Slashdot Mirror


Geocaching Shuts Down British Town

DaveAtWorkAnnoyingly writes "Many geocachers will be thinking twice when planting their treasure in an urban space as one geocacher found out in England after the police cordoned off the center of a small West Yorkshire town and the Bomb Squad was called in. From the article: 'It was a normal busy Friday morning in the small West Yorkshire market town of Wetherby when someone working in a café spotted a man acting a bit suspiciously on the street. He appeared to have a small plastic box in his hand and after fiddling with the container he bent down and hid it under a flower box standing on the pavement. He then walked off, talking to somebody on his phone.'"

282 comments

  1. Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People need to lighten up. This is getting out of hand.

    1. Re:Honestly... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

      Honestly... considering the number of "caches" everywhere and in London, I'm surprised that problem doesn't happen more often.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Honestly... by symes · · Score: 2

      Sleepy English towns and villages can be like this, more so in Scotland and Wales - it's not just people with plastic boxes that raise eyebrows. Just not being local can be enough. On a recent excursion I became centre of attention in the local pub for no other reason than it was my first time there. American Warewolf in London? It is all true (except for the warewolf bit).

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

      I remember moving to Berwick upon Tweed a few years ago. Most were decent enough people but a few have some *real* hangups about 'dem city fowlk'

    4. Re:Honestly... by gomiam · · Score: 1

      Yes, they have already seen American werewolves. Warevolves are something new :P

    5. Re:Honestly... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, they have already seen American werewolves. Warevolves are something new :P

      The dreaded Tupper Warewolf is the worst. In spite of what they think, these beasts do not know how to party...
      They can however keep food miraculously fresh for days!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    6. Re:Honestly... by DrXym · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sleepy English towns and villages can be like this, more so in Scotland and Wales

      The UK is no stranger to bombing campaigns from the IRA, muslim extremists and even the odd loony. It is highly predictable that if you bury a suspicious package in a high street someone is going to ring the police. Not everyone is aware of some esoteric nerd pasttime that involves such acts.

      If you really must bury something somewhere like that, go get a policeman you doing it, preferably with a sheet of paper that explains its legalities. Better yet, don't do it in the middle of a high street and find somewhere more rural to do it.

    7. Re:Honestly... by mcvos · · Score: 2

      It's a wolf that turns into a piece of illegal software?

    8. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that this happened only days before the anniversary of the 7/7 bombings in London can't have helped...

    9. Re:Honestly... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Or a hairy piece of scareware?

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    10. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the official police response was something along the lines of "if you're going to do this, tell us first". Great in theory, but there are literally thousands of these things around the country (even the relatively rural little village where I work has several hundred within five minutes' drive). How much police time would it waste to call in every cache that gets created? And really, what's to stop a real terrorist calling in a geocache so that his bomb won't get defused? Yet again an out of touch response from the police to a generation and a technology they just don't understand.

    11. Re:Honestly... by phishtahko · · Score: 2

      No, you're thinking of the dreaded warezwolf, sworn enemy of Abriaaham von Helsing.

    12. Re:Honestly... by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2

      If you really must bury something somewhere like that, go get a policeman you doing it, preferably with a sheet of paper that explains its legalities.

      What are the legalities? I presumed that this would actually be considered to be littering.

    13. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, seriously. We've not had any serious viable terrorist threats in this country since the heady days of the IRAs mainland bombing campaigns, except for maybe the white supremacist cell (with BNP councillor involvement) discovered with explosives/arms cache in Lancashire a few years ago. Calling in the bomb squad was completely OTT

      That the govt and media have managed to whip people into that level of fear is a damning indictment of the amount of common sense in the UK these days.

      The shopkeeper who called in the bomb squad even tried to blame the geocacher for the bomb squad being there all afternoon and her losing all that trade. Maybe she should just admit she's an idiot and caused her own losses (and also caused all the other shopkeepers to lose trade too!) by calling them in.

    14. Re:Honestly... by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Agreed, but the British actually have good reason to be paranoid; unlike we US folks, terrorism is no stranger to them. Even though "the troubles" are supposed to be over, there are still a few fringe groups causing mayhem there.

      The British police actually gave good advice -- call them and let them know you're geocaching, where the cache is, and what's in it.

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

      The UK is no stranger to bombing campaigns from the IRA, muslim extremists and even the odd loony. It is highly predictable that if you bury a suspicious package in a high street someone is going to ring the police. Not everyone is aware of some esoteric nerd pasttime that involves such acts.

      If you really must bury something somewhere like that, go get a policeman you doing it, preferably with a sheet of paper that explains its legalities. Better yet, don't do it in the middle of a high street and find somewhere more rural to do it.

      Even with a history of bombings how is closing a area for hours and then blowing up a completely harmless geochache box an appropriate response?

    16. Re:Honestly... by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 0

      I am surprised too. I know geopcaching is innocent, its a simple take on the old Treasure hunt games. However, unfortunately some idiots are abusing it for more nefarious means. We are not jsut talkign about terrorists only here, but anyone like drug dealers, etc.

      Its sad that because of the crimes of one group, another innocent group looses their freedom.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    17. Re:Honestly... by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Again, the UK has HAD real bombing campaigns by the IRA, etc.

      I still remember how the IRA in the old days woudl "dispose" of a bomb in a litter bin in a station, which woudl then blow up. This is why most railway statiosn in the UK dont haev bins, and when they do, its just a clear bag on a frame, so that the contents can be observed.

      If a member of the public sees a person hiding a metal box in the ground in a shady way, then walking away talking on the phone, it is not inconcivable to assume that the person is doing somethgin wrong. I certainly would.

      Closing off an area is only prudent, what if it WAS a bomb... and people got hurt....

      Controlled blowing up the package is often the right thing, remember these things may have booby traps and tamper protection. and if all there is is a closed metal box, woudl you risk opening it?

      As the parent says, the UK, is no stranger to these things, and its the way it works. There are plenty of signs urging the public to be vigilent, and report suspect packages, etc. And this was true even before 9/11

      --
      Have a nice day!
    18. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warevolves are Swedish cars that turn into pickup trucks under the influence of full moon.

    19. Re:Honestly... by somersault · · Score: 1

      I presumed that this would actually be considered to be littering.

      Well, that's because it is littering.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    20. Re:Honestly... by himself · · Score: 1

      The game's own rules say not to bury a cache. The web page where you add a cache to the database also reminds you that you are to have obtained sufficient permissions to hide the cache, though it's clear that many hiders never do so.

    21. Re:Honestly... by jeremyp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Had the police known it was a harmless package in advance, I'd understand your point. Unfortunately, in the UK, we have had some experience of harmless looking packages in the past.

      You do understand the difference between "harmless" and "harmless looking" don't you?

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    22. Re:Honestly... by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      In my own experience, geocaches tend to be registered on central geocaching sites. That is, after all, typically how people know to look for them. Seems like the police are taking the incompetent ("not my problem") way out. Perhaps they should weekly or monthly print out a map of geocaches in their area of responsibility. Then when they get a call, they can simply look to see if a cache is known. If it is, casually send someone out to check it out. If its not, then a more prudent response can be justified.

      Many caches have existed for many, many years. Existing caches rarely change. The rate of new caches is steady but relatively slow over time. Simply being aware and keeping track of known caches once per week is extremely likely to prevent false alarms and the burden is very slight.

      But hey, what do I know. Being responsible and intelligent these days seems to have long fallen out of fashion.

    23. Re:Honestly... by deadhammer · · Score: 1

      That would be the dreaded Warezwolf. Often sought out for his anti-establishment behavior, the Warezwolf is to be treated with caution as he is often infected with a variety of worms and viruses.

      --
      I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
    24. Re:Honestly... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      And they have that patented burp...

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    25. Re:Honestly... by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ok, I have had a though about my above comment, and sat down and thought. Actually, the whole "the terrorists have won" concept is very new.

      The UK, has been subject to terrorism far longer than 9/11. We had the IRA trying it on and succeeding very often. Sure their methods were different than the current fundamentalists, as well as their reasons.

      Prior to 9/11 and even Tony Blair and New Labour, the governments view was very simple. Get on with your life and dont succumb to fear, otherwise the Terrorists have won. Sure the media often whip up frenzy, but the message from the authorities was very clear.

      As part of the policy then, processes were created about how to report suspicious packages and then for the police to handle them. These processes were NOT designed to create fear, but to REDUCE fear, by giving confidence that we all can report suspcious behaviour without fear, and also deal with it in a systematic way. the main message alwasy was to not let fear of these people ruin your life or freedom to live, and the UK was often well priased for its balenced, tationalistic and confident way of working. Hence despite the UK having MORE threat of bombings then compared to the present, the impression people got was that the UK was safer then than now.

      So what has changed? Well since Labour came in power in 1997, two things started happening. The first thing was that the Government started not just pandering to the media, but also even helping the media in their whipping up of frenzy.

      Look at the way Princess Diana's death was handled by the government and the media.

      The second thing that happend was the the new government developed a view that the "government should make laws and have processes to fend off threats" IT pandered to the "think of the children" policy. IT gave the impression that people were no longer ressponsible for controlling parts of their life, and instead there shoudl be support groups/laws and insitutions to do best. It empowered people whilst also taking away responsibility.

      This gave short term comfort, but in the long term, it caused more anxiety, as people fear what they cant control. this itself create more laws to solve the problems.

      Then along came 9/11. and the later london bombings. Instead of ensuring that the prominent message was "get on with your life, dont let these idiots win", instead people were crying for MORE laws, and rules, and procedures, and allowing the fires of fear to be fueled ever more strongly, leading to a vicous circle.

      There are people who follow the old way of thinking, but a huge younger generation (as well as some older) who follow the post 9/11 way fo thinking.

