no attention whores will turn criminal just to get on the billboards. but then again, I don't think they would if the "deterrent" of jail suddenly wasn't such a deterrent either.

      As for those who, as you say, are both criminal and attention whores, maybe they would have acted out anyway, but if they could act out in a bigger way, and get put up on billboards across the twenty biggest cities in the states, maybe they will just go that much further to get the attention they crave.

    3. Re:Its bound to work by sponga · · Score: 1

      Example:
      You should watch the show 'The First 48' about detectives working murder cases.

      Usually the first 24 hours is spent searching for suspect or if they have identified him they will keep the info quiet and give out fliers to police officers to find the criminal.

      If all resources are exausted usually by the 2nd day they will reach out to the media and put the criminals face(fame) out there.

  7. What If ...? by Aaron_Pike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I saw a spot about this on some news TV program. Every single alleged criminal they showed on a billboard was either black or Hispanic. Now I'm not saying this isn't a good idea, and I'm not saying that it's a deliberate white-supremacist plot. But what are the consequences if this sampling is representative of the wanted postings in general? What happens when people see minorities on wanted postings over and over?

    1. Re:What If ...? by Elemenope · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What happens when people see minorities on wanted postings over and over?

      I imagine the consequences will be about the same as those for minorities being oversampled as criminal suspects on the nightly TV news...people will unreasonably fear black and Hispanic males, and racial stereotypes will be carried forward in the national subconscious. COPS made the young black man the national face of crime; it needs no "white supremacist plot" to reinforce in the minds of people that different is bad and scary.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    2. Re:What If ...? by DavidShor · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "COPS made the young black man the national face of crime; it needs no "white supremacist plot" to reinforce in the minds of people that different is bad and scary."

      I don't dispute that COPS was heavily distorted, but is there any evidence that the show really had any effect on racial perception? As a result of structural historical and economic reasons, black people make up the overwhelming majority of criminals in certain urban areas.

      I would imagine the perception was already there because of this.

    3. Re:What If ...? by GottMitUns · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      When they show WHITE crime victims in mass media stupid liberals complain that it's racist because they are white and not enough blacks shown. Now when it's majority black we hear complaints of racism. Mind you, racism is alive and well in America. As a matter of fact America will cease to be the USA if(if ever) there is no racism.

    4. Re:What If ...? by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It might help if young black men stopped committing crime at 10x the national average. I'm just saying. (Don't worry, most of it is black on black, which is also why blacks are so much more likely to get murdered themselves. Unless that's "oversampling" too?)

      I am somewhat curious as to what part of the country you live in to believe that minorities are "oversampled as criminal suspects on the nightly TV news." I take it that you've never come across the results of the FBI victim surveys?

      Good god, but some people really let the rose tint fog up their glasses.

    5. Re:What If ...? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      But what are the consequences if this sampling is representative of the wanted postings in general? What happens when people see minorities on wanted postings over and over?

      Don't worry, it'll never happen. It's New York. If there were, say, 100 criminals who were eligible for the billboard treatment, and 97 of them were Black or Hispanic, the politically correct NYPD billboard-masters would put the mugs of the 3 white guys up in lights.

      If the billboards were being run by the same cops whose fists are wrapped around the billy clubs day-to-day, different story. But the NYPD Propaganda Ministry? Heh.

    6. Re:What If ...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They start to wake up to reality?

    7. Re:What If ...? by maillemaker · · Score: 1

      >It might help if young black men stopped committing crime at 10x the national average.
      >I'm just saying. (Don't worry, most of it is black on black, which is also why blacks are so
      >much more likely to get murdered themselves. Unless that's "oversampling" too?)

      The million-dollar-question is, "Why do young black men commit crimes at 10x the national average?"

      The answer is obvious, and backed up by your observation that most of the crime is black on black.

      I'll give you a hint: It doesn't have anything to do with skin color.

      --
      A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    8. Re:What If ...? by NixonTurf · · Score: 1

      No disagreement from me about the damage from COPS and such, but the young black man has been the national face of crime and disorder for far longer than that. The racism that underpins that view is at the bedrock of the post-Reconstruction US soul. For one piece of evidence amongst millions, consider that the first drug-control laws were passed because it was believed, and stated in the congressional record, that cocaine caused black men to rape white women.

    9. Re:What If ...? by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      I saw a spot about this on some news TV program. Every single alleged criminal they showed on a billboard was either black or Hispanic. ... What happens when people see minorities on wanted postings over and over?

      Who cares, maybe they will stop committing the crimes they are charged with or guilty of? Minority or otherwise. I think this is a bunch of horse-shit and I am glad I don't live there. As long as it is not federal dollars I guess I don't care. Back to point: If these people are committing a disproportionate number of the crimes why should we care? It seems obvious that we shouldn't, and that this should be a moot point in the discussion of whether this billboard system is a legitimate need.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    10. Re:What If ...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't recall him saying it had anything to do with skin color. In fact... nope - he didn't. It's amusing he got modded a troll for stating stone cold facts. The reason is of course due to slavery and the forced generational poverty that caused, but the point still absolutely stands. Most people are just too cowardly to admit it out loud for fear of sounding like a racist (self clicks "Post Anonymously" to reinforce that opinion).

    11. Re:What If ...? by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      It's a feedback system. We learn to fear Black people more and as a result are less likely to trust them as another person. They learn that crime is how everyone else survives. They commit crimes based on this idea. We see them on COPS and learn to fear black people as a result.

      --
      SRSLY.
    12. Re:What If ...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      COPS made the young black man the national face of crime;

      While it is nice to believe this might be the case, the statistics on US prison population indicate the young black man has done a fine job all by himself. The reasons for this are open to debate - but that's still a sobering fact.

    13. Re: What if ...? by dl_zero · · Score: 1

      What happens when people see minorities on wanted postings over and over?
      I suppose they would begin to realize who commits the majority of crimes.
    14. Re:What If ...? by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      This topic has been debated quite a bit recently in my region... and in my belief, it isn't the skin color that matters. Young white urban males suffer the same problems as the young black urban males. You just hear more about the blacks and hispanics because they tend to outnumber the whites in the ghetto.

      It is about slavery. Modern slavery. The Great Society and its welfare programs eliminated the need for fathers to take care of their family and, thus, they abdicated that responsibility. Why stick around to raise your kids when they're being taken care of by the state and you can move on to the next piece of meat to make more babies there? Mothers often have children by different fathers and they tend to have a lot of kids (I have two aunts who live in the ghetto and have produced 7 and 6 kids each, with 5 different fathers between them).

      It's overwhelming to care for one or two kids by yourself, much less a half dozen. Each kid gets less attention than even your typical suburban kid who has two parents working 60 hours a week. Without help, discipline suffers in the family and without discipline, there isn't an emphasis on education. Further reinforcing the anti-education element is the fact that they know, and are probably resigned to, the fact that they will follow the same road that their parents did. The girls will end up as welfare moms and the boys will be off doing what they want to who they want. Because everything has been provided to them during their formative years, they learn that money is supposed to come easy and there's no reason to work hard. Why put in 40 hours a week working for the man for $30k a year when you can make that in a month selling drugs down on the corner?

      Now, that's not to say that all urban families suffer the same plight. There are good families and good parents who are left in the unfortunate circumstance of being surrounded by negative influences. A smart kid from a good family gets bullied for being a sellout and wanting an education... Some persevere and manage to succeed while others end up a victim of their peers' influence. Eventually, their family becomes corrupted and they become part of the decay. Many good families (my parents included after I was born) fled the ghettos for a better life. Good for those who left, but it further swamped those good families who stayed.

      In the end, it has nothing to do with skin color, but rather the systematic destruction of the family and enslavement to the government handout. The noble intentions meant to help them destroyed them, but nobody wants to talk about that. The answer is always more spending, more government and likely more racism (such as recent essays in the local paper stating that only black teachers can empathize with city youths). Bill Cosby has the answer but has become a pariah to the black community. The answer is actually pretty simple. Restore the family. Teach your kid discipline and responsiblity. Instill the value of education and hard work. Pressure your neighbors to do the same instead of letting them pressure your kids to fail too. Have a little pride in yourself and for what you've worked to achieve.

      Alas, it's easier to blame whitey, slavery (which ended 140+ years ago), cops, etc. Anyone but themselves. Fact is, just about everyone in the US is descended from someone who faced racism and bigots by society (asians, italians, irish, etc). It's intellectually lazy to continue to blame traditional slavery when their white neighbors suffer from the same fate and while all of those other groups that have been targetted in the past have gone on to either excel or meet average.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    15. Re:What If ...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine the consequences will be about the same as those for minorities being oversampled as criminal suspects on the nightly TV news...people will unreasonably fear black and Hispanic males,

      Funny you say that. Even Jesse Jackson once said in an interview that there was a time he was walking down the street alone after dark in Chicago and saw two young men walking up behind him. He admitted feeling relieved and safer because they were white.

    16. Re:What If ...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure about this? The COPS I remember seemed to be about 95% white trash.

    17. Re:What If ...? by DM9290 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "As a result of structural historical and economic reasons, black people make up the overwhelming majority of criminals in certain urban areas."

      if you define "certain urban areas" with enough specificity, then you can demonstrate that any kind of person you want makes up the overwhelming majority of criminals.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    18. Re:What If ...? by phorm · · Score: 1

      I'd say that, IMHO, in many places the case is that people of various visible minorities make up the majority of those who can't afford the lawyers to fight criminal charges...

      Perhaps a certain area of town is more prone to crime by a particular race, but that's also often because they're the majority in that section of town...

    19. Re:What If ...? by phoebusQ · · Score: 1

      Minorities being oversampled on TV news?
      You do realize that in many urban areas, minority males make up the majority of criminals, right? This isn't because of their skin color, but because of other historical and cultural factors that have resulted in this disparity. Just because something is distasteful doesn't mean you can just wish it away. I do agree, though, that it's unfortunate that the present state of affairs leads to racial tension and unwarranted suspicion.

    20. Re:What If ...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the demographics yourself.

      http://inquirer.philly.com/graphics/homicide_map_2007/

    21. Re:What If ...? by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

      It's not like this was limited to one region of the globe. If it were culture, you'd see pockets of high-performing blacks all over the world. You don't.

      Absolutely right on the skin color thing though. The genes that code for skin color are extremely unlikely to have anything to do with the brain genes that do cause most of the observed intelligence differences between populations. Check out Lahn's papers on ASPM and Microcephalin variants in Science. Also the recent Harpending PNAS paper on accelerated human evolution.

      Good god, but you'd have to really be a moron to think that the genes that code for skin color are the same genes that code for the other differences between the races. You might not believe this, but some people are even ignorant enough about genetics to talk about race and skin color being the same thing. It makes you feel sorry for their biology teachers in high school, who had to try (and fail) to teach those idiots. The basics of population mechanics and gene flow aren't even as hard as calculus.

    22. Re:What If ...? by DavidShor · · Score: 1
      "if you define "certain urban areas" with enough specificity, then you can demonstrate that any kind of person you want makes up the overwhelming majority of criminals."

      Could you tell me which neighborhoods you would draw such that Jews make up the overwhelming majority of violent criminals? I say that without sarcasm, I was thinking about it, and it would be interesting to see your logic. Ok, New York, DC, Atlanta, LA, and nearly every other city with a large population of poor black people. In nearly every urban area, poor people tend to be responsible for most violent crime. In most Urban areas with significant African American populations, they tend to be poor. This is a result of centuries of discrimination, bad education, and the network effects of poverty, but it is there.

      The solution is to pour more money toward schools, maybe implement school choice programs, increase the earned income tax credit, etc.

    23. Re:What If ...? by DavidShor · · Score: 1
      "They commit crimes based on this idea."

      That is a rather naive way of looking at crime, race and trust have very little to do with it. Criminals tend to be poorer than the general population, simply because their time is worth less, and so a large amount of time in prison is not as large a deterrent as it would be for richer individuals(Notice, it is still a large deterrent, but a smaller one.) Black people on average, have much lower incomes then white people, and so, they commit more crime. Living conditions in the inner cities are squalid, so there is not much we can do to prevent crime from the deterrence point of view. On the other hand, attacking the causes of black people's lower incomes would do a lot more to help the problem.

      But I want to reiterate, once you adjust for income, Black people commit about as much crime as a white person of the same income level, so race and perception have little to do with it.

  8. Slander by dotancohen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is slander of the highest degree. These are people _accused_ of crimes, not guilty criminals. The damage to one's reputation will be near-irrepairable. I cannot believe that they are seriously considering this system.

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    1. Re:Slander by alen · · Score: 5, Informative

      no, these are people who are wanted for a crime so they can face trial who refuse to turn themselves in and be tried in front of a jury. same thing as the wanted posters in the post office

    2. Re:Slander by OgreChow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see your point, but we've never had any principled outcry against wanted posters in the post office. And "America's Most Wanted" has been on TV for years.

