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."

Comments

Free publicity?

[five18pm]

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

Re:Free publicity?

[Kierthos]

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.

Re:Free publicity?

[foobsr]

require even more stupidity then normal

You did not yet realize everything is about growth?

CC.

please, no new billboards

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we do a daily minute of hate as well?

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Cool!

[Sigma 7]

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.

Re:Cool!

[kalirion]

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.

Re:Cool!

[sm62704]

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

Re:Cool!

[eck011219]

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.

Re:Cool!

[that this is not und]

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.

Re:Cool!

[Red Flayer]

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.

Re:Cool!

[blincoln]

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?

Re:Cool!

[Original Replica]

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.

Re:Cool!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Re:Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Cool!

[Reziac]

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!

Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

Digital billboards? By the FBI?

Living in the future is so cool!

A NEW LIFE AWAITS YOU IN THE OFF-WORLD COLONIES!

[wolfpaws]

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

Its bound to work

[Instine]

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

What If ...?

[Aaron_Pike]

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?

Re:What If ...?

[Elemenope]

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.

Re:What If ...?

[DavidShor]

"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.

Re:What If ...?

[Henry V .009]

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.

Re:What If ...?

[DM9290]

"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.

Slander

[dotancohen]

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.

Re:Slander

[alen]

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

Re:Slander

[OgreChow]

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?

Re:Slander

[dotancohen]

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.

Re:Slander

[TubeSteak]

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.

Re:Slander

[swillden]

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.

Re:Slander

[swillden]

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.

Re:Slander

[Grygus]

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.

No Boston?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Website Advertisements

[Mishra100]

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.

How do I know?

[tsotha]

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.

Oblig. BB

[Bootle]

So when do these billboards start displaying the latest IngSoc?

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

Let me be the first to...

[j-stroy]

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

Old Topic but whatever

[DeeQ]

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.

Device Specs

[coldcell]

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

What a GREAT idea

[puppetluva]

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.

Re:What a GREAT idea

[Hognoxious]

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

You call that dystopic?

[sam_handelman]

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.

I'm sure they'll put up corrections

[clawsoon]

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.

Future target of sweet, sweet hax

[Rob T Firefly]

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

Absolutely Sickening

[tjstork]

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.

Can't...

[spleen_blender]

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.

Big Brother, Fahrenheit 451, and Minority Report

[karlwilson]

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...

I can see it now...

[Talkischeap]

WANTED: Montag