      If we continue to think in the "new" way, then the terrorists have one. Instead we shoudl understand how we can work with autorities, but do so not on the concept of fear, but rational behaviour.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    26. Re:Honestly... by JabberWokky · · Score: 2

      Geocaching is a populist hobby or game. There are no absolute rules; a given website (and there are many out there with different rules listed) has no more control over people geocaching on their own than a website listing rules about how to play with a cat using a laser pointer can control somebody amusing themselves in their living room.

      Let me preempt the most obvious reply: There is a patent covering the latter, of course...

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    27. Re:Honestly... by parens · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that they are taking the "not my problem" way out, because frankly, it ISN'T their problem. The geocachers are the ones with a suspicious-looking hobby, it's incumbent upon them to make sure they don't alarm people.

    28. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In parts of the USA, if something you've done with a box or other object causes other people to freak out, you've committed the serious crime of using a "hoax device." Whether something is a hoax device, which I assume is a device intended to frighten people without really hurting them (so, basically, half a terrorist attack) is apparently primarily dependent on whether people freak out.

      So, predict whether anyone will freak out, because that is part of the legalities.

    29. Re:Honestly... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I've never played the geocache game, but wouldn't you register the coordinates after you've planted the cache? In TFA a shopkeeper saw someone "suspiciously" put something somewhere and called the cops. Would the coordinates already have been listed?

    30. Re:Honestly... by Duradin · · Score: 1

      A trend I've been seeing with "modern" geek culture is their demand for society to conform to their wants.

      "Everyone else should understand geocaching and not screw with us. We should be able to use any property any way we want and no one should screw with us."

      Even their OS choices should be supported by everyone else, no matter how obscure it is. Don't support GNU/RMS/Linux? DIAF.

    31. Re:Honestly... by dave562 · · Score: 1

      IT pandered to the "think of the children" policy. IT gave the impression that people were no longer ressponsible for controlling parts of their life, and instead there shoudl be support groups/laws and insitutions to do best.

      As an IT professional, I completely agree. I am all about "think(ing) of the children" and I block porn with my web filters for that exact reason. I cannot have my users looking at naked children at work, they can do that crap at home.

      I also give my users the impression that they are not responsible for controlling parts of their lives. That is what I am for. I own them, and their workstations.

      IT is the problem. Muwhahahahahaaaa.

    32. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes lets make those nasty terrorists stop killing people by hiding bombs so that we can play a really nerdy hide-and-seek game. Our eccentric games are far far more important than that real life thing people are so worried about. How dare someone tell me I can't hide strange containers wherever I want to. My mommy said I'm special and can do anything I want, so nya nya!

    33. Re:Honestly... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      because frankly, it ISN'T their problem.

      Except, of course, you're completely wrong. What a surprise to find someone completely wrong on slashdot. That's sarcasm in case it wasn't clear.

      The police said they would like to be notified. They clear says its their problem. Period. Secondly, if they are sending out bomb squads, its very clearly their problem. Especially if they are sending out bomb squads for absolutely no proof there is an issue, aside from knowing a container exists somewhere in the world.

      Sorry, but please come back to reality.

    34. Re:Honestly... by demonbug · · Score: 1

      And they have that patented burp...

      Still good!

    35. Re:Honestly... by parens · · Score: 1

      You suggested the police just print up a weekly map of geocaches, and refer to said map whenever someone calls in a suspicious package .... and I need to come back to reality? Mkay. In case that wasn't clear, up your meds, champ.

    36. Re:Honestly... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The UK, has been subject to terrorism far longer than 9/11. We had the IRA trying it on and succeeding very often. Sure their methods were different than the current fundamentalists, as well as their reasons.

      Wait, wait. Which IRA is the problem over there? Our government funds some of the IRAs in the UK, though I can't remember which. They're all knock-offs of the original Irish Republican Army anyway, I don't get why we fund some and don't fund others.

    37. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK is no stranger to bombing campaigns from the IRA, muslim extremists and even the odd loony.

      True but they usually go for slightly more exciting targets than places like Wetherby!

    38. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not going to happen while people still remember the IRA.
      I narrowly missed a bomb once (by half an hour) when traveling through London in the 1980s.
      Vigilance is what saves lives.
      Mind that parcel.

    39. Re:Honestly... by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      I still remember how the IRA in the old days woudl "dispose" of a bomb in a litter bin in a station, which woudl then blow up

      You obviously don't remember that the IRA would call the police before the bomb went off. This is all pre-9/11 when even the terrorists had an inkling of humanity.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    40. Re:Honestly... by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      All the IRAs were the problem. The original IRA was the Irish faction in the Irish war of independence. They dissolved after the Irish civil war- all the factions that used the name since have been more or less terrorist groups. They include the Official IRA, the Provisional IRA, the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA, and probably others.

      Wikipedia tells me that PIRA was the worst, totalling 1800 or so murders. OIRA managed 52. No overall figure for RIRA, but they killed 29 in the 1998 Omagh Bombing. All in all, not the sort of people you want to be giving money to.

      (Incidentally, in case you think I'm being partisan- there were also some very nasty Unionist groups on the other side during The Troubles too. It was a very unpleasant time all round.)

    41. Re:Honestly... by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but the British actually have good reason to be paranoid; unlike we US folks, terrorism is no stranger to them.

      Just because some Muslims flew planes into buildings doesn't mean there was no terrorism in the US before that. UNA bomber, Atlanta Olympics, just to name a few.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    42. Re:Honestly... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I think the US funds the Provisional IRA.

    43. Re:Honestly... by adolf · · Score: 1

      Note to terrorists:

      In the future, please make sure to post all of your bombs at geocaching.org. We realize this is an inconvenience, but it has bee brought to our attention (thanks, GooberToo) that simply posting the location of the bomb will dramatically increase the chances of it successfully detonating as planned.

      Best wishes.

    44. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK is no stranger to bombing campaigns from the IRA, the loony and the odd muslim extremists

      Fixed that for you. Statistically, your bias was showing.

    45. Re:Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, this isn't a problem with geocaching. this is a problem with your society.

    46. Re:Honestly... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      True, but nothing like the British. Certainly not enough to warrant losing any sleep over, let alone spending billions to prevent.

    47. Re:Honestly... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It's a racing certainty that all of the *IRA are getting some degree of funding from American individual fuckwits. And from individual Irish fuckwits. And probably some from Australian fuckwits. Fuckwits are such a readily-available resource in all parts of the world.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    48. Re:Honestly... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      However, unfortunately some idiots are abusing it [geocaching] for more nefarious means. We are not jsut talkign about terrorists only here, but anyone like drug dealers, etc.

      The local drug dealers round here were certainly burying caches in bushes on the local golf course back in the mid-90s, and I'd be pretty surprised if the idea hadn't occurred to them back in the 1970s. The element of using GPS devices is utterly unnecessary.

      If I went out onto the golf course now and found a smack dealer burying a package (or digging one up), I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised (nor would the police ; they've got longer memories than the local smack heads). If one of them was using £100 worth of gadgetry to record it's location - or indeed had the intelligence to use one - I'd be much more surprised.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    49. Re:Honestly... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      They didn't call the police out of humanity. They did it because the disruption you can get out of one bomb and ten bomb warnings is much, much higher, and served their political aims better than encouraging a "blitz" response which mass casualties would have produced. Whatever you think of their morality, the IRA were controlled by effective PR people.
      (This is possibly less true of the RIRA and CIRA, which make them individually more dangerous, but by reducing their support it neuters them politically.)

      One of the tactics that have been used several times by several IRAs is to plant a bomb at one location, then call in bomb warnings relating to other nearby locations. The police then evacuate the areas around the threatened locations, which displaces people towards the true location of the bomb.
      This is an effective strategy for killing people ; it is not a politically effective strategy. (See above comments comparing *IRA and which ones are politically effective.)

      Since the IRA have been effectively shut down (it should be said by political action, not police or military action), British streets are slowly regaining their rubbish bins etc. I didn't realise how bare British streets of the 1980s were until I went abroad.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    50. Re:Honestly... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Seems like the police are taking the incompetent ("not my problem") way out. Perhaps they should weekly or monthly print out a map of geocaches in their area of responsibility.

      ... and by implication, inspect the new ones?

      Or if they're not going to inspect them, and check that they really aren't bombs in a geocache, drug stashes, or kiddy porn swap shops ... then what was the purpose of wasting that printer paper.

      Say you've got 10 new caches in your area. You're sending an officer to inspect them. Actually, it'd have to be two officers, who can corroborate each other's evidence. That's about 2 man-days/month ; 24 man-days/year. About £5000/year.

      Now, is that going to be paid by either the general population, or the members of geocaching clubs?

      This is why the police like team sports that attract people to set locations at set times - there is someone they can bill.

      But hey, what do I know. Being responsible and intelligent these days seems to have long fallen out of fashion.

      Certainly with this particular geocacher. I'm sure the "rules" of geocaching do require people to avoid causing disturbance, avoid causing alarm, etc. But this particular guy didn't engage his brain before acting.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    51. Re:Honestly... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Bomb squad is an army function, not a police function. At least, in Britain it is (the police have almost no need to handle weapons, after all).

      I haven't checked the local paper recently, but I'd be surprised if it was more than a month since a fishing boat found a bomb, mine or just plain suspect device in their nets, and the blue-flashing light Land Rover went screaming off to one of the smaller harbours.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    52. Re:Honestly... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      A good point ; I'd expect them to not have been listed.

      If they were listed with a "being placed today" tag, then a sub-sport of geocaching would have been developed , geocacher-catching : "You're 'Cacher-Joe' and I claim my £5! A pint would do."