      They could do some terrible damage by showing both the suspect and his offense on these billboards. How long do you think an accused kiddie rapist would last under those conditions?

    3. Re:Slander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same principle as a wanted poster, do you consider those slander as well?

    4. Re:Slander by dotancohen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Key word: accused. In 2004, I had a rifle pointed at me and complained to the police. Result: The offender claimed that _I_ threatened _him_ with my weapon. I was accused for a crime I did not commit. After a year-long trial, I was aquitted. In January 2007, I was attacked in my own car. I beat the living shit out of the attacker and he thus claimed that _I_ attacked him. I had no physical damage worth reporting, so now _I_ face charges. There is a big difference between being accused of a crime, and actually committing one.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    5. Re:Slander by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      no, these are people who are wanted for a crime so they can face trial who refuse to turn themselves in and be tried in front of a jury. same thing as the wanted posters in the post office Just wait for the first amber alert put out with the description of a generic black/hispanic male because (as an example) some white woman killed her kid(s) but enjoys the attention from claiming they were kidnapped instead.

      The fallout from that should be a riot.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:Slander by heinousjay · · Score: 0, Troll

      So you had no physical damage done to you, but you beat the living shit out of somebody? Congrats, the charges are perfectly valid. Self-defense doesn't include the right to teach people corporal lessons.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    7. Re:Slander by HungSoLow · · Score: 1

      I agree. This system is fine for escaped criminals and missing persons, but to extend its use for suspected criminals is a little bit overboard.

    8. Re:Slander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lessons learned then - next time, kill the guy(s). No one to make up false allegations.

    9. Re:Slander by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      You know, if someone jumps me, I'm not about to let them do "enough damage" to me so I don't get charged with a crime. If I get jumped by some thug who wants my wallet or whatever, I'm going to attempt to take him down in the quickest and most efficient way possible.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    10. Re:Slander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Key word: accused. In 2004, I had a rifle pointed at me and complained to the police. Result: The offender claimed that _I_ threatened _him_ with my weapon. I was accused for a crime I did not commit. After a year-long trial, I was aquitted. In January 2007, I was attacked in my own car. I beat the living shit out of the attacker and he thus claimed that _I_ attacked him. I had no physical damage worth reporting, so now _I_ face charges. There is a big difference between being accused of a crime, and actually committing one."

      Uhhhh, maybe you should hang out with a different crowd...

    11. Re:Slander by carps · · Score: 1

      Not to pick nits, but you were originally making a point about being incorrectly accused of committing a crime. Right or wrong, the level of force you applied to your attacker may have been criminal, if there is a law against it.

      I have to say, I'm glad I'm not in your place being placed in threatening situations on a regular basis. Much more pleasant to consider these situations in the abstract.

      --
      Well I'm making *two* Low Budget HDV Filipino Horror Movies in NYC.
    12. Re:Slander by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Actually, to pick nits, I wasn't the same poster that you are referring to.

      And I'd rather be alive and face charges that I can defend myself in a court of law rather then be dead or severely injured because I didn't defend myself because I was afraid of being charged.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    13. Re:Slander by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      So if a guy walks up to you, grabs you by the collar, pulls out a knife and says "gimme your money, bitch-boy" you're *not* gonna beat the shit out of him? Damn dude, you might just be a bitch.

    14. Re:Slander by jargon82 · · Score: 1

      and these are just the cases where he was actually accused of a crime!

    15. Re:Slander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should stop beating people up

    16. Re:Slander by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1
      I don't know what the US terminology is but here in the UK you are allowed to use "reasonable force." That's exactly how it should be in my book - that's why Tony Martin was locked up for shooting intruders - because it's unreasonable to just kill someone who's robbing you - unless you took reasonable force, and he ended up dead by accident.

      The chap said he "beat the shit" out of this guy. That sounds manifestly unreasonable to me.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    17. Re:Slander by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      He opened the driver door to my car, punched me in the face, and climbed on top of me. What would you have done? I pinned his hands to his side and punched his eye until he got off of me. I really don't give a shit that he had 20 stitches and two plastic surgeries. I hope it's the last time he attacks another driver. Oh, I should probably mention that he did this because, he says, I scratched his car while passing in traffic.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    18. Re:Slander by my_left_nut · · Score: 1

      Or, kind of like when the South Park news channel reported that some 'Puerto Rican Guy' kidnapped poor Butters Stotch. But it was actually his mom who did it, instead.

      Yeah, just like that.

    19. Re:Slander by carps · · Score: 1

      Oops sorry. Honestly, I completely agree, and I would do the same. My thought was just that it is still a crime and not a false accusation, which seemed to be the earlier poster's claim.

      --
      Well I'm making *two* Low Budget HDV Filipino Horror Movies in NYC.
    20. Re:Slander by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I did consider that, but there was no need as he was quickly subdued. I should mention that I am a soldier, and we always try to arrest terrorists alive rather than kill them. So naturally, the same policy was applied to a civilian attacking me. And no, I was not in uniform and he had no way of knowing who he was attacking (what he was getting himself into) when he opened my car door.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    21. Re:Slander by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Just like a fictional depiction in a cartoon.

      Although I don't think you meant it that way.

    22. Re:Slander by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Probably you're not. If he's proficient with the knife you're going to either bleed or give him your money.

      But it's fun to have all those Rambo fantasies as you hunker over a keyboard, isn't it?

    23. Re:Slander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's why Tony Martin was locked up for shooting intruders - because it's unreasonable to just kill someone who's robbing you
      Just fuck off, you bleeding-hearted pikey-loving faggot. I hope they rape your granny.
    24. Re:Slander by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight. Rather than embarass a potential child murdered/rapist, the police should limit their publicity of the presemed perp (who would be "on the run" if this were done) just in case it's a 1/1000 instance where some evil white woman is perpetrating a fraud? I say we go a step further and just lock up all the evil white women pre-emptively.

    25. Re:Slander by jherrick · · Score: 0

      Whatever, Orenthal.

      j/k. Good luck.

    26. Re:Slander by russotto · · Score: 1

      This is slander of the highest degree. These are people _accused_ of crimes, not guilty criminals. The damage to one's reputation will be near-irrepairable. I cannot believe that they are seriously considering this system.


      While the system has its bad points, the damage won't be irreparable at all. Very few are going to remember someone else's face on a wanted poster or billboard in 6 months, even fewer will be confident enough of that memory to match it with the real person in front of them after that time.

    27. Re:Slander by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      You do sound like the kind of hair-trigger fightin' jerk who would get involved in this kind of altercation. I would say 'it takes all types' but actually it just takes one of several types of person for that sort of incident to happen.

      Violence escalates because of the combination of people involved in an incident. An illustration of this is a 'victimless' Bus-card crime story I can tell.

      Multiple decades back some of us were using 'counterfeit' all-you-can-ride bus cards (early days of the color photocopier in the early 80's. I got 'caught' with one on a bus. It happens that a specific bus driver on a specific route was a police agent they had planted there specifically to catch the counterfeit card users.

      I freaked out and pretty much went passive. I told a story about how I had bought the card from a guy in a bar that I knew was shady (a bar I didn't frequent) and the driver just kicked me off the bus.

      A few days later one of my friends who is a rather belligerent confrontational type got caught by the very same bus driver. He's the kind of guy who 'fights back' at incidents, an Alpha type. He ended up arrested and spent a full weekend in jail. In addition, because he fought instead of just being meek, they found additional bus cards in his wallet that he was selling.

      The struttin' dick people seem to always be the ones who get into incidents that escalate to extreme violence. I wonder why that is?

      I'm glad to know that I probably will never encounter you anywhere in real life.

    28. Re:Slander by swillden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if a guy walks up to you, grabs you by the collar, pulls out a knife and says "gimme your money, bitch-boy" you're *not* gonna beat the shit out of him?

      If he's got a knife and I'm unarmed, I'm going to hand him my wallet. It doesn't even matter if I'm pretty sure I can take him, knife and all, because there's nothing in my wallet that is remotely worth risking my life for. Heck, I might hand him my wallet even if I am armed, just because I'd rather give him my money than risk living having to live with the memory of shooting someone. Actually, if he's close enough to grab my collar, it doesn't matter what sort of weapon I'm carrying, he can stab me before I can get it out.

      Let's assume, though, that you decide you can take the guy even though he's got a knife, and you do. Should you beat him? No, you should not. You have the right to defend yourself, and that means applying enough force to stop him and remove the danger. It doesn't mean you have a right to take out your anger on him after he's down. Ideally, what you should do is subdue him, then call 911 and keep him there until the cops arrive so they can arrest him for aggravated robbery. That's a first-degree felony in most (probably all) states.

      I suspect that the OP's error was not calling the police himself. He said he didn't have an injury "worth reporting", but that doesn't matter. Any time you're involved in a violent altercation, or even anything that could be interpreted that way, the first thing you should do is whip out the cellphone and call the police. Get your report in first. That won't completely immunize you from false accusation, but it will help. A lot.

      Of course, the *very* best thing to do is to avoid such situations entirely.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    29. Re:Slander by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      As long as you only know that he/she is just a potential child murderer/rapist, of course he/she should be preserved. Are you seriously saying otherwise?! Remember that you are a potential child murderer...

    30. Re:Slander by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      What is this, solipsism 101? There's a difference between "wanted, based on concrete evidence, of child murder" and "gee, anyone has some dark part of them capable of terrible things". What kind of retarded logic would have us not arrest/pursue someone suspected of a crime based on their presumption of innocence? You have a right to due process, due process presumes you report for trial. If you don't, then of course you must be tracked down. If that's "embarassing", tough shit.

    31. Re:Slander by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      What has solipsism got to do with anything? Anyhow...

      Remember we are talking about a country which has been at war for years now after invading a country based on ``concrete evidence'', which was bought by essentially the whole country (and pretty much no one else outside of that country's border)

      It is of course reasonable to pursue people based on evidence, but posting the picture of someone for everyone to see because ``he is a child molester'' in order to aprehend him, only maybe to find later that he wasn't, does not strike you as an excessive? You must be one of those ``who have nothing to fear because you have done nothin wrong ever''.

    32. Re:Slander by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      I'm absolutely not one to use the "if you didn't do nuttin' wrong, what is you 'fraid of!" argument. In fact, I laugh at people who use that argument. My point is the need to apprehend a dangerous criminal outwieghs the small possibility that they're innocent. The simple fact is that 99% of the people they put on these things would be absolutely guilty. The fact that mistakes "could" be made is implicit. Humans make mistakes. OK. We know this. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to apprehend criminals.

      Don't you think the people who are wanted right now, without the bulletin boards, are already "embarassed"? Their family knows, their work knows, lots of people know. And again, the people on these photos are evading justice. They don't put their pictures up to embarass them while they're already in jail. Whether you're guilty or not, you have a social contract to follow due process and report to court. If you evade capture, society can apprehend you by whatever means necessary.

    33. Re:Slander by courseofhumanevents · · Score: 1

      Because being needlessly aggressive when charged by something of which you know you're guilty by a police officer is the same thing as fighting back when you are assaulted by a criminal in your own vehicle.

    34. Re:Slander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try...
      Meanwhile, back in the REAL world, blacks and mestizo scum are FAR more likely to be brutal, violent criminals than whites are.

      Don't agree?
      Why would that be?

      Never hear of Emily Haddock?

      Asshole.

    35. Re:Slander by znerk · · Score: 1

      Screw you. Not to make a complete and heinous ass of myself, and screw it, even if I do... If someone comes into my home, yanks open the door of my car, or lays a hand on me in the street, I will cheerfully use whatever means are immediately available to do the absolute most damage possible in the absolute shortest amount of time.

      My life, my family, and my property are more importance to me than the rights you gave up when you intruded on me and mine.
      I will, by God, defend them with any and all means necessary/available.

      Yes, this means that I believe someone gives up their right to life, their right to be unharmed, and their right to live a life free of maiming... just as soon as they threaten me and mine. I firmly believe that shooting someone who has a (knife|gun|bat|pipe|etc) is a just and fair response to them threatening me or mine. I firmly believe that shooting someone who doesn't have a (knife|gun|bat|pipe|etc) is a just and fair response to them threatening me or mine.