      Or even geocacher-jailing : "Hello Police, I'm at [location] and there's an oddly-behaving guy wearing a red bobble hat and a green rucksack. Oh hang on, he's just taped a tupperware box under a park bench and he's walking away towards [wherever]. Ah, I can hear your sirens now. I'm going to hang up while you do your job. Video will be on GotYou!Tube in a few minutes."
      The video could be fun.

      Hey, that actually does sound like good fun. Challenging too, spotting the new post and getting to the location before the cacher.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    53. Re:Honestly... by jrmcferren · · Score: 1

      This isn't anything new either. Three years ago we had a similar incident in the small town of Waynesboro, Pa. For those that don't know, this is in the states.

      --
      sudo mod me up
    54. Re:Honestly... by Jeruvy · · Score: 1

      After reading this comment, I think this should be ranked a 6: The truth.

      --
      Jeruvy
  2. Muggles by daitengu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Often times caches specifically state "DO NOT SEARCH IN VIEW OF MUGGLES". "Muggles" being those unfamiliar with geocaching. This is a perfect reason why to heed those words.

    no, honestly, this is dumb. the terrorists have won.

    1. Re:Muggles by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously. I mean when did it become illegal to do what that guy did? Back off stazi, and get your hairy palms off our fun.

    2. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The terrorists always win. The thing people don't seem to really understand is who the terrorists are.

    3. Re:Muggles by mabinogi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It didn't, and the police even said they have no real problem with it, but would appreciate being told about caches in urban areas so as to avoid this sort of misunderstanding in the future.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    4. Re:Muggles by Don_dumb · · Score: 5, Funny

      It didn't, and the police even said they have no real problem with it, but would appreciate being told about caches in urban areas so as to avoid this sort of misunderstanding in the future.

      It didn't, and the police even said they have no real problem with it, but would appreciate being told about caches in urban areas so as to avoid this sort of misunderstanding in the future.

      Either that or they just want to cheat

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    5. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So all I need to do is tell the cops there is a cache somewhere and they'll ignore my bomb?

      Sweet.

    6. Re:Muggles by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 1

      Or to boycott urban caches that are in full freakin view of an entire market district. Seriously cache hiders, in sight of Starbucks is not a good place.

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    7. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS.

    8. Re:Muggles by Noughmad · · Score: 2

      The terrorists always win. The thing people don't seem to really understand is who the terrorists are.

      Lawyers?

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    9. Re:Muggles by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Easy fix. Just register an account on geocaching.com and you have the full overview!

      --
      This is blinging
    10. Re:Muggles by sco08y · · Score: 1

      no, honestly, this is dumb. the terrorists have won.

      You know, "if xxx then the terrorists have won" was idiotic back in 2001 and rightly parodied. Why on earth do people intone it as though it's a great profundity now?

    11. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't need or want the state acting as my parents.. gtfo...

    12. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the totalitarian fascists called "our government" definitely have won.
      The battle.
      The war has just begun. (Disclaimer: I'm at the front. For the people, by the people.)

      No idea about some admittedly a bit crazy scapegoats from the middle east though.

    13. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Ts always win, the AK47 is overpowered...

    14. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It was also said that "the terrorists want to take away our freedoms".

      If that's what they wanted, they really have won.

    15. Re:Muggles by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Or just geocache the bomb itself. Hide it in plain sight.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Disclaimer: I'm at the front.
      No, you're not. You're on Slashdot, preaching.

    17. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no need to tell them, there is a public database with all geocaches online: geocaching.com
      Maybe tell them for mystery caches and finals. That would be the cache owner's responsibility.

    18. Re:Muggles by Askmum · · Score: 1

      no, honestly, this is dumb. the terrorists have won.

      So true. Fear rules the world. Common sense is now halfway to Proxima Centauri, waiting for Voyager to catch up. Wish I was there too.

    19. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very few AK-47s were made and fewer survive. Most of what you see in photos are AKMs or, rarely, AK-74s.

    20. Re:Muggles by mcavic · · Score: 1

      no, honestly, this is dumb. the terrorists have won.

      Actually, if anything, this is why the terrorists aren't winning. Sad, yes, but welcome to the 21st century.

    21. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      no, honestly, this is dumb. the terrorists have won.

      I think it was a legitimate concern.

      All it takes is one situation where "Oh hey, that box isn't dangerous at all" and the box exploding that people (even in slashdot) will scream and shout that the police haven't been doing all they need to in order to keep us safe. Would YOU just shrug it off if you heard about the police ignoring a box and hearing it exploded?

      A search in google says someone was killed by a bomb the size of a lunchbox so it's possible that a tiny box could, in fact, hold a deadly bomb. Stuff it full of nails and bam, dozens injured if not killed from shrapnel.

      It's wonderful we can laugh this off as security theater (and I agree the TSA is fucking ridiculous now), but it just may be better to search 100 times and find that 99 were wrong then to search 0 times and miss the 1. Ideally they would either search once exactly for the one bomb or stop them before they put their bomb out in the first place, but this is the closest we can get at the moment.

      Now, if you're the kind of dude that wouldn't be worried about how potentially dangerous an unattended mystery box is, why not take this usb stick found in a parking lot and stick it in your computer? Too afraid? Well then the terrorists have won.

      (Yes, I get that most of us aren't stupid enough to have autorun on in the first place, but you get my meaning I hope)

    22. Re:Muggles by UtsuMaster · · Score: 2

      I'm not defending paranoia, but if I were planting a cache in a crowded place, and receiving suspicious looks, and was still determined to put it there... what would be the problem of chatting up someone nearby (like a vendor that sticks around), showing how it works, asking where he thinks would be a good spot (just to engage, no need to actually listen :).

      At worst it would be someone uninterested, but capable of clearing this kind of misunderstanding before panic mode. At best its someone that thinks its cool and joins in afterwards.

      Seriously, I'm not a "people person" at all but this is just common sense.

      --
      ...or not.
    23. Re:Muggles by Sique · · Score: 2

      AKM just means "AK-47 modernizirovanniy", so the AKM is an AK-47, updated version.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    24. Re:Muggles by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is not dumb. Most people know nothing about geocaching. Someone looks furtively around and hides something plastic then scuttles off. You don't have to be in a sleepy town to call the police on this, it should be happening in large cities too.

    25. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, honestly, this is dumb. the terrorists have won.

      We live in a country where terrorists have placed bombs in waste bins outside MacDonalds, and exploded the bombs midday on a Saturday. An 11yo child was killed, taking (IIRC) a week to die.

      Search for IRA Warrington

    26. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The terrorists always win. The thing people don't seem to really understand is who the terrorists are.

      Some of the winners?

    27. Re:Muggles by mcvos · · Score: 1

      > Disclaimer: I'm at the front.
      No, you're not. You're on Slashdot, preaching.

      To the choir, even. Go out and convince some people on national TV!

    28. Re:Muggles by Urkki · · Score: 1

      More like, they'll silently wiretap you and check out your history.

      So, if you have something to hide, you shouldn't do geocaching. But, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about!

    29. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the person to find the cache was given a caution... so they obviously mind.

    30. Re:Muggles by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's also worth noting that the IRA actually did place bombs like this in rubbish bins in London and other places through the '90s. It's not like this is some kind of hypothetical terrorist movie plot, this is a modus operandi that real terrorists have used.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    31. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All it takes is one situation where "Oh hey, that box isn't dangerous at all" and the box exploding that people (even in slashdot) will scream and shout that the police haven't been doing all they need to in order to keep us safe. Would YOU just shrug it off if you heard about the police ignoring a box and hearing it exploded?

      Yes.

    32. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The terrorists and the fucking Harry Potter.

    33. Re:Muggles by digitig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It didn't.

      Wrong. They gave the last person to find the cache (!) a police caution, which means that they now have a criminal record.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    34. Re:Muggles by Xaositecte · · Score: 2

      Stop using fixed length fonts.

    35. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      His actions may not be illegal, yet the BBC article says he got a 'police caution'. While that sounds like a 'friendly warning' a police caution is recorded on your record for 5 years and can affect a persons ability to get a job, get a clean CRB check if they work with kids etc. etc. Effectively its a punishment handed out by the police without trial or jury as a way of improving their crime figures with a quick case resolution. People accept cautions because they think its just a warning without understanding the consequences.

      I know someone personally who has suffered as a result of this. His actions may not have been illegal but he has been sentenced for something entirely innocent.

    36. Re:Muggles by delinear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The aim of terrorism is to disrupt the daily lives of others and spread fear. They've got us so on edge that we'll shut down a town for the sake of a plastic tupperware box that wasn't even planted by a terrorist. I'd say that's mission accomplished? When you get to the point where you don't even need bombs or martyrs anymore to throw a spanner in the works of everyone's daily lives, yeah that's an indicator you're winning.

    37. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you consider the IRA dissidents have been making such a noise over in Ireland very recently with their current resurgence, and we've had them plant bombs in the streets of the UK before creating destruction up entire streets of shopping precinct, I don't think there's anything 'dumb' about the way the Police responded to this.

      Also the cafeteria owner said to the press that it was a 'she', not a 'he', whom was responsible.

    38. Re:Muggles by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      I have heard there is an underground hacking community that tracks the locations of all caches worldwide... even down to the EXACT GPS coordinates!

    39. Re:Muggles by jafffacake · · Score: 1

      the package had the word "geocache - contents harmless" clearly written on the outside - i saw the pictures in the uk news reports. the website www.geocaching.com (top hit on google if you search "geocache") contains details including locations of almost every geocache in the world; it's free to access. how much more notification do the police need?

    40. Re:Muggles by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

      I have no statistics on caches disappearing, but several of the travel bugs I followed ended up missing, one of them twice! Caches disappear constantly, even if they are out of public areas... what's the point of putting it in the middle of a commercial district? Just to make sure it doesn't even last two weeks? While on the meantime screwing up dozens of potential nice spots, based on the rule "no caches within a certain range of another"...