      Keep this in mind when you're breaking into my house at 3 in the morning, you get me?
      Fuck your "rights", you're in my (house|car|personal space), uninvited.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    36. Re:Slander by TheBracket · · Score: 1

      That's true to an extent. A belligerent attitude will quickly escalate an otherwise-avoidable incident into a fight; but there are times in which one party starts off violent and isn't likely to be talked down. In my old criminal defense days, I worked a few cases (mostly involving drugs such as PCP, violent drunks, or muggers who lacked the 'decency' to offer a peaceful 'hand over your wallet' before starting with the violence). It even happened to me once; walking home, a drunk fellow yelled some abuse (something about goths), demanded my wallet and swung at me in about the same breath. I wasn't even in a particularly bad neighbourhood, overly gothed-out, or doing more than walking quietly. I was lucky in that the miscreant in question was drunk enough to miss me completely - and I was able to push him back and run away (combat REALLY isn't my forte), but it was completely random. (Side note: I'm not at all sure that having a weapon would have helped me; it would have taken longer to arm myself than it did to step back, think "oh dear", and make a fast exit)

      For 90% of cases, not escalating a situation is the way to go. For the remaining 10%, sadly the other party is already hell-bent on escalation - and there's not a lot that will talk them out of it.

      --
      Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
    37. Re:Slander by phoebusQ · · Score: 1

      The straw men are flying today!

    38. Re:Slander by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      If someone comes into my home, yanks open the door of my car, or lays a hand on me in the street, I will cheerfully use whatever means are immediately available to do the absolute most damage possible in the absolute shortest amount of time.

      Your choice, but it's a good way to land yourself in jail. If you live in a "Castle Doctrine" state, and the guy is in your home, you'll probably be okay, legally. Some states consider your car to be an extension of your home, some don't. You'd better know the local laws. Even with "Castle Doctrine" law, you had better be careful with how much you do after the threat is ended.

      On the street, however, the rules are very different. I'm pretty sure that in every state in the US, if you're not in your home, you have a duty to retreat if the harm you think the bad guy is going to do can be avoided that way. If it can't, then you're free to respond with violence. How much violence depends on the threat. If he's unarmed and doesn't have a large physical advantage over you, and you shoot him, then you're going to jail.

      I firmly believe that shooting someone who has a (knife|gun|bat|pipe|etc) is a just and fair response to them threatening me or mine.

      I agree, and so does the law pretty much everywhere. The law in my state (which is what I'm most familiar with, obviously) says that if I have a reasonable belief that someone is about to inflict serious bodily injury or death upon me or anyone else I am fully within my rights to use deadly force to stop it.

      However, once the threat is neutralized, I cannot continue beating, shooting, whatever. Self defense is about stopping the threat, not exacting retribution. If you cross that line, you're going to be in trouble, and rightly so.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    39. Re:Slander by Grygus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You don't get slapped on a Wanted poster right after a crime is committed. The potential for mistake on these billboards would be much higher, and the exposure and therefore damage if a mistake is made would be much greater. When's the last time you saw a billboard? When's the last time you saw a Top Wanted list? Using this for people who have already been convicted would be great, e.g., prison escapees. Using this to rope up suspects is a perversion of justice. You get on this billboard, you have already been declared guilty in the public mind. You just said as much yourself.

    40. Re:Slander by RM6f9 · · Score: 1

      Yea, verily, witness on!

      --
      Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
    41. Re:Slander by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      Oh no, not the public mind! That's the worst thing ever! My god. 6 people see some slimebag murder a bank teller. FBI tries to find suspect at home, at work, etc... Not found. So FBI posts picture on big billboard - "have you seen this person". Your response is that this poor fellow has been declared guilty in the public mind? Who cares. I think you have some utopian view of these poor innocent people being posted up on America's most wanted. I'm sure Suzy HomeMaker or George BreadWinner will accidentally be put up in lights and accused of child molestation.

      If a suspect doesn't want to be up in lights, the suspect can show up for trial. It seems so simple, I'm not really sure what the issue is. I'm having a hard time articulating a response because I don't grasp your point.

    42. Re:Slander by znerk · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that in every state in the US, if you're not in your home, you have a duty to retreat if the harm you think the bad guy is going to do can be avoided that way.

      Yeah, be a sheep. Turn in your gun, let big brother pretend to protect you. This kind of legislation is the whole reason that my way of thinking is scary to so many people. I don't care if I'm in my home, or in the mall. If someone threatens me with potential death, I'm going to give him some actual death. No threatening, no waving it around, a simple shot or three in the center of body mass and I have no more issues with Mister Aggressive. Retreat? Screw that, this guy was threatening my well-being. I got bullied enough in school, I'm not going to put up with it as an adult. Not while I still have the ability to do something about it.

      The law in my state (which is what I'm most familiar with, obviously) says that if I have a reasonable belief that someone is about to inflict serious bodily injury or death upon me or anyone else I am fully within my rights to use deadly force to stop it.

      However, once the threat is neutralized, I cannot continue beating, shooting, whatever.

      This makes absolute sense. Luckily, there's no need to continue shooting someone once they're dead (zombie movies being the only exception to this rule I can think of).

      Once the "threat" is "neutralized", I get to wait for the cops, and will probably spend the next 4-16 hours down at the station, if not actually in jail with cuffs. It is possible that I will spend the rest of my life in prison for having the nerve to defend myself or someone else with deadly force. I'm willing to live with that. Are you willing to live with the idea that someone could go to jail for defending themself or another? "Exceeding the necessary amount of force" be damned, he was going to hurt someone and take their possessions!

      On the other hand, the puke who wanted my wallet and ended up with half his face on the wall next to him, and his intestines all over the ground behind him... he'll not be showing a knife to anyone ever again, will he? I'll cheerfully do the paperwork (or the time, if need be) for my part in improving society, even just that little bit. Someone has to do it.

      Self defense is about stopping the threat, not exacting retribution.

      Seems to me that shooting my assailant dead is a fairly effective method of doing both those items, without having to worry that his shit-eating lawyers will sue me for just hurting him a little when I took his knife away from him. He got stopped from trying to hurt someone, and as for rehabilitation... well, he won't be doing it again, eh? Seems to me that I can remove one of the more antisocial elements in our society, simply by refusing to be a victim.

      This isn't some sort of vigilante crap - I don't walk around looking for an excuse to shoot someone, as I have seen some people do. But if I were to be in that kind of situation, I wouldn't hesitate to use the maximum amount of available force to protect myself and others.

      Yes, this means I would put a shotgun against the back of someone's head and blow his forehead onto the cigarette counter at the convenience store, if he were threatening the clerk and asking for the money in the till. Again - if you think this makes me a bad person, consider that I am merely protecting myself from the lawyers. It's better to kill someone dead on the spot, and then argue about whether it was necessary, than it is to end up paying the guy who tried to mug you because you broke his nose when you took his bat away and hit him with it "in the heat of the moment". I don't believe that crime should pay, and the latter of those scenarios reeks of it. Anyone who feels otherwise needs to be on the receiving end of that bat before they make their minds up too solid.

      Some dude tries to take my stuff with force, I kill him. The threat stops when his breathing does. Yeah I gotta wait for the cops to sho

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    43. Re:Slander by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Several years ago, my father was a near perfect match for a composite sketch in the local paper. He was innocent, but that didn't prevent a fair amount of awkwardness as he went about his daily business.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    44. Re:Slander by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Sounds like your only mistake was in perhaps not being the FIRST to file a criminal complaint. :/

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    45. Re:Slander by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Well, life's a bitch. Unfortunate stuff like this happens. How many poor bastards out there look like Hitler?

    46. Re:Slander by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      It could have been worse for my dad. A few edgy looks, one visit from police officers, and a couple weeks of family members joking about turning him in for the reward money. But mistakes do happen. I'm more worried about these billboards tainting the juror pool. If you drive past a giant sketch of some suspected bank robber every day on your way to work, if you get summoned for jury duty, you'll have a pre-existing notion that the guy is guilty.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    47. Re:Slander by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      Take that whole idea and reverse it. It's not about being a Rambo style super kung-fu Billy Badass type. Here are the simple facts of the matter:

      * Most people who are dumb enough to pull a knife actually don't really know how to use it. Provided you are in a situation where you see the knife first and the guy hasn't actually stuck you with it yet, he's at a disadvantage.

      * Even when dealing with someone who has some experience with knives, disarming a knife-wielding assailant is relatively simple, and becomes automatic with practice.

      * With little additional effort, said individual can be made extremely uncomfortable without inflicting permanent damage on his person.

      These are things you can learn from being in the military, asking a cop you're on a friendly basis with, or many self defense courses. I encourage you to educate yourself; I've unfortunately had to deal with a creep with a knife who also happened to be hopped up.

    48. Re:Slander by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      Reference this post that I wrote in reply to someone else. In a free society, the burden is on you to learn how to properly defend yourself. Let's say you play the pacifist approach and hand over you wallet. Who's to say the guy isn't going to cut you anyhow? How many convenience store clerks get shot after they hand over the contents of the register? In a close quarters confrontation with an opponent wielding a weapon, you had better be prepared to act first. It takes practice, but probably not as much as you'd think.

      While I agree with calling the police as soon as possible, I have absolutely no problem with inflicting severe pain on an assailant. It's pretty easy to make the guy wish to hell he hadn't tried anything in the first place, in ways that he won't soon forget, without leaving any permanent (or even identifiable) marks on his person.

    49. Re:Slander by swillden · · Score: 1

      Yeah, be a sheep. Turn in your gun, let big brother pretend to protect you. This kind of legislation is the whole reason that my way of thinking is scary to so many people.

      I have no intention of turning in my gun. Choosing to back off rather if you have the option isn't "being a sheep", it's being prudent. You aren't interested in defending yourself, your goal is to find an opportunity to hurt someone legally, and that's wrong and it is and should be criminal.

      This makes absolute sense. Luckily, there's no need to continue shooting someone once they're dead (zombie movies being the only exception to this rule I can think of).

      And how often do people die from being shot once or twice? For real, I mean. We're talking about the real world, not the movies. Odds are he'll be down and cease being a threat long before he's dead. Assuming you shot center mass (the only reasonable choice), there's a good chance he'll die later, but that's a separate issue. If you keep pumping rounds into the perp after he's disarmed and bleeding on the ground, you're likely to go up the river, and rightly so.

      It is possible that I will spend the rest of my life in prison for having the nerve to defend myself or someone else with deadly force. I'm willing to live with that. Are you willing to live with the idea that someone could go to jail for defending themself or another? "Exceeding the necessary amount of force" be damned, he was going to hurt someone and take their possessions!

      I'm willing to take the risk of going to jail to protect someone from harm. I'm absolutely not willing to take that risk, or even to risk having to live with having killed someone just for someone's possessions. Mine or anyone else's. Things are just things.

      I don't walk around looking for an excuse to shoot someone, as I have seen some people do.

      Are you sure about that? Because it sounds to me like that's *exactly* what you do.

      Yes, this means I would put a shotgun against the back of someone's head and blow his forehead onto the cigarette counter at the convenience store, if he were threatening the clerk and asking for the money in the till. Again - if you think this makes me a bad person, consider that I am merely protecting myself from the lawyers.

      Sounds to me like you're asking for a wrongful death suit, if not criminal prosecution. You're not protecting yourself from lawyers, you're enabling them. Better hope they never dig up these foaming-at-the-mouth slashdot posts.

      Some dude tries to take my stuff with force, I kill him. The threat stops when his breathing does.

      You'd *really* better hope you never end up in this situation, because you'll be completely screwed.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    50. Re:Slander by swillden · · Score: 1

      Let's say you play the pacifist approach and hand over you wallet. Who's to say the guy isn't going to cut you anyhow?

      Sure, you have to consider and be prepared for that option. However, unless you're both prepared *and* lucky, your odds of getting cut are much higher if you fight back. If the guy's got me by the collar, odds are I won't even be able to pull my gun fast enough to stop him from stabbing me. Handing him the wallet might get him to go away and even if it doesn't it should create enough of a distraction for me to get to my gun. The *primary* goal of any rational, non-vigilante person is to get away safely. Punishment is for the justice system to take care of.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    51. Re:Slander by PaddyM · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what Batman's parents did?

    52. Re:Slander by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      Here's the point: if a guy's got you by the collar with a knife in the other hand, demanding your wallet, you need to be prepared to react instantly. While it's agreed that you wouldn't have time or room to pull your gun, one of the easiest things you could do is simply drop to the side. I don't mean bend over, I mean let your entire body instantly become dead weight while tucking one leg under and extending the other. Once you're falling, it's a simple matter of sweeping his ankles or striking his knee as you roll laterally. You then have the option of just running away, as your chances of getting chased by the dude when he's disoriented for a few seconds are minimal.

      Personally, if the guy were in a compromised position, I'd still do some damage before putting some distance between us. That's just me, though, and such behavior isn't recommended as the safest course of action.

    53. Re:Slander by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, pretty sure there's reasonable force laws here too. But here's the thing, as I've already said.