    41. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It didn't, and the police even said they have no real problem with it, but would appreciate being told about caches in urban areas so as to avoid this sort of misunderstanding in the future.

      One piece of geocacher etiquette:

      When you're hiding a geocache, tell the shopkeeper that it's there. It's not just courtesy, it's a necessity, exactly for cases like this. And if they're not cool with it, find somewhere else. Also while we're here, you're not supposed to hide them on private property. (Not suggesting that the geocache in TFA was, though.)

      There's a geocache hidden outside a science museum near where I live, which the guys inside have nothing to do with, but they know it's there. So if you go looking for it, for example, the security guards won't bother you. (Although, in this case, they probably encourage the curiosity; they're a science museum.)

    42. Re:Muggles by Bryan3000000 · · Score: 1

      No. The people who employ lawyers. Lawyers are just tools.

    43. Re:Muggles by jittles · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, if you have something to hide, you shouldn't do geocaching. But, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about!

      I can't imagine Geocaching would be very fun if you had nothing to hide!

    44. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting... place multiple detonators in other caches and you could have Die Hard 5...

    45. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was "Bin Laden wants to USA to go to war in the middle east to raise discontent among arabs that USA is at war in the middle east."

      If that's what he wanted, we fell for it.

    46. Re:Muggles by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      And watch the IRA/loonies also add their bomb, disguised as a geocache to the database......

      --
      Have a nice day!
    47. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my dick?

    48. Re:Muggles by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      That's the lazy way out. If they really care, print out a map of known caches. Printing out a map 52x per year is dirt cheap compared to cost of dispatching the bomb squad and associated, reckless social anxiety.

    49. Re:Muggles by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      "Illegal" implies that he was arrested. "Stazi" implies that he was arrested by secret police and probably abused. Neither of these things appear to have happened. There does not even appear to have been a significant investigation. Suspicious activity was observed (and yes, this was "suspicious" activity in Britain. It was not very many years ago at all that this exact sort of drop was a precursor to an IRA bomb explosion), the police were called. They blew the package to be on the safe side, then asked, quite politely, for people to be more careful and considerate about dropping cache items. No arrest, no beatings, barely even a blip on the radar. Yeah, that's totally on par with a secret police force that can cause you to vanish in the night for saying the wrong thing.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    50. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's BS. A hammer never advises you that the nail can survive more blows before breaking and screwdrivers don't earn more money for screwing better.

    51. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My over flowing gun safe seems to indicate otherwise.

    52. Re:Muggles by couchslug · · Score: 1

      A particularly silly hobby involving planting things in areas which do not belong to you is no loss if it's stopped.

      Want an excuse to go walkabout, go orienteering instead. Map, compass, no GPS. You get to look up instead of down and learn a useful skill if Something Bad happens to GPS satellites.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    53. Re:Muggles by Christian+Smith · · Score: 1

      It didn't.

      Wrong. They gave the last person to find the cache (!) a police caution, which means that they now have a criminal record.

      Why did the dumbass accept a caution! He should have seen it through to court.

    54. Re:Muggles by daniel23 · · Score: 1

      given all the rules and conditions you have to fullfill to get the cache approved in a densly populated area (with lots of other caches around) the IRA/loonies will probably shy away from the trouble and rather put the bomb in a waste bin or in a car like everyone else does...

      --
      605413? Yes, it's a prime.
    55. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BRILLIANT! .... oh, wait. idiot.

    56. Re:Muggles by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      GP is actually right. Only the prototype version was called AK-47 and really only a few of those have survived. When the assault rifle was accepted into service of VS SSSR, it has received the designation "AK", without any numbers.

      AKM is thus AK, modernized.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    57. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To hell with kerning!

      The threat of finding something dangerous in a geocache... "prize (?)" has always piqued my interest, though I don't actually go about geocaching (if it could even be used as a verb).

      More publicity, to me, would mean that more sociopaths, terrorists, latchkey kids with nothing better to do, etc., would get in on it just to see some poor soul injured, though I think that train of thought is what brings conservatives to ban everything fun.

      Geocachers, be safe. Bring a buddy to dig up that prize for you!

    58. Re:Muggles by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Yes, we agree. I'm brilliant and you're an idiot.

      Your stupidity is literally scary.

    59. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously cache hiders, in sight of Starbucks is not a good place.

      So... there are no good places?

    60. Re:Muggles by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      Whoever marked this as "insightful" missed the part about the poor sap who came along looking for the exploded cache a police caution.

      From the Wikipedia page on Police Cautions...

      A police caution administered for the purpose of disposing of a criminal offence ... A police caution (more properly known as a simple caution) is given by the police and is a non-statutory disposal for adult offenders.

      And from the article...

      Although this appears to be an episode executed in good faith from all sides, it left traders in a busy town out of pocket and the last geocacher to find the box outside Karen's café with a police caution.

      So. Just by looking for this cache and finding it, the bloke now has a criminal record.

      I hope that guy takes it to court and shoves it so far up the cop's arse that they sneeze confetti for a fortnight.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    61. Re:Muggles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Counter-Strike reference...

      WHOOOOSH!!

    62. Re:Muggles by adolf · · Score: 1

      WTF is a "caution"?

      I'm blinded (blighted?) by my narrow view of the world because I'm just a stupid 'Merkin, but over here someone is either arrested or not. They are charged with a crime or not. An arrest is not a "criminal record," and being charged with a crime is always something that eventually goes before a judge unless it gets dropped beforehand.

      How does this "caution" thing work?

    63. Re:Muggles by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Not even that. The prototype version of AK was called KBP-580. For that matter, 1947 is the year when the decision to manufacture the gun was made; the testing of the first batch in the army only began in 1948, and it was only accepted for army service in 1949, so there's no reason for it to be called "47" in the first place. There are no known Soviet documents (technical docs or otherwise) which refer to the gun, or to any of its prototypes, as "AK-47". It is purely a Western invention.

    64. Re:Muggles by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Being arrested here simply means that the police want to talk to you about [something] and they want to establish your identity. Refusing to give your identity information is an arrestable offence, but you're not required to give your identity information if you're not arrested. So, that's clear then? The police keep internal records of who they arrest, but being arrested itself doesn't actually mean anything.

      If you're arrested and detained, then the police can take you to a location of their choice, for questioning, torture, whatever. But they've got to either charge you and bring you in front of a magistrate/ sheriff within a fairly short period of time. (8 hours, I think ; but I think it's slightly variable). Or they can arrest you and detain you "for questioning", then decide there's no crime, or not enough evidence, or that it would be not in the public interest to proceed against you. And they release you with no charge against you, and no stain on your name.

      Being charged with an offence means that the police think that they have adequate evidence to take you to court over a significant matter. At that point they've got to give you access to a lawyer, if you choose, they've got to bring you before a sheriff within a short period of time, and if they thing that a crime has been committed and they have sufficient evidence, they've got to submit a report to the Procurator Fiscal (CPS in England ; don't know about Wales), again within a short period. The sheriff then has responsibility for deciding if you should be detained on remand, released on bail, released on surity, or on your own recognisance ("honour" effectively ;I think there's another option in England ; still don't know about Wales).

      Now, the "caution" comes between being detained and being charged. On the decision of an officer, if the crime is minor or the evidence is weak, the officer can give you the option of accepting a caution relating to that matter. This means that you admit that a crime was committed, and that you did it, and that you recognise that it was a wrong thing to do, and that you accept and understand the police's warning ("caution") that if you commit the same sort of offence again, then you're much more likely to get charged with it and taken to court. In court, the previous offence would be "taken into consideration", quite likely meaning increased fines or other penalties. The "caution" goes on your police record, but unlike criminal convictions, you're not required to admit to being cautioned if asked by anyone (other than the police). In contrast, many classes of conviction (you've been arrested, charged, tried and then convicted), you are required to admit to having, if people ask you.

      Still as clear as mud? An example :

      Consider two identical traffic offences :

      1. offence A, I lose control of my car due to speeding at 34mph and crunch it on a corner ; a police officer sees the crash, identifies me and informs me that in his opinion I was driving recklessly.
      2. offence B, I lose control of my car due to speeding at 36mph and crunch it on a corner ; a police officer sees the crash, identifies me and informs me that in his opinion I was driving recklessly.

      I do offence A, accept a "caution". Later, I hire a car and the paperwork asks me "do you have any convictions for motoring offences other than speding?" I answer "no", rent the car and answer a similar question on the insurance paperwork. I drive away. I'm legal ; I haven't lied on the hire agreement, and the insurance is valid.
      Now I do offence B. Have I learned my lesson? Clearly not. The officer sees that I have an outstanding "caution" for reckless driving, and decides to treat this one more seriously. I'm detained, and charged with "reckless driving". If I'm convicted, no hire company would consider me. My existing car insurance contains a provision requiring me to inform them of any convictions, so I've got to tell them, and they may (at their choice) refuse to renew the insurance, or charge me

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    65. Re:Muggles by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      You're not required to disclose cautions in most circumstances. If you're going for a job, that requires a CRB check, then the CRB check will come back OK, or not, and the CRB will know about the caution(s), but they won't (generally) disclose the reasons for you having passed or failed a CRB check, just that you passed or failed.

      If you're going for a job working with vulnerable kids, for example, a caution for reckless driving is hardly relevant. But if you're going for a job as a taxi driver, the same caution becomes much more relevant. At which point, you really need to be talking to a lawyer, not Slashdot.

      His actions may not have been illegal but he has been sentenced for something entirely innocent.

      As you say, if he was innocent, he should not have accepted the caution, but called the police's bluff. If he didn't understand the law, then he should have got a lawyer. The system is perfectly clear (well, fairly clear), and the words the police use are perfectly clear and they mean what they say. Unfortunately, it's true that many people don't understand English or believe that the police don't mean what they say.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    66. Re:Muggles by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I hope that guy takes it to court and shoves it so far up the cop's arse that they sneeze confetti for a fortnight.

      He can't take it to court. When he accepted the caution HE ADMITTED HIS GUILT OF THE OFFENCE NAMED IN THE CAUTION.

      Which part of "he admitted his guilt" was unclear?
      "He"?
      "Admitted"?
      "His"?
      "Guilt?"

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    67. Re:Muggles by adolf · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Thank you for your well-written response.

      For traffic offenses (and, it seems in my personal experience, only traffic offenses) in the US, there is such a thing as a "warning." It seems to be very similar in concept to a caution.

      We have verbal warnings (likely not recorded at all) and written warnings (which seem to expire, eventually, but will be retained in a database).

      But in the US, traffic offenses aren't generally real crimes anyway: You've got to fuck up really badly, on a fairly regular basis, to ever see an ounce of real (non-monetary) punishment for a traffic offense...and even then, "punishment" is generally just license restrictions or temporary suspension.

      For non-traffic stuff, we don't seem to do anything like that at all: Either you're charged with a crime, or not. If it's a minor offense, and not worth properly prosecuting, you'll just get a stern talking-to from an officer at that time. AFAICT, this is not recorded in any easily-retrievable form, except perhaps in the memory of the officer(s). An arrest is not made in this case (why would someone be arrested unless they're likely to be actually charged with something?).

      As a practical matter, the general scheme of things sounds like it is rather similar on the UK side of the pond, though perhaps your friends on the other side of the Atlantic have better record-keeping. :)

      Again, though: Thanks for clearing that up. It's always amazing what a language barrier English can be . . .

    68. Re:Muggles by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It's always amazing what a language barrier English can be . . .

      I think it's a Churchill-ism that "never were two races so divided by sharing a language".

      Oh, I see Palin in my signature has 0.02$ to throw in too.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. It's all about goals by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't this the very goal of terrorism? To disrupt our daily activities with irrational fear?

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:It's all about goals by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think those in power view it as a positive side effect. ;)

    2. Re:It's all about goals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he meant that the government are the ones doing the terrorism by rushing the cops in, fearmongering and intimidating. No that geocaching guy.

    3. Re:It's all about goals by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It seems to me terrorists used to have some more ulterior goals (ransom, release of prisoners, independence, publicity) not just invoke fear. That is why up to 9/11 they expected hijackers to land and make their demands, not just ram them into buildings. This whole "it'll cost us a million to do and a billion for you do defend against" seems more like a style of guerrilla or economic warfare, trying to make the US crumble under its own weight like the Soviet Union did.

      I mean, it doesn't seem to me that al-Qaeda has much they'd really like to talk about, we're infidels and for the most part they'd just like us to die or throw ourselves to the ground and beg for Allah's mercy or something like that. It's not exactly like videos of them slitting captured people's throats are meant to bring us to the negotiation table. And the more they seem like homicidal maniacs, the less I feel like leaving that cancer to spread.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:It's all about goals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all seem to have forgotten this important detail...

    5. Re:It's all about goals by Syberz · · Score: 1

      Yup, contrary to what the government wants you to believe, the terrorists won a looooong time ago (10 years actually, well... come next September 11th anyways).

      --
      ~Syberz
    6. Re:It's all about goals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you look into it more deeply, you'll find that al-Qaeda's goal was never actually to take over of the States just to create enough chaos that the States economy would be ruined fighting what they perceived to be a huger threat. It worked.

      Well, that plus Agenda 21, anyway.

    7. Re:It's all about goals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment, and the fact that it is up to +4 Insightful, makes me want to weep. The political aims of Al Qaeda are well known to anybody with half a brain (a big one is the removal of American and other foreign military bases from the traditional Islamic countries in the middle east).

    8. Re:It's all about goals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      al-Q has always very explicitly stated that their goals include ending the Israeli concentration camps of Arabs, and the Israeli starving to death of Arab men, women, and children.

      Have you never noticed that? I'd guess that everyone everywhere in the Arab world knows this.

    9. Re:It's all about goals by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Isn't this the very goal of terrorism? To disrupt our daily activities with irrational fear?

      Yeah, because dem terrorizers are teh EEEVIL and have no personal goals or desires other than to terrify us.

      Seriously, this sophomoric view of good-vs-evil - and the associated "DA TERRORISTS HAVE WON!!!" bullshit - just blows my mind. It's like claiming that the goal of child molesters is to make us worry and hide the kids, or that the goal of bank robbers is to scare us into increasing security. There has to be something massively wrong with your understanding of human nature in order for you to come to those types of conclusions.

      tl;dr version: "No"

    10. Re:It's all about goals by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      I certainly don't make the claim that the organizations supporting terror have "won", or even come significantly closer to accomplishing whatever it is they seek. That sort of assertion would require far more insight into international politics than I care to pursue.

      In any negotiation, from a child's sidewalk lemonade stand to international politics, there is a common element: persuasion. One party must convince the other that life will be better if they go along with the proposed plan. In the case of a lemonade stand, a smile and a cool drink will often suffice. For politics, more drastic measures are usually needed. For various reasons, certain people and groups have determined that the best method for persuading other governments is to make their lives worse. That's where terror comes in.

      Terrorism itself is not the final goal, but it is an intermediate one. If the kid down the street wants to buy a bike, his intermediate goal is to save enough money, and that means that first he has to convince you to buy lemonade. He could talk about how refreshing the lemonade is, to persuade you to buy. If al-Qaeda wants to collapse the U.S. economy, their intermediate goal is to provoke the United States into going to war, and that means they first have to convince the U.S. government that they're worth hunting down. They can cause terror, to convince the government that they're a hazard that should be attacked.

      It's not a question of "good-vs-evil". It's a matter of choosing tactics to reach the desired outcome, and meeting intermediate goals along the way. Given that the American public now lives in fear, often assuming everything abnormal is a serious threat, I'd say that anyone looking to cause terror in the United States has met that particular goal. I'm sure there are further goals ahead, and I'm sure there are more complicated issues at hand than there are for a lemonade stand. As stated in the thread topic, it's all about goals.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    11. Re:It's all about goals by Gaffod · · Score: 1

      No. That tired old "remark" is not clever either. The aim of terrorism is to intimidate the government of a country into giving concessions, not to give nosy, bored coffee shop employees an excuse to make a fuss.

    12. Re:It's all about goals by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Terrorism itself is not the final goal, but it is an intermediate one.

      Pah. So is having a good poop in the morning.

      Given that the American public now lives in fear, often assuming everything abnormal is a serious threat, I'd say that anyone looking to cause terror in the United States has met that particular goal.

      The public is always living in fear of something or other. So now we have a new boogyman, and the stranger-danger twits will take a break for a while so they can focus on harassing Abdul. Oh noes!

      If your definition of 'success' is scaring the general public ... well, you'd have to have some serious self esteem issues in order to aim that low. Might as well claim success because you had a good poop this morning.

  4. Contents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wonder what was actually inside O.O

    1. Re:Contents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ashes.

    2. Re:Contents by Professr3 · · Score: 1

      Stars.

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

      full of it?

    4. Re:Contents by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, explosives. Funny story...

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    5. Re:Contents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Booty

  5. Stupidity = Enemy of the state. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupidity. That's the only thing to blame here.
    Utterly retarded extreme drooling idiocy.

    Guys, there's so much awesome stuff in the UK. Why do you let it degenerate into an Idiocracy? You don't have to, you know? It's your choice.
    That study that showed that today, people score only an IQ of 70 at a test from the 70s, sounds waaay to me right now.

    Save your country! It's awesome! (At least it was, and can become again.)
    Make the right choice. Now.

    1. Re:Stupidity = Enemy of the state. by Wandering+Idiot · · Score: 2, Informative

      What study was that? Because it goes against the actual research I've seen on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

    2. Re:Stupidity = Enemy of the state. by Xaositecte · · Score: 4, Informative

      Very recent domestic terrorists in the UK have performed this exact same activity to achieve disastrous results. It's not like the states where some assholes flew a plane into a building 10 years ago, innocent-looking packages are still a real and justified concern.

      As the performing parties, it's geocachers who need to be aware of this fact, and take caution to avoid unnecessary suspicion of their activities.

    3. Re:Stupidity = Enemy of the state. by Computershack · · Score: 1

      Stupidity. That's the only thing to blame here. Utterly retarded extreme drooling idiocy.

      Spoken like a true American. In the UK in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's we suffered a bombing campaing in mainland Britain from the American funded IRA. They planted bombs outside restaurants, pubs, shopping centers and didn't give a shit who they killed. Recently there has been an upsurge in terrorism in Ireland from some of the factions who didn't sign up to the agreement. Not to report this as suspicious would be retarded extreme drooling idiocy.

      --
      I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
    4. Re:Stupidity = Enemy of the state. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, that's like saying: "It's jew-lovers who need to be aware of this fact, and take caution to avoid unnecessary suspicion of their activities."

      You are really more of a enabler of this type of government criminality, than any of those who stood still and did nothing when the Nazis rose to power ever could.
      You literally justified losing your own freedoms for a set of what you yourself agree are lies. Is it any possible to sink lower?
      I hope I will never have to live in a country with you, as you would be the first to hang, when the war is over.
      (Proudly doing the same thing that my grandparents did, when they hunted down the traitors of the second world war.)
      (This is also true for every asshole who modded this asshole up.)

  6. Idiot cafe worker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? A bomb... that's a danger to people on the street... yet small enough to fit in the palm of one's hand? Is shrapnel really considered a terrorist threat nowadays? Or did he think its antimatter explosion would eradicate the entire city block?