      I would rather be alive and in one piece to face charges and defend myself in court then be dead or seriously injured because I was worried about whether I was curb-stomping the poor misunderstood criminal.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    54. Re:Slander by swillden · · Score: 1

      That seems like a reasonably effective response, depending on where the knife is. I still think you'd be better off handing over the wallet and acting while he's reaching for it, though. As for "doing damage" before running, if you're unarmed and you have the chance I'd agree that giving him a kick to keep him from getting up too quickly is a good idea, and from a legal perspective it seems like a perfectly reasonable response. After all, just running might well not be enough to prevent you from being killed -- he might be faster. Hanging around to beat him to a bloody pulp, however, would cross the line and get you in trouble.

      If you're carrying a firearm, you have a couple more options, including putting some distance between you and then drawing. Unless he's crazy, that'll cool him off in a hurry.

      The best approach, of course, is to avoid places where something like this might become an issue. Being prepared for trouble is wise, looking for it is not.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    55. Re:Slander by Grygus · · Score: 1

      You probably won't see this now, but the point was that if they use the billboard right after a crime, the suspect hasn't had a chance to show up to trial, and now when he does the whole jury already saw him plastered as a criminal all over the city.

      My only problem with the system was the idea of using it "right after a crime", when emotions are highest and (most often) there is evidence yet to be found/examined. It's a situation ripe for getting it wrong. If it is only used in surefire 100% cases like you posit, then that's great. I don't think people are that logical. I think people get scared and excited and want to do something, anything, whether it is the right thing becomes a secondary concern. In a case like that, the billboard is likely to be misused.

    56. Re:Slander by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're under threat of injury then "reasonable force" must obviously extend to means suitable for disabling your attacker. Those are likely to cause injury. And if your attacker is threatening death, then well, we'd rather have him dead than you, being a presumably law-abiding citizen, dead. The general idea of the law, though, is that you kick him until he's down, but then stop. (Or more likely, step on his bollocks if no-one's watching...)

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    57. Re:Slander by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I was. THAT was my mistake.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    58. Re:Slander by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      > You do sound like the kind of hair-trigger fightin' jerk who would get involved in this kind of > altercation. I would say 'it takes all types' but actually it just takes one of several types of > person for that sort of incident to happen. How do I sound that way? I'm really not. I'd like to know what signs I'm leaving. > Violence escalates because of the combination of people involved in an incident. An illustration > of this is a 'victimless' Bus-card crime story I can tell. Your friend was the one who initiated the violence, so it seems. I never initiated violence. However, I fight fire with fire. Note that I also fight flowers with flowers, and would have gladly settled the you-scratched-my-car incident another way. > The struttin' dick people seem to always be the ones who get into incidents that escalate > to extreme violence. I wonder why that is? I don't wonder. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. I don't live by the sword. > I'm glad to know that I probably will never encounter you anywhere in real life. So long as you are not violent, or a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about. Not from me, at least.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    59. Re:Slander by Reziac · · Score: 1

      You were? How'd that wind up being a mistake?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    60. Re:Slander by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      It's really the same thing. They'd only use it right after a crime if the suspect fled the authorities. So note to people accused of a crime: Don't flee. If you do so, you may expose yourself to the public in many forums (these billboards, the nightly news, posters, etc...). The power to avoid being plastered up in lights rests solely in the accused's hands.

    61. Re:Slander by znerk · · Score: 1

      You're right, i was frothing at the mouth, and being incoherently stupid. In my defense, I have been sick with a nasty respiratory infection, and I hereby blame the NyQuil/DayQuil cycle I was living on as the culprit.

      I stand by my statement that I would shoot to kill if there were an intruder in my home. The rest of it was inflamatory garbage, and I hope it's obvious.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    62. Re:Slander by swillden · · Score: 1

      The sort of person who can recognize and is willing to admit his errors is the sort that makes our society safer when armed. You have my respect.

      However, might I suggest that you not pack while under the influence of Nyquil? ;-)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  9. The Running Man by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

    Is it me or is the future starting to look more and more like the Running Man?

    I guess the next thing we need is to make criminals get punished on TV game shows like The Price is Right, Jeopardy or Wheel of Fortune. Or maybe force them to be watch those programs, that is probably worse...

    1. Re:The Running Man by cthulu_mt · · Score: 0

      I don't know, seeing some maggot that rapes old women torn apart on TV might actually send a message.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    2. Re:The Running Man by Methuselah2 · · Score: 1

      That's precisely what I thought. Then I thought, geez, these things will encourage copycat crimes, by people who want to become famous and don't care about anything else. Then I thought, maybe terrorists would try to top one another to make the billboards. Then I thought, "Why should politicians be the only ones who get nationwide publicity by talking about terrorism?"

    3. Re:The Running Man by Amphetam1ne · · Score: 1

      Coming up next: Climbing for Dollars!

      --
      I only buy pepper spray that's been tested on anti-vivisectionists.
    4. Re:The Running Man by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I wish. You know, when Survivor first came out, that was what I thought of: a bunch of hardened convicts armed with machetes, stranded on an island, fighting to the last man. Imagine my disappointment when it turned out to be a bunch of pussies whining about broken nails and frayed hair, and voting eachother off the island. A psychopath with an axe could have really livened up that show...

  10. No Boston? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm glad they're not setting them up in Boston, otherwise idiots might yet-again confuse LED's for bombs.

    1. Re:No Boston? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They'd put the names of the screen oprators on the screens. Holy runaway recursion!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:No Boston? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a reasonable assumption...otherwise, why would they have pictures of criminals and terrorists on them?

    3. Re:No Boston? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      There was a Mysterious device attached to freeway supports. It really doesn't matter whether there were blinking LEDs or not. Only an Idiot would think a freeway support would be a good place to put a guerrilla marketing piece of art that consists of a black box with exposed electronics and neither ask permission, nor tell anyone until after the hysteria begins.

      Especially in a town whose freeway is pervasive and barely held together as it is. You're talking about a town where people drowned in scalding hot molasses due to negligence, I think they have a right to be a bit protective about their freeway supports.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  11. Website Advertisements by Mishra100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe they should spend some money on advertisement space on the internet. That way the notices could be on just about every web page that is ad supported. They could get more efficient advertisement due to the web being more detailed that billboards.

    I think I could spot my brother in a website ad if he were posted on it.

    Another good thing about this is that the wanted photos would be displayed when any store employee is surfing the internet. They would see the photo and maybe spot someone in the store at that time. Those people aren't going to remember the picture of the billboard they drove by on the way to work.

    1. Re:Website Advertisements by losethisurl · · Score: 1

      Nope, no ad blocking going on here...

      --
      Seriously, is it supposed to look like that?
    2. Re:Website Advertisements by merreborn · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should spend some money on advertisement space on the internet

      Sure, but what good is knowing what the rapist looks like, if you're not leaving your mother's basement?

      Let's not ignore the pointlessness of broadcasting said rapist's likeness around the entirety of the globe, when he's most likely still in the same city in which he perpetrated the act.

      Physical billboards have two distinct advantages over internet advertisements: 1) They're limited to distinct geographical areas and 2) They're seen by people who are out and about -- those who are most likely to actually see other people during the course of the day.

      The days I'm most likely to see an internet advertisement are the days that I don't see anyone other than my wife and my co-workers.
    3. Re:Website Advertisements by Mishra100 · · Score: 1

      Internet advertisements can be displayed by location. I've seen a few advertisements that say "Welcome to Louisville" which is where I live. Here is an explanation.

      http://www.iabuk.net/en/1/internetadvertisingtargeting.html

      And for your second point, I gave an example of a store employee seeing that advertisement as he is on his business computer then going out into the store. Many people are on the internet and around massive amounts of people. Just look at major events like the derby or car racing. The infield is full of people who have laptops and are surfing the web. I think you are picturing most kids in their parents basement as the people who are on the internet which is only a percentage of actual users.

  12. How do I know? by tsotha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This kinds of schemes always remind me of the old Ahnold movie The Running Man. I understand there are lots of bad people out there... but, thing is, it takes a certain amount of trust for me to believe the guy on the billboard really is a murderer/child molester. Somebody I don't know is trying to enlist me in the search for someone else I don't know. It makes me a little uncomfortable.

    1. Re:How do I know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't be serious. How would you feel if someone close to you was murdered, a suspect was identified and was on the run and some idiot like you saw the guy, recognized them, but decided not to report it for the reason you listed. Asshole.

    2. Re:How do I know? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Than your comfort level must be extremely low as my guess is you know scant few in law enforcement, much less those who create wanted posters and alerts.

    3. Re:How do I know? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Sadly, you're a sign of the times. I've seen numerous occasions where a person was being assaulted in broad daylight, or a criminal who had just stolen something was running down a crowded sidewalk, and not a single person stopped to help. Every "man" walking by would duck his head, hurry his pace, and pretend he didn't see what was going on. After all, it was just someone they didn't know attacking someone else they didn't know. I'm sure it made them very uncomfortable.

    4. Re:How do I know? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Somebody I don't know is trying to enlist me in the search for someone else I don't know.

      You don't know who the US Government is? Maybe what you mean is that someone you don't trust is enlisting you.

    5. Re:How do I know? by Valarauk · · Score: 1

      Check out the book the movie was based on if you haven't already. Same title, it was written by Stephen King under the pseudonym Richard Bachman.

      --
      **insert favorite profound quotation here**
    6. Re:How do I know? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Noooo, you misunderstand my point. The point isn't that I don't know the victim or the attacker. The point is I don't know a crime has actually occurred. If I see someone attacked on the street it's a much different situation than the one where some faceless bureaucrat is telling me someone is wanted for a crime. Is it such a stretch to imagine a situation where the person in question isn't a child molester, but is instead someone who videotaped some kind of government corruption?

      I realize that's not much different than what we have today, where the cops will run someone down after an APB. But in this case it would be me that's involved. I guess what's bothering me is I'm wondering if I have some kind of moral responsibility to determine the situation is what the FBI says it is before I help them.

      I suppose if you're willing to trust the authorities not to manipulate you it must be very comforting.

    7. Re:How do I know? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      No, I don't know who the US Government is. The people feeding that billboard are individuals. I don't know them. I don't know how competent they are or how honest they are.

      Let me pose a hypothetical. Let's say you turn someone in based on what you saw on a billboard. The person is shot while being apprehended. Let's further say later it comes out the allegations against him are false - a product of an ugly divorce. Do you bear some responsibility for an innocent man's death? I understand for people in law enforcement that's just an occupational hazard. But I'm not a cop.

    8. Re:How do I know? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Ah, I understand. It's a valid point, if you assume that the authorities are all corrupt, and the police are always up to no good. Of course, that's a pretty pessimistic way to look at your nation. If you're living in China or Iran, you might have cause for concern, otherwise I think you need to have a little more faith in the system.

  13. Daytime TV by conureman · · Score: 1

    What do you think they do in gaol?

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  14. Oblig. BB by Bootle · · Score: 2

    So when do these billboards start displaying the latest IngSoc?

    Oops, wrong country. The US is far too smart for doublethink!

    1. Re:Oblig. BB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be happy for it to think once.

      When that happens, then we'll move on to doublethink.

      Actually, when the billboards to happen, will the good citizens be required to have a two minutes hate? Complete with Insoc dictionary/bibles in hand? Just substitute any minority face for Goldstein.

    2. Re:Oblig. BB by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      If you're going to make 1984 jokes, you gotta at least read the book first.

      "when do these billboards start displaying the latest English Socialism?"

      That doesn't even slightly make sense.

    3. Re:Oblig. BB by Bootle · · Score: 1
      What? That makes sense, they have slogans and messages and things, all philosophies/ideologies do.

      When do these billboards start displaying the latest neocon? That works, it could be about abstinence and subliminal messages to buy halliburton stock... OK, it's a bit of a stretch, you're right. Should have said something like "the latest IngSoc message." I've read the book though, jackass.
  15. Let me be the first to... by j-stroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let me be the first to welcome our informantively illuminated overlords. My love for them is as big as for a brother.

  16. Old Topic but whatever by DeeQ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This was on CNN a good time ago. They were all happy because they caught some guy that turned himself in after seeing one of those build boards. There are many problems with these things. How long till people start acting in vigilantly ways? You couldn't put what they are wanted for without getting someone angry or violent. However if you didn't put up what they were wanted for people (especially in USA) would over act. Sure its neat but how long till someone who is actually not wanted for something ends up on one? If I wanted to see who was wanted for crimes I would go to the post office. However, If these things were only used for missing people I don't see the harm in them and welcome them fully.

    1. Re:Old Topic but whatever by lilmunkysguy · · Score: 1

      A system is already in place for missing persons. It's called Amber Alert.

      http://www.amberalert.gov/faqs.htm

    2. Re:Old Topic but whatever by Oligonicella · · Score: 0, Troll

      "... people (especially in USA) would over act."

      What a crock load of fear mongering.