    1. Re:Idiot cafe worker by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Really? A bomb... that's a danger to people on the street... yet small enough to fit in the palm of one's hand?

      A charge probably twice the one that fits on one palm can penetrate 650 mm of armor

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Idiot cafe worker by Minwee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really? A bomb... that's a danger to people on the street... yet small enough to fit in the palm of one's hand? Is shrapnel really considered a terrorist threat nowadays?

      They're called "Hand Grenades" for a reason, you know. It's because they can fit in the palm of one's hand. And they have a long history of being a danger to people.

      Or did he think its antimatter explosion would eradicate the entire city block?

      No, but he probably thought that a modern anti-personnel grenade was capable of throwing fragments over two hundred meters away. That makes for an area about _five_ city blocks long that could get quite uncomfortable for passers-by, with a "what's left of you will wish you were dead" zone about a third of a city block across at the centre. The real thing is nothing at all like Counter-Strike.

      But, you know what? You're right. I'm just being silly. After all, nobody ever sets off bombs in England, so I'm sure there's no reason for anyone to worry about anything. Ever.

    3. Re:Idiot cafe worker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fragmentation grenades aren't nearly as lethal as you implicate. 200 meters is not an effective radius, it's an extreme radius, under ideal conditions (no obstructions, like TFS's container, etc). It might kill 1 or 2 people in the immediate proximity and injure/maim a handful of others. Hardly a concern-worthy threat.

      A military-tech grenade also likely wouldn't fit "in a small plastic box in his hand" (max est. height: 2in).

    4. Re:Idiot cafe worker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, killing 1 or 2 people and maybe maining a handful isn't concern-worthy.

      How many people does it take before one should get concerned? 100? 1000?

    5. Re:Idiot cafe worker by meerling · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but that's a shape charge. You don't use those to try and kill people, and the explosive really needs to be in contact (or so bloody close it doesn't matter) to get those kinds of effects. Only a moron tries to kill people with a shaped charge.
      Now there are cases where people tried to do assassinations with shape charges, but they were used to propel a metal plate at a car, so it's like a big shotgun effect with spalling. Although that sucker was crammed in a mailbox, and the car was probably no more than 10 feet away if I remember right.

    6. Re:Idiot cafe worker by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Should I understand that you agree with the OP when saying: "Being afraid of what can fit into a palm is idiotic"?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    7. Re:Idiot cafe worker by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      I'd say it was of concern to that 1 or 2 people. And the 150 per person friend group.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    8. Re:Idiot cafe worker by mlush · · Score: 1

      Really? A bomb... that's a danger to people on the street... yet small enough to fit in the palm of one's hand? Is shrapnel really considered a terrorist threat nowadays? Or did he think its antimatter explosion would eradicate the entire city block?

      So what your saying is that throwing a hand grenade into Oxford high-street should not be considered a terrorist threat?

    9. Re:Idiot cafe worker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course it's concern-worthy, but the difficulty is taking a balanced approach - taken to its extreme you're saying anyone who plants anything the size of the palm of a hand or larger in a populated area warrants a police bomb disposal squad because it's not worth the risk. Ever notice how many discarded drinks cans there are lying around? Any one of them could contain a hand grenade - should we call the police every time we see a yob throw a can on the ground?

    10. Re:Idiot cafe worker by Timmmm · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you have to consider the likelihood of this actually being a bomb and causing damage, v.s. the hassle and disruption it causes if you call the police and it isn't.

      Granted the disruption is pretty small, but the chances of this being a bomb are practically zero.

    11. Re:Idiot cafe worker by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      The Inverse Square law applies to fragmentation munitions. At 200m from the device, chances of a) encountering a piece of shrapnel, and b) that piece of shrapnel having sufficient kinetic energy to seriously wound, are incredibly slim.

      Want to work it out? 0.5(4/3[pi]r^3) for the radius of the blast, and divide that by the surface area of each piece of shrapnel. I'd wager you come out with a probability of contact around seven decimal places.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    12. Re:Idiot cafe worker by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>No, but he probably thought that a modern anti-personnel grenade was capable of throwing fragments over two hundred meters away.

      Throwing fragments is not the same as causing injuries. The casualty radius on a M67 is 15 meters, with a kill radius of 5 meters. (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m67.htm)

      In my quake mod I implemented a grenade that actually launched fragments and would bounce off walls, allowing you to hit people around a corner. It was amazing how many fragments you'd have to launch in order to reliably hit someone even 20 feet away. Expanding radius of a sphere and all that.

    13. Re:Idiot cafe worker by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      The Inverse Square law applies to fragmentation munitions.

      Does it? I kind of thought that the inverse square law relied on things moving radially outwards in all directions in three dimensions. Here on Earth all of the shrapnel is going to end up on the ground - a two dimensional surface.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    14. Re:Idiot cafe worker by Minwee · · Score: 1

      The casualty radius on a M67 is 15 meters, with a kill radius of 5 meters

      Which gives you a rough diameter of 30m, or about one third of an average 79m city block. It's good to see that you agree with me.

    15. Re:Idiot cafe worker by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's a shape charge. You don't use those to try and kill people, and the explosive really needs to be in contact (or so bloody close it doesn't matter) to get those kinds of effects. Only a moron tries to kill people with a shaped charge.

      Isn't a claymore mine a shaped charge though?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    16. Re:Idiot cafe worker by Kjella · · Score: 1

      It might kill 1 or 2 people in the immediate proximity and injure/maim a handful of others.

      Well, according to military handbooks the fatality radius is about 5 meters, casualty radius about 15 meters. For unarmored, fully exposed civilians I think you can say at least that. I guess it depends on how crowded, but 10 meters length of sidewalk could easily be way more than 1-2 deaths. If the cafe had large glass windows then probably several guests there as well, and I wouldn't feel too safe in a passing car either if you were next right to it.

      A military-tech grenade also likely wouldn't fit "in a small plastic box in his hand" (max est. height: 2in).

      True because of the pin and handle but a 2 inch square box has room for roughly as much explosives as a M67 hand grenade (131 vs 134 mL). So for a bomb with radio detonator and grenade-like effect it's actually sufficient. But yes, it does make it much less likely, for a possibility that was rather unlikely to begin with.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    17. Re:Idiot cafe worker by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It was amazing how many fragments you'd have to launch in order to reliably hit someone even 20 feet away. Expanding radius of a sphere and all that.

      This would be why a fragmentation grenade is designed to launch hundreds of fragments. A lot of people seem to think that the only fragmentation is whatever pieces the casing breaks up into; in reality, the casing causes very little fragmentation. The interior of the grenade contains a metallic wrap which is designed to fragment into hundreds of pieces, each smaller than a toothpick. You'd have a hell of a time replicating that in your quake mod.

    18. Re:Idiot cafe worker by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      To repost a link posted elsewhere in this thread:

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/deadly-bomb-was-size-of-lunchbox-2261949.html

      That one killed 29 people, I seem to recall. Omagh Bombing, if you want to find out more.

      Also, as another poster pointed out, a hand-grenade being set off on a busy shopping street wouldn't exactly be a barrel of fun either.

    19. Re:Idiot cafe worker by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's a shape charge. You don't use those to try and kill people, and the explosive really needs to be in contact (or so bloody close it doesn't matter) to get those kinds of effects. Only a moron tries to kill people with a shaped charge.

      You are assuming that the first bomb is supposed to kill many people, instead of getting a lot of rescue workers near the second bomb. You're an easy victim.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    20. Re:Idiot cafe worker by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>You'd have a hell of a time replicating that in your quake mod.

      It's easy enough. There's a for loop that spits out fragments, mostly horizontally (so we can avoid wasting fragments that will just hit the ceiling) and you can adjust the constant that controls how many shards are launched. So you can turn it up arbitrarily high (until you hit the entity limit in the world). You also increase the size of the bounding box so that they fill more space when they launch.

      But mostly I just turned up the damage on the shards.

      On certain maps with tight, twisty corridors, the frag grenades were quite good. Big open spaces? Not so much.

    21. Re:Idiot cafe worker by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Facetious troll is facetious.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  7. Not the first time by Pesticidal · · Score: 3, Informative

    Bomb scare!
    I'm sure there are dozens of other instances of this happening around the world since the whole geocaching thing started.

  8. At least police were nice about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    FTA:

    He also questions putting caches in urban areas.

    "If you feel as though you have to do that, then perhaps contact the police, let us know where it is, give us a description and perhaps a picture and a contact number would be very useful."

    Had this been the US, anyone still considering this would probably just be arrested for supporting terrorism.

    1. Re:At least police were nice about it. by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "If you feel as though you have to do that, then perhaps contact the police, let us know where it is, give us a description and perhaps a picture and a contact number would be very useful."

      That's ridiculous, this isn't the 60s anymore. The police should just zoom in the CCTV footage and x-ray the box through Photoshop, then use face recognition to contact the would be geocacher's mobile phone directly and leave a message confirming that the paperwork is being filed electronically already.

    2. Re:At least police were nice about it. by jamesh · · Score: 1

      "Hello, yes, ummm... this is Moham.... ummm... Colin... and i'd like to register my bo... umm... geocaching package.

      "Describe it? ummm... it kind of looks like 3 cylinders of plastic with some wires, a battery, and a clock

      "That's right. And i'm planning on storing it in a flower pot at No. 9 Downing St. No, no not at No. 10.

      "No that's all. Thank you. Praise Allah.

    3. Re:At least police were nice about it. by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      you left out a couple of 'enhance' somewhere...

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    4. Re:At least police were nice about it. by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      BOOM.
      praise mohammed.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    5. Re:At least police were nice about it. by delinear · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even need to be that direct to have a real impact. How many criminals will slip the net because a police force that's already under pressure to make drastic cuts to meet tightening public spending targets is suddenly fielding hundreds of calls to report setting up legitimate geocaches?

    6. Re:At least police were nice about it. by himself · · Score: 1

      >
      > The police should just zoom in the CCTV footage and x-ray the box through Photoshop...
      >

      So tell me, what's the Cockney rhyming slang for "Enhance...enhance...enhance..."?

  9. Flower petal shrapnel? by RJFerret · · Score: 2

    This used to happen a bunch, until the public became familiar with geocaching, and years ago geocaching guidelines changed to encourage clear plastic containers rather than the more robust menacing ammo cans that were favored initially (far more weather tight).

    Ironically, letterboxing is an activity that has been popular across the pond for decades, and involves the exact same process of hiding a container somewhere publicly accessible.

    But, you still will get over zealous officials who want to play with their toys and blow tupperware up, rather than look at the note on the container, or, you know, investigate.

    Link to the archived geocache listing (for which you need an account to view)

    Particularly troubling is this quote from the cache owner referring to the finder, "When I asked as to his fate, the policeman said it would be wrong to tell me what had happened to him but that he had been dealt with without going to court, but it would likely affect his future career. Read into that what you will."

    I could see considering arresting the woman who called emergency services over nothing, then releasing her give her honest mistake. But doing more than questioning the finder and placer? Preposterous.

    1. Re:Flower petal shrapnel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doing more than questioning the finder and placer? Preposterous.

      Authority loves to flaunt its power over the people; because they can.

    2. Re:Flower petal shrapnel? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Since when has the public become familiar with geocaching? Of course they should check out the place, it could be a bomb, it could have been a drug drop, it most certainly did not look like something plain and ordinary. There have been small bombs planted in England in the recent past so it is not irrational to assume it will happen again.

      The actions of the guy hiding a suspicious object are about as foolish as someone playing 'assassin' on the streets. Should the police assume that every suspicious action is just a college prank?

    3. Re:Flower petal shrapnel? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Ironically, letterboxing is an activity that has been popular across the pond for decades, and involves the exact same process of hiding a container somewhere publicly accessible.

      Letterboxing is common on places like dartmoor, where you can hide things under large stones a long way away from people. Hiding one across the road from Starbucks seems pretty unlikely.

      Oh, and letterboxing generally requires a bit more of a brain. Each one contains a clue to find another, you don't just walk to the coordinates that a GPS tells you to and congratulate yourself on your ability to do what a machine tells you.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Flower petal shrapnel? by delinear · · Score: 1

      There are currently almost 12,000 registered caches on the main geocaching website alone for the UK. If the police aren't going to take a relaxed approach then either geocaching will get banned or the police will be very busy blowing up lunchboxes...

    5. Re:Flower petal shrapnel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >But, you still will get over zealous officials who want to play with their toys and blow tupperware up, rather than look at the note on the container, or, you know, investigate.

      So, they can call you when they find one, so you can look inside for them?

    6. Re:Flower petal shrapnel? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Darinbob's point, I believe, was that it is not the responsibility of the Police to keep up the bizarre hobbies of members of the public.

      Remember, the Agriculture Ministry is not in charge of Gundam.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Flower petal shrapnel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it should be. That is, unless they enjoy spending 35,000 pounds at a pop blowing up tupperware. 12,000 caches is a lot to blow up.

    8. Re:Flower petal shrapnel? by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Characterizing a hobby as "bizarre" still doesn't make his point any stronger. At some point you have to realize, hey, we're living in the *safest time to be alive in all of human history* and let some shit go.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
  10. Inconsistencies - a conspiracy? by miasmic · · Score: 1

    He appeared to have a small plastic box in his hand and after fiddling with the container he bent down and hid it under a flower box standing on the pavement. He then walked off, talking to somebody on his phone.'"

    So was the small plastic box in his hand the phone he was talking on, or did he 'appear' to have something in both hands?

    How would he have fiddled with the box with both hands full? Or was he fiddling with the phone? He must have fiddled with the phone in order to fiddle with the box, as if he wasn't talking on the phone when fiddling with the box he would have to fiddle with the phone afterwards in order to dial a call. Which would call into question the recorded sequence of events. It would only seem likely that he hid the box, then placed a call, and walked off while the call was going through.

    The most likely hypothesis however is that the deed was carried out by a three armed perpetrator, holding the box in one hand, talking on the phone with the other, and using his extraneous appendage to "fiddle with the box".

    Obviously a sign of an alien borne geocaching mind control conspiracy, the clued-in CIA and NSA providing a stand in human fall guy should it draw attention from the local bobbies.

  11. Off topic, but .. by kaka.mala.vachva · · Score: 1

    wow, I didn't know about geo-caching. And now that I know, I don't see myself participating, ever! This doesn't even have to do with fear of terrorism - picking up a box with unknown contents, packed by a stranger - why do people do it?

    1. Re:Off topic, but .. by moronoxyd · · Score: 2

      When you found the container, you take out a memento the last person placed there and put another one there yourself. Some (all?) caches also seem to contain a sheet of paper with a list of the geocachers who have been to this cache, where you would add your name and the date.

      Disclaimer: I'm not a geocacher, but I know a few.

    2. Re:Off topic, but .. by delinear · · Score: 2

      A few people do this at work. I've never tried but from what I gather it's a bit more high tech than that these days - instead of adding your name to a list, you can upload a message and a photograph of yourself at the cache site to the web. It seems like it's actually quite a social pursuit for a lot of people, there are geocaching conventions and planned events (a bit like a treasure hunt I guess). A bit like Facebook + the great outdoors - which I know is a combination scary enough to put a lot of /.ers off for life :)

  12. Experts agree: EVERYTHING IS NOT FINE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should be afraid of everything!

  13. German police quite relaxed - a true story by Lord+Azrael · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On my daily walks with the dog i one day spotted something in a silver box near the path and found it was a small aluminium box. I personally did not think that it could be related to geocaching at all and called the local polica station and asked them what to do, as in this case it was me who was afraid to touch or open it because i thought this is a bomb ... Well, one of the first things this police officer said was

    "i bet this is one of those geocaching boxes, that is not uncommon these days"
    So i asked him: "shall i really open it"
    officer: "yes, open it"
    "and what if it is a bomb and i blow up?"
    officer: "then i will keep my ears shut!" :-)

    of course there was nothing interesting in this box and no bomb at all. but i really had to laugh about this quite cool and funny officer

    --
    Lord "not Gargamel's Cat!" Azrael
    1. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Why would you think that a small box you find is a bomb? No, seriously - why the fuck would you think that?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    2. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A German police officer with a sense of humor. These are indeed days of wonder.

    3. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by Lord+Azrael · · Score: 1

      in this moment thats simply what i thought, yeah, totally exaggerated, you're right. but thats what was in my mind at that moment. after all, there are enough idiots around in this world... Maybe i should stop reading the news

      --
      Lord "not Gargamel's Cat!" Azrael
    4. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by AGMW · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why would you think that a small box you find is a bomb? No, seriously - why the fuck would you think that?

      UK People of a certain age look upon any strange object as a possible threat because of years and years of the IRA (and more latterly the RIRA) leaving bombs in rubbish bins (AKA "trash cans) and the like. Hell, they even left pipe bombs near schools and a pipe bomb could easily be a geocache!! Let's not forget that the US, through NORAID, funded these people too. War On Terror ... yer, now people are blowing the US up!

      It's been a while in mainland Britain, but the memories of pubs being blown up in London, shopping centres around the country ... any soft target where people would otherwise just be going about their daily lives, well, it leaves an indelible mark. Maybe the kids can grow up differently now as the current crop of terrorists seem only keen on the big grandstanding attacks, and of course the IRA (& RIRA) never had anyone even nearly stupid enough to consider being a suicide bomber, though many blew themselves up by mistake.

      Anyway, just don't leave any unattended bags or stuff when travelling around the UK ... and now you know why!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    5. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Dude, are you for real?

      You really don't understand how an idea can get into someone's mind? Did you live in a cave all these years?

    6. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like you are a huge part of the whole fear-problem, seeing terrorists and bombs everywhere. "Oh no, a piece of abandoned trash! Gotta be a bomb by those dirty terrorists! They are everyhwere! Dozens dead in Germany every day!".

    7. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by mcvos · · Score: 1

      It's official. The German police is cool. I admit I have rather limited experience with them, but what little I have is all positive. Very helpful, friendly, and even with a subtle hint of humor.

    8. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, people of a certain mind set think like that.

      Having grown up in Northern Ireland and England and having lived through bombs and bomb scares I don't look at 'packages' as suspicious. People who believe what they read in the Daily Fail might though...

    9. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come visit Stuttgart during a demonstration. Or better yet, go to Saxony. Saxon police-"friendliness" is legendary. Make sure you have good health and legal insurance, though.

    10. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Why would you think that a small box you find is a bomb? No, seriously - why the fuck would you think that?

      UK People of a certain age look upon any strange object as a possible threat because of years and years of the IRA (and more latterly the RIRA) leaving bombs in rubbish bins (AKA "trash cans) and the like.

      And "certain age" can be as young as "early-mid 20s". My school was evacuated three times while I was attending -- it was very close to the centre of the city (pop. 300k). At least one of them was real (but successfully defused) according to a Google search.

    11. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem with that sort of thinking is that you'd have to be deathly paranoid of EVERYTHING. See that bag someone dropped on the ground? Could be a bomb. That cardboard box someone left in that shopping cart in the parking lot? Could be a bomb. That empty pop can sitting on the ledge? Could be a bomb. See that garbage can that's full of stuff? There could be a bomb in there. See that item in the road that clearly fell off of some work truck? Could be a bomb. See that car parked next to you in the parking lot? Could have a bomb in it. See that dense row of bushes? Could have a bomb in it.