    3. Re:Old Topic but whatever by Luscious868 · · Score: 1

      There is little difference between this and a wanted poster in the post office or a segment in America's Most Wanted.

    4. Re:Old Topic but whatever by DeeQ · · Score: 1

      Yeah considering we think that lightbrights are bombs. We NEVER overact.

    5. Re:Old Topic but whatever by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      This was on CNN a good time ago. They were all happy because they caught some guy that turned himself in after seeing one of those build boards. - So the guy didn't know he was wanted for a crime and when he learned about it, he decided to turn self in cause that's the right thing to do? ;) Hope he got a reward or something. I suppose that's the real problem we need to solve: when people commit a crime, there should be a way for them to check whether what they did is in fact a criminal offense. How about a web site that lists which actions are criminal.

      (for the sarcastically challenged: if what the parent describes really happened, then the guy in question is a dumbass. If you commit a crime you better know what it is you are doing and if you are willing to turn yourself in for the crime, you don't have to wait for a billboard.

      Of-course if you found out about your act only from the billboard and are surprised about it, then you are either set up by someone or have some medical condition, in either of these cases turning self in is somewhat understandable, but not necessarily a good idea anyway.)

    6. Re:Old Topic but whatever by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I think a more likely scenario is that the guy saw his face on a massive billboard, saw everyone around him staring at him, said "OH SHIT!" and turned himself in because he realized his situation was hopeless. That's the real, immediate benefit of such a plan - if you see your face plastered all over the walls of the city, how much faith are you going to have in your ability to get away?

    7. Re:Old Topic but whatever by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      thus this particular type of criminal is a dumbass.

    8. Re:Old Topic but whatever by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Most criminals are.

  17. Seems like too few by edwardpickman · · Score: 1

    Aren't there more than a 150 members of Congress? Or are they just sticking with Senators?

  18. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the billboards will be able to be updated largely in real-time -- right after a crime is committed,
  19. if santa flew into by snp05 · · Score: 1

    in real time?? i wonder if santa flew into one of these billboards, will we get a live broadcast of o good kind?

  20. Device Specs by coldcell · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They're using these, and yes, they DO run Linux.

    --
    Launchy.net changed my world.
    1. Re:Device Specs by sjaguar · · Score: 0
      --
      If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0.
    2. Re:Device Specs by Methuselah2 · · Score: 1

      Hey, if it runs Linux, it can't be all bad!

  21. What a GREAT idea by puppetluva · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a really good idea!

    I think it will be useful for:

    • Getting sensationalism out of the newsroom and into advertising where it belongs. (and eliminating any sense of personal or editorial responsibility when smearing someone's reputation).
    • Helping the government to use private billboard companies to irresponsibly violate the privacy of private citizens. Shifting the power once and for all away from non-profit-generating people.
    • Hyping crimes out of proportion to their real risk to society and keeping the people quaking in their boots (and consuming).
    • Finally getting rid of that pesky "innocent until proven guilty clause"
    • Punishing people who didn't give enough in campaign contributions to the party in power
    • Allowing us to effectively bundle advertising, racism, and fear (maybe even in one billboard!). Imagine how many security systems, bank accounts, insurance policies, guns and KKK memberships we could sell in bundled ad campaigns!
    • Making us look really modern. . .pushing us from the 21st centry to 1984

    I can't wait until these images can be broadcast directly into the skies above our houses. I have long thought that we don't mistrust and/or hate our fellow citizens enough in the USA. I was worried that we might drop our murder rates and/or school shootings to the levels of other countries, but it looks like we are well on our way to whipping our citizenry to new heights of paranoia and aggressiveness.

    1. Re:What a GREAT idea by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      Getting sensationalism out of the newsroom and into advertising where it belongs. (and eliminating any sense of personal or editorial responsibility when smearing someone's reputation).

      No responsibility? You think the FBI is just going to randomly pick somebody, get a picture and biographical details about them and flash it up on a billboard? If you're on this thing it's because you're a material witness to a crime or a suspect likely with enough evidence that they're going to arrest you when they find you. They're not going to use this for petty things if for no other reason than to avoid making the public stop caring what the billboards say. In fact I would be willing to bet substantial sums of money that the people they featured will be fugitives believed to be in the area--people who were either already convicted or who have warrants out for their arrest to begin with.

      Helping the government to use private billboard companies to irresponsibly violate the privacy of private citizens. Shifting the power once and for all away from non-profit-generating people.

      That would be your inalienable right to not have somebody say where they saw you when you were in public?

      And believe it or not, the government is not a profit-generating "person." They are, at best, a consumer. In this case, the billboards are being provided as a public service. No money involved. The people who will be featured on those billboards is decided by the FBI. How, again, are the advertising companies usurping power?

      Hyping crimes out of proportion to their real risk to society and keeping the people quaking in their boots (and consuming).

      Hyping crimes out of proportion? Exactly how hyped do you think these crimes are going to look mashed between advertisements for radio stations and shoes?

      Keep them consuming? What the hell? How does putting a billboard up keep people consuming, even in the paranoid "ZOMG GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY OUT TO GET J00!!" crowd? Or is it that you believe they're going to be putting up pictures of people who don't have a government-approved balance on their credit cards?

      I think you should take your tinfoil hat off from time to time. Something appears to be seeping into your brain--and it ain't the evil gub'mint brain control waves.

      Finally getting rid of that pesky "innocent until proven guilty clause"

      Oh. I didn't see in the article where you were going to be instantly shot on the spot if anybody spots your picture on the billboard. Let me read it again.

      ...Nope. You're just making shit up.

      Punishing people who didn't give enough in campaign contributions to the party in power

      Damn fugitives. Never sending their politicians any money. Sent 'em all off to Gitmo for some waterboarding, I say.

      Allowing us to effectively bundle advertising, racism, and fear (maybe even in one billboard!). Imagine how many security systems, bank accounts, insurance policies, guns and KKK memberships we could sell in bundled ad campaigns!

      "Turn in this fugitive, receive his identity as our free gift to you?" I kind of like it, actually.

      Making us look really modern. . .pushing us from the 21st centry to 1984

      Oh! Oh my god! There it is. The super-clever pun that made reading the rest of your nonsense drivel worth reading. 'Cause, you know, we don't get enough 1984 references on Slashdot. We can always use one more--bonus points for getting it out with bullet points!

      I was worried that we might drop our murder rates and/or school shootings to the levels of other countries

      Wow. I thought it was the evil video games corrupting our children into murderers. To think it was billboards this whole time! Jack

    2. Re:What a GREAT idea by DannyO152 · · Score: 1

      I was going to post a joke about criminals move to 21st US city, but your above made me think of something. Money from government to the billboard companies. I just looked it up: it's a deal with Clear Channel. If my cynicism weren't on the holidays, I'd call this little thank you bundle from Bush's DOJ to the guys who organize pro-war rallies and blacklist artists who critique our Texan leader.

    3. Re:What a GREAT idea by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      And the money for it has to come from somewhere--not just FBI coffers...

      "These prison escapee photos brought to you by McDonald's. Have you had your "break" today?"

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    4. Re:What a GREAT idea by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      Taco Bell say, make a run for the border ... right now!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:What a GREAT idea by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      Pander much? I think you, like many of the other paranoid posters in this thread, have seen too many movies and have some romanticized notion of there being this "big brother" out to get you.

      The person's reputation is "smeared" when the government starts looking for them. Claims of slander or libel are laughable. Government posts picture of person. "We want this person". Person sues. Government says "We truly did want this person", shows warrant - case dismissed.

      Private citizens with a warrant for their arrest have no right to privacy. Easy-peazy, that one.

      Posting a picture of someone is not removing their presumption of innocence. Nice try, though.

      Boring implication of political corruption ignored as silly. Sure, it could happen. And Pat Buchanan could show up at my house in a ski mask and rape me. I'm not too worried (yet).

      Implication of racism. Oooh, that's a crowd pleaser. We all know police are framing every minority and that criminal statistics are all made up by clandestine KKK members. Please go pick up your "enlightened citizen of 2007 award" asap, it's clear you're truly on top of the racist conspiracy in this country - good job.

    6. Re:What a GREAT idea by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Getting sensationalism out of the newsroom and into advertising where it belongs. (and eliminating any sense of personal or editorial responsibility when smearing someone's reputation).

      No responsibility? You think the FBI is just going to randomly pick somebody, get a picture and biographical details about them and flash it up on a billboard? If you're on this thing it's because you're a material witness to a crime or a suspect likely with enough evidence that they're going to arrest you when they find you. They're not going to use this for petty things if for no other reason than to avoid making the public stop caring what the billboards say. In fact I would be willing to bet substantial sums of money that the people they featured will be fugitives believed to be in the area--people who were either already convicted or who have warrants out for their arrest to begin with.

      While I know different groups of people are involved, you surely give the government which embarked itself in a war under false pretenses and with absolutely no responsability so far, a lot of credit!

    7. Re:What a GREAT idea by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Amen, brother. Amen. God the retarded reponse this article is getting truly annoys the piss out of me. "Oooh, but...but...1984! And.... Racism!". That pretty much sums it up. They don't really have any real point, just random comparisons to 1984.

    8. Re:What a GREAT idea by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are an idiot. I'm not trying to troll, but that's all the response that your comment deserves.

  22. imagine all the fun one can have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hacking into this network...

  23. This won't increase public safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Billboards distract drivers and cause accidents. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/08/17782/23546

    These particular billboards could distract drivers worse than regular billboards. When you're designing a sign, you realize that you won't get much attention. There's a limit to visual acuity and available time as people move past your sign. You therefore make it simple. People get the message quickly and move on. These wanted posters invite you to take a close look so you can pick out the details and recognize the suspect if you see him/her. People will do that and there will be a net decrease in public safety as they smash into each other.

    This is a clueless plan and a waste of the public's tax dollars. (Smoke comes out of my ears as I resist a rant.)

    1. Re:This won't increase public safety by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      These particular billboards could distract drivers worse than regular billboards
      Sadly, New York wasn't one of the cities mentioned - from what I've seen it would probably be an improvement.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  24. You call that dystopic? by sam_handelman · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is a much-belated step in the right direction - it would have been an excellent policy move 20 or 30 *years* ago, when giant billboards to facilitiate the 3 minutes hate, or to flash "OBEY" in subliminal letters, were state of the art.

      But this is the 21st century - we can implant chips in people's brains now! We can contract out the manufacture of wireless control collars to the lowest bidder!

      The government deiberately squelches these technologies to pander to the minority of religious nuts who have disproportional influence over our government.

      That's why I support Ron Paul and the transumanist dystopian party - deregulation and the ability to sell advertizers direct access to our subconscious will enable us to achieve the economic benefits of a nihilistic hellscape.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
    1. Re:You call that dystopic? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      But Ron Paul uses relegion to vote against womens rights? Voting for him will not help at all.

      He's just a candidate for people afraid to change to democrat.

      The number one way to send a message that you are unhappy with the way this administration has been behaving is to vote democrat.

      An overwhelming victory for democrats will send a message to both parties telling them were not happy with this kind of crap, and it punishes the party that has been doing it.

      If republicans win, then they will "Stay the course". Ron Paul won't change that, because even if he is the republican worse in party nightmare, he is but a blip and everyone else won't get the fact that we're not happy.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:You call that dystopic? by sam_handelman · · Score: 1

      .... since there seems to be some confusion - I do not, in fact, endorse either dystopic transhumanism, or Ron Paul, or a cyberpunk-esque corporate-dominated hellscape. I would like a DNI, though. In case my sarcasm is completely lost on people: Ron Paul is a bespittled lunatic.

        The political class is perfectly well aware that the general public is unhappy - it's not like we need to send them a message in order to make this clear. If we did, we could use giant billboards (notice - I am trying to stay on topic.)

        Rather than taking action to "send messages", we need to take action to change policy. Elecing Ron Paul would certainly change policy although, assuming he was able to carry through on his proposals, most of the policy changes would be bad, and his fanatical adherence to his own particular brand of ideologically-based political economic theory would lead to disaster in any case.

      --
      The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
    3. Re:You call that dystopic? by NixonTurf · · Score: 1

      That's why I support Ron Paul and the transumanist dystopian party - deregulation and the ability to sell advertizers direct access to our subconscious will enable us to achieve the economic benefits of a nihilistic hellscape.

      Hahaha! I was almost disturbed by what you said citizen! Luckily I had my Soma at hand! Hahahaha!

      Orgy-Porgy!

    4. Re:You call that dystopic? by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      I agree, and to be honest I think it's programs like these that make a strong case for impeaching President Bush. In fact I think this shows that 12 Galaxies have Guiltied to a Zegnatronic Rocket Society.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    5. Re:You call that dystopic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're using very interesting log if you believe that an overwhelming victory for the Democrats tell them that we don't like the things that they're doing.

      Ron Paul has said repeatedly that he doesn't agree with abortion personally, but he doesn't believe that the federal government has the right to ban it, and that he would not ban it if he had the power to do so. It's similar to his stances on prostitution and drugs. Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpgWAAmVwDM

      Unlike most politicians, he doesn't use the government to enforce his personal morality.

      Libertarian = maximizing liberty = less government telling you what you can and can't do. Got it?

  25. Worry not, citizen! by Lisandro · · Score: 1

    Big brother is watching. And he loves you!

  26. Now the real question: by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

    How long until some kidnap victim gets lynched by somebody who saw him on the billboard and thought he was the kidnapper?

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    1. Re:Now the real question: by east+coast · · Score: 1

      How long until a kidnap victim is seen in public but isn't recognized as a kidnap victim and ends up in a shallow grave?

      Oh, wait!...

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  27. Re:Or hacking opportunity by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Just imagine when the porn traders see this advertising opportunity. It will make the hacking of text signs look tame.

    On the other hand, coming up to election time a "wanted for crimes against humanity" hack could go down well.

  28. Black and Mestizo scum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess there's going to be a lot of BLACK and MESTIZO faces on those billboards...

    I'm sure the ADL and B'nai Brith will be onto this and accuse the police of 'profiling'... After all, we can't have WHITE Americans actually SEEING black and mestizo faces as criminals, can we? Becuase we know "We're all the same", right? Which is why Africans have put a man on the moon, and Mexico is a wonderful, prosperous country...
    Oh, wait...

    1. Re:Black and Mestizo scum... by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Becuase we know "We're all the same", right? Which is why Africans have put a man on the moon, and Mexico is a wonderful, prosperous country...

      It does not take huge analytical powers nor a remarkable amount of historical information to see that the fact that Africa is as it is and that Mexico is as it is, is---while probably not directly caused by---very connected to the way what you call ``WHITE Americans'' are, along with what you'd probably call ``WHITE Europeans''...

      Of course, why would analitical reasoning or historical information get in the way of your ALL CAPS words?

    2. Re:Black and Mestizo scum... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It does not take huge analytical powers nor a remarkable amount of historical information to see that the fact that Africa is as it is and that Mexico is as it is, is---while probably not directly caused by---very connected to the way what you call ``WHITE Americans'' are, along with what you'd probably call ``WHITE Europeans''...
      Sure, if you believe that wealth is only created through the oppression of others, then yes, you would come to that conclusion. You would also, IMHO, be a frigging' moron. If America had never been "discovered", do you seriously believe that Aztecs would now be launching rockets to the moon? If Africa hadn't been exploited for it's natural resources, do you imagine that the Bushmen would have developed a cure for AIDS?

      To pretend that all societies are created equal is the worst kind of foolishness. The Chinese had gunpowder for centuries, yet did little more with it than make fireworks. Europeans got their hands on it and a few decades later were making cannons and muskets. While race may not play a part in the development of technology and the improvement of the human condition, society and ideology certainly do. No amount of freedom and "opportunity" is going help an ass-backwards society to pull itself out of a rut, while a forward thinking people can create opportunity in the midst of oppression. As long as you keep blaming the White Man for everything that's wrong with all other societies, you're only creating excuses for the continued stagnation of those societies. If you tell a black inner-city child that he'll never amount to anything because whitey is keeping him down, is it any wonder when he grows up to be a bum or a criminal?
    3. Re:Black and Mestizo scum... by Headcase88 · · Score: 1
      I liked the fireworks more than the guns. They look pretty and kill less people.

      Honestly, you really gave a bad example there. Reminds me of H2G2 with the dolphins

      For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons.
      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
  29. No billboards, please by martyb · · Score: 1

    I'm of mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I'm all for ways to help spread information and help make things safer. OTOH, I'm fortunate to now be living in one of 4 states in the USA which ban billboards. (The four states are: Maine, Vermont, Alaska, and Hawaii.)

    It was hard to fathom just how "noisy" every place else was until I experienced it first hand. I've lived and traveled in other places where billboards were seemingly everywhere. (e.g. NYC, Boston, San Jose) A trip down any major road, especially near a large city, felt like an assault of advertisements screaming for my attention. (Hmmm. I wonder if that has anything to do with the prevalence of road rage?)

    Send them out over radio and TV (ala National Weather Service weather alerts) or cell phones or ultra-mobile PCs or mobile GPS units. I'm sure you can think of others approaches.

    BTW, I'm curious to see how long it'll take for MIT or Caltech to implement one of their infamous hacks on these?

  30. I'm sure they'll put up corrections by clawsoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sure that if they're ever wrong, and put the wrong guy up on the billboard, they'll put up a correction later so the guy can clear his name in the public eye.

    I'm sure of it.

    Yeah.

  31. More spam to ignore by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    These days billboards are ignored by so many anyway, i don't really see this as an effective use of funds. we are bombarded by so much nonsense now, this will just fade into the background.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  32. The post office called... by phorest · · Score: 1

    They want their bulletin board back.

    --
    God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
  33. Ohio: America's Pit Stop by drumondd · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else notice that Ohio gets three of these signs? One each in Cleveland, Akron, and Columbus. It makes me wonder why they skipped Cincinnati! Seriously though, regarding criminal movement on major highways: in the proposed areas they have coverage of I-80/90 in the Northeast, and I-71 in Columbus. Why would they pass up coverage on I-75? The road only stretches from Florida to the U.P. in Michigan! Even if they were trying to hit the major cities in Ohio, they passed up #3 (Cincinnati) and opted for #5 (Akron).

    Definitely gives new meaning to the term 'Gateway State'!

  34. FBI by conureman · · Score: 1

    Think of the intersection of subset: People_convicted_of crimes and subset: Guilty_criminals. There is a difference, but the FBI will never acknowledge this. Haven't you learned that? You must post bail pretty quick. Slander is high on the list of the FBI's accomplishments.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  35. Not Slander. by RandoX · · Score: 1

    Libel, maybe. Unless they have giant speakers under the billboard.

  36. Future target of sweet, sweet hax by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can hardly wait for these to be subverted into showing Future Conan or old "Get Smart" episodes or something.

    1. Re:Future target of sweet, sweet hax by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      More likely a billboard-sized BSOD.

  37. Time for a new contest ladies and gentelmen by chord.wav · · Score: 1

    Time for a new contest ladies and gentelmen:
    The first one to hack those and put Bush face on there wins.

    The prize? Fame, respect from peers, pride, a lot of media attention and, maybe, a prosecution.

  38. Nobody would think of by MECC · · Score: 1

    Nobody will even try to hack in to put up pics of "W" or the dick...

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
    1. Re:Nobody would think of by HangingChad · · Score: 1

      Or goatse rush hour traffic. ROFL! Here's an eye full for all of you stuck out in traffic this am.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  39. Only violent and dangerous criminals of course.... by Jewfro_Macabbi · · Score: 1

    If the FBI actually has to look for them - and no one knows where they are - then it doesn't sound like they are truly very dangerous criminals. Mostly they don't have to look for people with a habit of committing crimes, as they tend to have a habit of getting arrested. "Dangerous criminal" often just means dope dealer. While I'm sure there are dangerous dope dealers, we hardly need billboards lighting up local pot heads. "Paedophile" might really be that - or it might be Genarlow Wilson's face on that board. But hey we need to punish those evil teenagers who sleep with other teenagers! As for "terrorist" - don't get me started. Can we expect billboards of lunatic homeless who fancy themselves Al Qaeda operatives?

  40. You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will just destroy them just like our brothers are destroying the machine overseas.

    http://blog.wired.com/sterling/2007/12/burning-british.html

    I doubt one of these billboards can survive a homebrew thermite charge.

  41. 8th amendment?? by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 1

    IANAL but isn't public shaming a form of cruel and unusual punishment?

    1. Re:8th amendment?? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      No.

  42. How long until... by the+saltydog · · Score: 1

    2600 Magazine prints an article on how to hack into the billboards?

    (Cue the Bush/Cheney billboard photoshops!)

    Personally, I want to see the Fark Ha! Ha! Guy on it. That would be a coffee/keyboard moment for me.

  43. Absolutely Sickening by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The thought of giant billboards showing enemies of the state, and the public acceptance thereof, is just appalling. People wanted by the FBI for a crime have not been proven guilty in a court of law, and so for the government to broadcast that these people are guilty is an undo usurpation of police powers over the jury system.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Absolutely Sickening by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Well said. Please fax that to all the representatives. It's also worth noting that things like these appeal to a very vocal minority, so once theyar there, no politician is going to get rid of them, so they will always be an expense on out budget.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Absolutely Sickening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So all those wanted posters at the Post Office are unconstitutional?

    3. Re:Absolutely Sickening by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      Guh? So wait. A man is seen by 3 people going into a liquor store and murdering the clerk and kidnapping a patron. The government should be worried about his privacy over the life of the kidnap victim? Or let's say he didn't kidnap, let's say he walked in and just killed a bunch of people then fled across state lines. His privacy is more important than the potential future victims'?

      Also, I've shit things more subtle than your "enemies of the state" implication. Seriously, almost any government power can be used for evil. Doesn't mean we should just throw it out entirely.

      So apparently it's OK for the FBI to go to the person's work, their family, post wanted pictures, etc... (which they do now) but they should not post a big picture of them because "it's mean"? Or maybe they just shouldn't look for the person because they might be innocent and they could embarass them?

      I really can't grasp what your point is. If it's "watch out for this and make sure it's used properly" then I'm all for it and I agree. But your point seems to be "don't embarass criminals, they may be innocent!".

  44. Real Criminal gangs.... by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

    Yes, it seems the real criminals work either with or above the law.
    This is the way it works in Florida.
    The law turns a blind eye to the "cop friendly" criminal or gang's kidnapping, rapes and murders.
    The full force of the law will be used to go after anyone seeking revenge against or trying to expose those perpetrators.

    I cannot decide if this is the intent of the law enforcement personnel, or just that some criminals and gangs know the law and law enforcement tactics better than non-criminals.

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  45. I might be wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This might be unright thought on my part, but this seems pretty doubleplus ungood to me.

  46. Quick survey by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

    Has 1984 been...:
    a) Not read by...
    b) A great source of inspiration to... ...most politicians?

    We have been calling things Orwelian for so long that it doesn't pack quite as much punch than before, which is ironic since things are getting more and Big Brother-ish than ever. What escapes me is...

    Shouldn't politicians be afraid of passing laws* resembling a dystopian future in a novel about absolute fascism?

    * or in this specific case, provide budget for technology...

    --
    But... the future refused to change.
    1. Re:Quick survey by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Why is it that people always fall back on facile comparisons to old books to make their "points"? Do you have some kind of rational, concrete issue with this plan that you can articulte without just waving your hands and saying "1984!!!"?

  47. Already Exists!!!! by codesmith.ca · · Score: 1

    Ummm... I get to see the faces of major criminals every day warping into jumpgates in EVE Online... All they need to do is add ads for Quafe© as well, and I'll completely lose the separation between RL and not...

    1. Re:Already Exists!!!! by spedrosa · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't it be nice? Bounty hunters FTW.

      Wanted < Subject Name Here >
      $XXX.XXX.XXX dollars upon termination.
      Wanted for crimes
  48. Re:A NEW LIFE AWAITS YOU IN THE OFF-WORLD COLONIES by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

    That was my first thought as well... Images of Blade Runner and assorted novels by PKD... Countless scenes from sci-fi movies where the protagonist offends someone and suddenly their face is plastered across every vertical surface in the city.

    I'm not quite sure why, but this bothers me quite a bit more than all the stories I've seen about pervasive surveillance.

    --
    "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
  49. "For Your Protection." by PottedMeat · · Score: 1

    "For Your Protection."

  50. Starting with ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, .... Pelosi etc

  51. Can't... by spleen_blender · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can't the money be spent on finding reasons WHY the crimes are caused in the first place?

    Oh I'm sorry, apparently asking "why" somehow rationalizes their actions, just like why we can't talk about the reasons WHY terrorists want to kill us.

    The question "why" is so dangerous to people in this country for one single reason: religion. Yeah, mod me down offtopic or troll, or something else... but you know it is true. When people seriously start asking "why" about everything around them they will inevitably realize that religion is a joke. I guess people have too much pride to be able to look at their past selves and laugh at their stupid beliefs. Yes I just called your beliefs stupid, now ask yourself "why does he say that" instead of accusing me of persecuting you.

    1. Re:Can't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't the money be spent on finding reasons WHY the crimes are caused in the first place?

      Here is the short version... there are many, many causes of crime - here are some of them:

      - many people think they can get away with crime
      - a lot of crime is a result of the drug business
      - you have a large permanent underclass that grow up in single-parent homes, drop out of school and have no career prospects

      Oh I'm sorry, apparently asking "why" somehow rationalizes their actions, just like why we can't talk about the reasons WHY terrorists want to kill us.

      Why? Not much need to ask why - they usually tell you. Osama bin Laden's complaints are on the record multiple times as to why, and they predate September 11th by many years. Go read his original fatwa from 1996.

      His main complaint is that American infidels were polluting the "land of the two holy places" (ie Saudi Arabia) by their presence in the country.

      That is in the document title: "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.".

      The fact that the Americans were there by invitation of Saudi Arabia to protect the Saudis isn't relevant to him. The fact that the Americans left when the Saudis isn't relevant to him.

      Go read the original document. It is impossible to reason with this kind of person. It is kill or be killed.

    2. Re:Can't... by spleen_blender · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm well aware of these, I meant discussing these topics on public venues such as mass media. But obviously they have a vested interest in not pursuing these.

    3. Re:Can't... by merreborn · · Score: 1

      The question "why" is so dangerous to people in this country for one single reason: religion.
      Weak-minded people remain weak-minded, with or without religion. Intelligent, self-sufficient people remain intelligent, with or without religion.

      A weak-minded man without religion has no reason to do good; what's more, while he's free of religion, he's still under the control of other, stronger people, be it in the form of a gang leader telling him to commit crime, advertisements telling him to buy, buy, buy, or politicians telling him to fear the terrorists.

      Yes, some stupid people do stupid things in the name of religion, but those people were stupid and dangerous before someone gave them a "cause" to direct their actions. The weak-minded will be controlled, by someone, somehow. Better it be by a force that (overwhelmingly) encourages them to do good. Religions that encourage anything other than doing good are a minority.

      An intelligent man, on the other hand, makes his own decisions. That includes the decision to choose religion. I know many intelligent people who are religious. It makes them happy. And they don't check their ability to think independently at the door when they go to church.

      To address your original straw man:

      Can't the money be spent on finding reasons WHY the crimes are caused in the first place?
      Socioeconomic inequality, lack of education, and low intelligence. Those are problems that can't be solved for the price of a few dozen billboards.

      Yes I just called your beliefs stupid, now ask yourself "why does he say that" instead of accusing me of persecuting you.
      Why? Because you're a deeply unhappy person. There are some people a few blocks down the road who'd love to help you with that, though. Just look for the building with the big "+" on the roof.

      I, personally, made the choice to abandon religion as a young adult, but I don't look down on those who choose it. It makes coping with their lives (which can be a damn tough thing to do) easier. It makes them happier people.

      Ever notice how many of the prominent atheists in the media are such angry, unhappy people?
    4. Re:Can't... by spleen_blender · · Score: 1

      Also, that goes on the assumption, which I find a bit offensive, that there are indeed two different types of intelligences in this world. I believe that the "weak minded" you refer to are indeed the same as you and I, but it is the system itself, which has a vested interest in keeping them "weak minded", is the cause of the widespread ignorance and stupidity. They will not know what they are not exposed to, and the church prevents exposure to any other ideas until they are well out of childhood and already heavily indoctrinated.

  52. Watch out for the Bogey Man by TheP4st · · Score: 1

    "The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Bin Laden was not the principal figure. He was the primal terrorist, the earliest defiler of the Party's purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters, perhaps even -- so it was occasionally rumoured -- in some hiding-place in Oceania itself. Winston's diaphragm was constricted. He could never see the face of Bin Laden without a painful mixture of emotions. It was a lean Arabic face, with a great fuzzy aureole of white hair and a small goatee beard -- a clever face, and yet somehow inherently despicable, with a kind of senile silliness in the long thin nose" My humblest appologies to the spirit of George Orwell (the prophet?) for the slight edits I've made to his original text.

    --
    "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
  53. Something to do with the similarity to by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

    Freejack!

  54. A ha! A new revenue stream... by TomXP411 · · Score: 1

    I'll bet that, even if it doesn't happen at first, this will turn in to a new way to advertise. Either the feds will sell ads to be rotated when there are no wanted madmen on the loose, or they'll integrate the ads directly in to the billboard. Imagine: Today's wanted felon, brought to you by Florida Orange Juice!

  55. List of cities getting billboards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Sorted alphabetically without random "and also" separators so that you can actually look up your home:
    • Akron, OH
    • Albuquerque, NM
    • Atlanta, GA
    • Chicago, IL
    • Cleveland, OH
    • Columbus, OH
    • Des Moines, IA
    • El Paso, TX
    • Indianapolis, IN
    • Las Vegas, NV
    • Los Angeles, CA
    • Memphis, TN
    • Miami, FL
    • Milwaukee, WI
    • Minneapolis, MN
    • Newark, NJ
    • Orlando, FL
    • Philadelphia, PA
    • Tampa, FL
    • Wichita, KS
  56. Yes, more fear! by gweihir · · Score: 1

    As if there was not enough already and americans these days are not fearful enough. Bring it on! Even more people afaraid of risks, that do not really apply to them or are incredible small! Makes controlling the sheepified masses even easier.

    Seriosuly, this is a very bad idea and a public disturbance. Hiwever has had this idea is both stupid and has a hugely inflated ego.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  57. Big Brother, Fahrenheit 451, and Minority Report by karlwilson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Something about billboards with wanted criminal pictures that update in real time reminds me of 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and Minority Report all rolled into one...

  58. youtube it... by emailandthings · · Score: 0

    Can I have the latest youtube videos whenever the screen is idle.. Thanks..

  59. Sorry, but COPS only revealed a truth. by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    My girlfriend is black and she is generally concerned about crossing paths with young black males on city streets where there aren't lots of people. Hence she avoids its.

    The problem we face here in America is that its offensive to too many people to declare a problem a problem if it identifies a minority group. Look at all the crap we are going through with illegal immigrants! People breaking the law to get here yet if we apply the label and are not part of that specific minority group you can be labled a bigot or racist.

    We cannot fix society by looking away. This was how the cities got to be such a mess in many places. Box them in high rise slums and look away. Don't apply the stern hand and it all goes to hell. Its similar to schools. One of my coworkers moved to the suburbs so his wife would not get beaten up AGAIN in a middle school! Oh sure they get the kids but the problem is that removing one or two hooligans doesn't fix the problem - it only opens the door for someone else to step in. The system won't do anything because of lawsuits from aggrieved parents; only upset when their child is nailed for being bad, they aren't concerned about what the kid did just what the school did to punish them.

    If the billboards do show a disproportional number of minorities then perhaps people in those communities and others will have to face the facts. More likely the program will just get ended as its easier to ignore a problem than fix it. The primary reason their numbers are higher isn't because as a people they are different or worse, its the fact that society doesn't try to really help them. It attempts to ignore them, hoping handouts will mollify them, and they only acts AFTER they become a problem. We need to put the fear of god (as in administrators and the teachers) back into the system and reward success more. We have school systems who go out of their way to not reward individual success and what has it gotten us? Show the kids there is a reason to be the best - AWARD them for doing the best. Don't let them get out and find a world which actually has winners and losers.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  60. Re:Yes but who? by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    It is quite disgusting to see, from outside, how every mention of Bush's catastrophic actions is followed by someone, you in this case, replying what you did. Disgusting and sad.

    Meanwhile, a few hundred people lay in their graves because of those actions. Sigh.

  61. Private Billboards by greenlead · · Score: 1

    What they need to do is encourage companies to put in private electronic billboards. Municipalities would then require, as a part of the license, that the signs show critical data in times of emergency.

  62. It really works! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why, just the other day I saw a wanted ad for Gordon Freeman on one of the billboards. If I see that commie terrorist punk I'll give him what for!

  63. Movie scene by rajafarian · · Score: 1

    This will make for a really cool scene in some upcoming Hollywood movie: Good guy is wanted by the gov't for questioning authority, they make up stuff about him and now he can't go anywhere because everywhere he goes he sees pictures of himself and those lies that the FBI made up about him.

  64. Re:A NEW LIFE AWAITS YOU IN THE OFF-WORLD COLONIES by jam244 · · Score: 1

    Welcome, welcome to City 17. You have chosen or been chosen to relocate to one of our finest remaining urban centers. I thought so much of City 17 that I elected to establish my administration here, in the Citadel so thoughtfully provided by our benefactors. I have been proud to call City 17 my home. So whether you are here to stay, or passing through on your way to parts unknown, welcome to City 17. It's safer here.

  65. I'll make a point to ignore these things. by FatSean · · Score: 1

    I'm none too happy with the powers given the the FBI, and I don't intend to help them out. Just feeling a little bitter about the government not holding up their side of the 'social contract'.

    --
    Blar.
  66. Preemptive monitoring? by Cannelloni · · Score: 1

    Why not use the digital billboards to post photos and other relevant information about suspects before the crimes have even been committed? This could be accomplished through the use of thought sensors. If a person deviates from the preprogrammed thoughts and patterns of behavior, then the Thought Police can push some buttons and start monitoring the presumptive delinquent. I'm sure some people, especially those with a neoconservative, communist or fascist bent, would think this would be a fine idea...

    --
    Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
  67. Re:Or hacking opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just imagine when the porn traders see this advertising opportunity. It will make the hacking of text signs look tame. I've been kicking around the idea of doing something similar with the text signs on grocery stores, fast food restaurants, etc. for a few years. I know at least a few of them in the area have an access panel on the base of the sign, where you plug in a controller to program the messages they display. I just may have to find that CD I made a while back with pictures of the panels and PDFs from the manufacturers that showed the pin-out and all of that. Most of them that I looked at had some sort of password protection, but I think with some digging I could probably find the factory default settings.

    If nothing else, most of them could probably be defeated with a dictionary attack in no time (I know a few of the ones I found would only take alphanumeric passwords up to 8 characters). I'd love to set one of the local McD's to show messages about obesity, animal rights, and anything else that could undermine them ;) Of course, changing the password to the system to a randomly generated string when I was done.

    Posting AC for plausible deniablity.
  68. Free campaign adverisments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's funny, I already thought they were doing this. Every Republican across the nation is under indictment for corruption or fraud, aren't they? And if not... they probably should be...

    Seems to me the conservatives are just angling for more free campaign ads. I hear nobody is contributing anymore. Aside from Haliburton and Blackwater, that is.

  69. What I'm Sick Of by tjstork · · Score: 1

    I really can't grasp what your point is. If it's "watch out for this and make sure it's used properly" then I'm all for it and I agree. But your point seems to be "don't embarass criminals, they may be innocent!"

    I'm sick of a supposedly free country trumpeting state powers everywhere one turns.

    I've had it with checkpoints, searches, warning signs about the law, police, and everything else. We spent trillions of dollars fighting the Russians in the Cold War and now we do it voluntarily to ourselves because of a couple of drunk drivers, potheads, and disgruntled arabs? Come on? Where's the real threat? If we weren't going to go totalitarian while facing down the Red Army and the KGB, why on earth do it now?

    I remember an America where you could drive down the street without seeing street signs saying to call the Feds at some 1-800 number if you see someone suspicious. I remember an America where airports were places that you partied at and had a few drinks watching the planes come in. I remember an America where you could drive around without seeing 2000 signs reminding you about following every single law. I remember an America where laws were made to be broken and the citizenry was cool about things. I remember being drunk and driving back and forth across the Canadian border without so much as even stopping, let alone having a passport or a visa.

    This country has just gone mad with security, and I think the price is too high. If I had to put up with a little more crime and the occasional blown up building to get rid of all of these gestapo thugs, then, so be it.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:What I'm Sick Of by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      Right on. Your points are orthogonal to the issue at hand. Of course the government uses fear to give itself more power, it's the nature of the beast.

      That, however, doesn't mean we should rage at everything they do regardless of implementation. If they use this with appropriate controls to capture people who have escaped from prison or who are evading a legal warrant for their arrest for a serious felony, then I'm all for it. As much as I hate government power, I hate violent murderous scum even more. It's not unreasonable to enlist the public in maintainint public safety from legally defined fugitives. This isn't the movies - if you're innocent of a crime, you turn yourself in and go through a trial. That's the system we have, it's not perfect but there is no such thing as a perfect system. If you flee capture, then face the consequences.

  70. WOW Police State Anyone -- Two Steps Backwords by nickdotfit · · Score: 1
    This is the worst idea I've ever heard. In face I created this account just for this comment.
    • This will inspire panic and paranoia in an already panic prone environment.
    • This will create modern day witch hunts, lynchings, and more vigilantes
    • This will inspire hate and racism
    This is not the direction we need to be going in. Maybe instead we could just make it easier to find this information like from terminals and websites, but throwing it in people's faces on the drive to a wedding or work is going to change the way we think. I come from a place called San Bernardino California. In that place there is much hate and racism. The last time they broadcast a car chase people from the town started to get into their cars and go after the man they were chasing. Trucks were jumping in his way. People were waving guns at him. These kinds of incidents need to be handles by trained officers. When people make mistakes their punishment should not be public flogging. Remember the Spanish Inquisition? Should we throw them to lions? How many thousands of years have we been fighting to become civil. This is not a mature idea. When Hollywood writer write those silly stories to warn us about possibles futures. THIS is what they are talking about. In fact I think this idea probably came from someone who watched Bladerunner or Demolition man and missed the point. Please people I urge you to put and end to this. Thanks. Nicholas Juntilla
  71. Re:Or hacking opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    password
    password1

    That should get you into most of them. They also write them on the inside of the cover with a Sharpie.

  72. Its Half Life 2... by KoshClassic · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "Welcome. Welcome, to City 17. You have chosen, or been chosen, to relocate to one of our finest remaining urban centers. I thought so much of City 17, that I elected to establish my administration, here, in the citadel, so thoughtfully provided by our benefactors. I am proud to call City 17 my home. And so, whether you are here to stay, or passing through to parts unknown, welcome, to City 17. It's safer here. "

    --
    Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
  73. Bush in Lights! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The dirty little secret of the electronic billboard industry is that those signs are not terribly secure. Heck, they aren't at all secure. Very few in the electronic billboard industry have proper security practices and those that do have determined that the risk is relatively low when it comes to someone breaking into the sign and changing the message. In addition, even if that happened the liability would likely not be worth the time, effort, or money to include proper security into the billboard, after all, even if the message was obscene the sign company could simply point out they were hacked and all would be forgiven. So where am I going here? Look to the subject. It's likely that the FBI is using off the shelf billboards with nothing special in terms of security so how funny would it be to hack their signs to advertise one of the greatest criminals in American history?

  74. How long before.... by ryanhos · · Score: 1

    How long will it be before other professions start using the real-time billboards to beg other people to do their jobs for them?

    <billboard>
    Please for the helping me of sorting array in place in VB.NET. Have big client waiting for this code tomorrow.

    Thanks in advance,
    Ramesh^H^H^H^H^H^Hsteve@bangaloresoftware.co.in
    </billboard>

    --
    "I threw up my hands in disgust and wondered if it had been such a good idea to have eaten my hands in the first place."
  75. And So It Begins... by PirateBlis · · Score: 1

    Now taking bets for if these billboards come complete with Grand Theft Auto 5 banners on the bottom

  76. And every woman, surely? by ghjm · · Score: 1

    You put "man" in quotes, presumably to show that the referenced individuals are less than a real man. Does a woman ignoring the situation also qualify as less than a real woman? If not, why not?

    You apparently witnessed these occasions yourself. If "not a single person" stopped to help, does that include you? Why didn't you stop to help? Can we conclude that you are less than a real man/woman? If not, why not?

    You claim this is a sign of the times. Presumably this means that there was a previous time when things were better. When exactly was this? Was it before or after Luke 10:25-37 was written?

    Thanks in advance for your considered reply.

    -Graham

    1. Re:And every woman, surely? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You put "man" in quotes, presumably to show that the referenced individuals are less than a real man. Does a woman ignoring the situation also qualify as less than a real woman?
      Yes. "Less than a real human being" would be more accurate, if you want to be politically correct.

      You apparently witnessed these occasions yourself. If "not a single person" stopped to help, does that include you?
      The first time, yes. It's probably the only thing in my life that I'm ashamed of. The consequent times, no. Unlike most people, I learn from my failures.

      You claim this is a sign of the times. Presumably this means that there was a previous time when things were better. When exactly was this?
      Back when people understood that individual rights and freedoms hinge on the acceptance of personal responsibilities.

      Thanks in advance for your considered reply.
      You're welcome.
    2. Re:And every woman, surely? by ghjm · · Score: 1

      "Less than a real human being" is an interesting concept. You say people who fail to accept personal responsibilities are not entitled to the full set of rights and freedoms that "real human beings" enjoy. Which rights exactly shall we deny them? Are LTARHBs still entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which the First Congress of the United States declared to be unalienable? Should LTARHBs be allowed to vote? Should they live in the same cities as real people? The same neighborhoods?

      Also, if LTARHBs are to be denied certain rights, presumably the government has to be able to tell the difference (to allow/deny them access to a voting booth, or whatever). Can an LTARHB hide out among the regular population? Is there a test we can administer (other than staging a nearby mugging) to tell if someone is an LTARHB? Or can you tell by looking at them? What color is the skin of a typical LTARHB?

      And I still want to know is when exactly "back then" was. if you were transported back to a time when people understood that individual rights and freedoms hinge on the acceptance of personal responsibilities, what would you see on the front page of a calendar? Was it the 1950s? Was it 1776? Was it the first century AD? When exactly are we talking about?

      -Graham

    3. Re:And every woman, surely? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I never advocated taking away anyone's rights. Do not confuse my contempt for certain types of individuals with an attempt to control them. As for the time-frame, pick one. The USA at the time of it's founding. England at the height of it's glory. The times when words like "honour", "duty", and "virtue" were more than just a punchline to a joke. Even in our modern societies, small sub-groups exist where such values survive, but as for society in general...I've long since given up hope.

  77. Just another brick in the wall by rberger · · Score: 1

    I guess all you folks who think this is a wonderful idea don't understand propaganda techniques, have read 1984 or are sheep being led to slaughter..

    Where is the America of the unafraid and who has more trust in its people than its manipulative leaders who want to control everything thru fear?

  78. Sell Adverts by PhyrricVictory · · Score: 0

    Just in case I wind up on that billboard, I'd like to auction off advertising rights to the clothes I'd wear for my FBI photo. Also, if the death penalty is involved, I will use my final words to sell your company's goods and / or services for the right price.

  79. I can see it now... by Talkischeap · · Score: 2, Insightful
    --
    If it don't GO... chrome it. ~ Frank Banks
  80. Flashing billboards cause accidents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a way to get PR cloaking of the real aim, BRIGHT DIGITAL BILLBOARDS that
    flash and get the attention of drivers from the roads and create an
    ugly blight that is resisted by many states and cities. Concentrate on the
    FBI bull if you want, it is a move to get these flashy things in your face.

    I of course welcome our great US (and immigrant) driver overlords who will never
    crash into me when texting on the phone while watching a phone vid and getting
    giant flashing messages driven into their eyeballs like a Max-Headroom blipvert.

  81. Just Ridiculous by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    I don't want to see criminal's faces up in lights on large billboards. I don't care to see criminal faces anywhere. I don't visit the most wanted in the post office. Our streets are already far too cluttered with crap from business. Now we have to see the FBI putting this crap up on our streets?

    Let's be real here. The FBI needs to do it's job and catch criminals and let us be. We pay our taxes to have our government mostly out of our lives. They get the money from taxes to do their job. There's no reason I should have to find them more integrated into my life. Soon they'll be presenting this in required spaces on my monitor (spaces where i must set aside screen real-estate for them).

    This is bogus and a waste of our tax payer money.

    Find another way FBI while staying out of our lives.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  82. Us vs Them, Human vs Human by MorpheousMarty · · Score: 1

    We all live in an us vs them mindset. You care more about your friends and family than you do do guy on freeway next to you, it's ok. It's part of being human and there isn't much you can do about it. I know it's presented as humor, but this article on monkeyspheres (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html) covers the problem quite well. As long as the system (government/laws) isn't setup to treat them differently, the individuals can continue to show the preferential treatment they give their friends and family without ruining everything. At lest I hope so or we're all boned.

    1. Re:Us vs Them, Human vs Human by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      Your point about the Monkeysphere is well made. The Us-vs-Them I'm speaking of is parallel to but not the same as the monkeysphere. The key difference is in the acceptability of putting a human face on "them". Very few people will get angry at you if you suggest feeling sympathy for the victims of an earthquake on the far side of the world, but if you suggest treating "the enemy" with compassion you will angrily be told "them get what they deserve." This change in mindset is part of War. A compassionate war is an impossible thing, so in a legitimate war this is a necessary mindset. There is a problem when the war and enemy are vague and unending. Political dissent becomes "siding with the enemy" instead of a healthy part of a lively democracy.

      --
      We are all just people.
    2. Re:Us vs Them, Human vs Human by MorpheousMarty · · Score: 1

      I totally agree, and will go as far as saying that this isn't a war at all. The war on terror is such a marketing ploy it makes me sick. I remember right at the beginning there was talk about defining what a terrorist was, too bad we forgot that we never did that.

  83. Yes, but you can still tank the sentries. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but you can still tank the sentries.

    That .4 sec (hispanic) neighborhood near you will still have plenty of pirates.

  84. Re:Yes but who? by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

    George W. of course, George Washington was definitely first.

  85. Amazingly Inaccurate Assessments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flamebait follows because I just can't believe what I read here at times.

    Incredibly inaccurate statements in the article have inspired an even higher-than-usual level of amazingly inaccurate assessments by the Slashdot intelligentsia.

    The FBI isn't installing anything; it is partnering with Clear Channel and being provided with access to Clear Channel's existing, and likely future, inventory of digital billboards. Incredibly, the article makes it sound as if the FBI selected the cities listed in the article for installation. Additionally, the size and weight of those billboards along with the structures needed to support them, the power needed to light them, and the information infrastructure needed to drive them make it impossible for 150 to be installed in 20 U.S. cities in the span of a few weeks.

    If some reasonable skepticism and judicious news release searching had been applied before mouthing off, the vast majority of the inane reponses would have never been made. An even better scenario would have been for the moderators to check the facts before taking the sensationalist route.

    And everyone here rabidly complains about the threat of a monoculture? Looks like most /.ers should invest some time in useful introspection.

  86. a canard by Bored+MPA · · Score: 1

    It might help if people didn't confuse selective enforcement and racists laws with real crime numbers. Crime and prison numbers are complicated issues, but your example is a canard that ignores class issues--the toll of an enforcement system that targets ghetto kids getting high (frequently in public for various socio-economic reasons), provides them with a crappy defense (and/or has police lie to them to plea bargain a lesser sentence), and then sends them down a completely different life route than the middle class kids doing blow two blocks over.

    The system is complicated, violent, and heartless--you shouldn't oversimplify it.
    "It might help if young black men stopped committing crime at 10x the national average. "

    And I am not quote hunting, but it IS legal for police to lie to suspects to solicit confessions. It is statistically proven that poor people have poorer and minorities have worse results in court for the same crime. And it is anecdotally acknowledged (recently by the supreme court) that sentencing (and thus life options) for crack is unusually high...in fact sentencing for marijuana used to be very high for similar reasons, but send a few kids of state senators to jail for a while and things start to change.

  87. Re:A NEW LIFE AWAITS YOU IN THE OFF-WORLD COLONIES by Marrow · · Score: 1

    Or, a win a free appearance on Americas Favorite Game Show: The Running Man!

    YES!

    Hello, this is Killian. Give me the Justice Department, Entertainment Division.

  88. go back to bed america by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "you are free to do as we tell you!" - Bill Hicks we need you!

  89. Wanted Poster by hitmanWilly1337 · · Score: 1

    This just seems to me like the old wanted posters, just updated with the times. These are violent criminals. Now, if they start putting up pictures of ppl with poor credit ratings, then we can talk.

  90. BUSH /CHENEYON BILLBOARD - NO WAY! by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

    They are more likely to give the contract to FOX news, if they haven't already.

  91. Providing Income For Wrongly Accused by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    They'll eventually start putting up "persons of interest" wanted for questioning.
    Some of those persons of interest will be completely innocent and have no knowledge of what the FBI is asking. But the negative publicity will cause them grief and likely loss of employment. And they will then sue the FBI and DoJ and get lots of money.

    It's happened before without these signs. The signs will make it more likely as well as more public.

    One hopes that the implied accusation of having one's face plastered around the country in this way doesn't result in vigilantes taking action. The results could be far worse and no amount of settlement would make up for it.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  92. Uncool by nobaloney · · Score: 1

    Is this a gutshot reaction or something? Seriously, I don't see what the problem with this is. They're not planning to put up pictures of recently released criminals. They're not planning to put up pictures of sex offenders in your neighborhood. They're not planning to put up pictures telling you to vote Republican. This is to be used same way as America's Most Wanted and backs of milk cartons. At least for now. If that changes, then start complaining.

    Give 'em time, they'll do all of those things. They'll take one small step at a time. If you wait for it to happen before you complain it'll be way too late.

  93. It'll take not even a day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for the first "All your base are belong to us" defacement.

  94. Criminals up in Lights by jesse285 · · Score: 1

    Wow are we a little slow on this,we are in the 2008s let get the ball rolling and man there are a lots of dark commets about this, one word to the wise: if you don't do no wrong then you are not part of this.