      Realistically speaking, anything you find has a much greater than 99.99% chance of not being a bomb, and if there were an actual bomb, it's more likely than not you would never even notice it until it exploded, so it just seems incredibly paranoid (to the point of mental instability) to see something and worry "oohhhhhh, that might be a bomb...I better not touch it". And to worry that the tin box is a bomb, but not worry about the bag/box/pop can/garbage can/item in the road/car/bushes is just entirely inconsistent logic.

    12. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not forget that the US, through NORAID, funded these people too. War On Terror ... yer, now people are blowing the US up!

      I was intrigued by this statement, but when I clicked on the link it there wasn't anything about the US funding NORAID and by extension the IRA. I read an interesting bit about how the US Justice department required NORAID to say that the IRA was one of their foreign principals (effectively alerting people to the fact that their money might go to extremist/terrorist organization). I did a quick google search and read some bits, but I still couldn't find much. So unless you have something linking the US government to NORAID/IRA, or some other fashion, I will have to assume that the "US funding NORAID" is actually more like "Hey, a number of your 307 million citizens have given money to this organization which says its for humanitarian efforts, but then turns around and uses it to fund this terrorist organization that you most likely know nothing about".

    13. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because sometimes it is. One of my aunts employees found something odd hidden in clothes rack in her shop. It was actually a bomb, so my aunt did the obvious thing - picked it up and took it out onto the street and into family legend.

    14. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Nice dissembling. There were charity dinners and other fundraising efforts by the IRA in the US, where people rallied against the evil English imposition on their Irish-American ancestral roots and gave money explicitly to buy weapons used to kill civilians.

      You're welcome to argue that's just a small subset of 307m citizens. That doesn't counter the original argument, and also disregards the police and fire service fundraiser events that weren't shut down by the civil authorities.

      But hey, go use Google and find out for yourself.

    15. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the organization held charity dinners to raise money for their purposes. I don't doubt that. What I doubt is the US government funding it. I tried to find information that says anything other than PRIVATE citizens were funding it. I found nothing.

      I am not trying to discredit you or anything of that nature. I am genuinely interested to learn if my government was helping these violent terrorists, as I find it to be horrifying. What I am trying to do is find out your sources so that I can learn more, because I didn't find anything like what you spoke about.

    16. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't have been funny if you had blown up.

    17. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      UK People of a certain age look upon any strange object as a possible threat because of years and years of the IRA (and more latterly the RIRA) leaving bombs in rubbish bins (AKA "trash cans) and the like.

      Ok, but why did a guy in the UK call the German police?

    18. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      And by that logic, if there was at least one British person who donated to the IRA, then you could just as easily say that the UK was involved in funding them.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    19. Re:German police quite relaxed - a true story by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I don't recall anybody stating that the US Government funded the IRA.

      I am happy to state that the US Government did approximately fuck all to prevent its citizens funding terrorist operations against the UK. There's plenty of evidence of willful inactivity by the US government there.

      Why do you think there was so much sardonic humour in 2001 at the US (and particular New York fire and police services) outrage about a terrorist incident; several people found it deliciously ironic.

  14. Better arrest that easter bunny ... by MacTO · · Score: 1

    ... after all, she goes around hiding strange packages every year.

    While some disgust was expressed over a local ad campaign called, "report the suspicious, not the strange", it is essentially correct: we should be reporting suspicious activities, but there is a definite role for discretion.

    Sometimes you can even ask the person what they're doing and discover, "hey, this geocaching thing is cool."

    1. Re:Better arrest that easter bunny ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This fits the definition of suspicious activity. The guy was obviously hiding something hoping not to be seen and then he hurried off.

    2. Re:Better arrest that easter bunny ... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      ... after all, she goes around hiding strange packages every year.

      And if there's one thing that Angry Birds:Seasons taught me, it's that eggs can do quite a bit of damage if they hit the right spot.

    3. Re:Better arrest that easter bunny ... by delinear · · Score: 1

      "He then walked off, talking to somebody on his phone." What about this sentence implies that he "hurried off"? Inventing suspicious behaviour after the event doesn't make the initial act suspicious. As GP said, there was nothing stopping anyone asking this guy what he was up to - if they had, he'd probably have explained the game and saved a good deal of time and public money.

    4. Re:Better arrest that easter bunny ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some geocachers will pretend their GPS is a cell phone they are talking to, allegedly so that people observing them won't get curious. Apparently "talking on your phone as you leave" is now a suspicious activity, which will be a problem for some people.

    5. Re:Better arrest that easter bunny ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If I wanted to plant a bomb, I'd certainly pretend to be a geocacher now. Maybe I'd put some lettering on that says "this is not a bomb".

  15. Flower box? by physicsphairy · · Score: 2

    He appeared to have a small plastic box in his hand and after fiddling with the container he bent down and hid it under a flower box standing on the pavement. He then walked off, talking to somebody on his phone.'"

    Why attack a flower box? I had heard the terrorists wanted to take us back to the Dark Ages, but, in this case, the assumption appears to be that they are trying to take us all the way back to the Triassic, before the dawn of angiosperms.

    1. Re:Flower box? by AGMW · · Score: 1

      Why attack a flower box?....

      We had the IRA blowing up rubbish bins (AKA trash cans) on the street which is why there are still so few of them around (not that they blew them all up you understand, they were removed because they were an easy place to drop a bomb!).

      I refer you, if I may, to my previous post here.

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    2. Re:Flower box? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      He appeared to have a small plastic box in his hand and after fiddling with the container he bent down and hid it under a flower box standing on the pavement. He then walked off, talking to somebody on his phone.'"

      Why attack a flower box? I had heard the terrorists wanted to take us back to the Dark Ages, but, in this case, the assumption appears to be that they are trying to take us all the way back to the Triassic, before the dawn of angiosperms.

      That's nothing. Some guys blew up bicycle recently. There was a heap of collateral damage too. They must really hate bicycles.

    3. Re:Flower box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An old IRA trick was to place bombs in litter bins. The Bomb would be small as all it contained was a fuse and explosives. When it went off the now destroyed bin provided the fragmentation effect. Once this was realised, all litter bins were removed from public places for years (until the peace agreement). Most adults in the UK grew up with the IRA Bomb threat - we had public information campaigns urging people to report any suspicious / unattended packages (it wasn't unusual for high streets / shopping centres to be temporarily closed whilst bomb disposal personnel investigated / blew up the suspect package). You may think it's overeaction but in the UK we had decades of Terrorist attacks on "Soft" (i.e civillian) targets - for us it's not an unthinkable / only happens on TV scenario, its we've seen all this before (especially after the reminder of 7/7). Whilst the Police are aware of Geocaching, the general public have never heard of it and seeing someone hiding a box in a public place WILL assume the worst (and will be unlikely to directly confront someone they suspect might be a terrorist).

    4. Re:Flower box? by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      He appeared to have a small plastic box in his hand and after fiddling with the container he bent down and hid it under a flower box standing on the pavement. He then walked off, talking to somebody on his phone.'"

      Why attack a flower box?

      Because people are even more suspicious when you hide your bomb in a public waste container? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Rubbish_bin_in_Dublin.jpg

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
  16. Flower box? by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

    He appeared to have a small plastic box in his hand and after fiddling with the container he bent down and hid it under a flower box standing on the pavement. He then walked off, talking to somebody on his phone.

    Why attack a flower box? I had heard the terrorists wanted to take us back to the Dark Ages, but, in this case, the assumption appears to be that they are trying to take us all the way back to the Triassic, before the dawn of angiosperms.

  17. Remember Warrington by fremsley471 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not an over-reaction. Here in the UK, terrorism on such a scale used to happen pretty regularly- for example, see the children killed in the second attack here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bomb_attacks. Political agreement in Northern Ireland mostly halted the war, but one positive thing that came out of September 11th was the extinguishing of monies and good-will from the US for any sort of terrorism.

    1. Re:Remember Warrington by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It used to be common but even when it was we never used to freak out like people do now. Unless a suspicious package was left at a prime target like Euston station people didn't feel the need to react like that. Having been in said station when it was evacuated for just that very reason the reaction was for people to calmly make there way out the station. Now people would probably run screaming for the exit.

      Why the difference? The government needed to keep a sense off sturdy resilence because there was an actual threat. Sensible and observent was what they needed people to be. Now the threat is mostly manufactured for political purposes. What is required is for the people to be afraid and obedient so the government can act as they will without challenge.

    2. Re:Remember Warrington by fremsley471 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was in a pub in central London one autumn Saturday afternoon in 1992. Police hassled us to leave quickly, i.e. "freaking out", and I remember thinking, "Hey, what's the fuss?" The next week, a bomb left in the same pub killed one (barman) and injured 4 others. Also what's changed is that coded warnings and the expectation of a reductions in casualties are now not expected.

      Totally agreed however, that most security theatre is useless and serves mainly as a way for the ruling classes to completely isolate themselves from the rest of us (literally) poor buggers. But don't hide things under litter bins then expect people to have short memories.

    3. Re:Remember Warrington by AGMW · · Score: 2
      If I had mod points I'd mod you up ... even posted as an AC! People were calm and stoical about it in that almost comical 'British stiff upper lip' sort of way, whereas now we massively over react. I think back then we collectively decided that just getting on with it was our way of fighting back in some small way, whereas now we think the Government should protect us! On the back of that, we've had our freedoms curtailed and the Gov has more power over us now than it ever had before. They use Terrorism as the bogeyman to scare us into submission ...

      I preferred the old way!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    4. Re:Remember Warrington by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      If you compare and contrast the 7/7 or 21/7 bombings to how Americans reacted to 9/11, I think we were very calm, stiff upper lip Brits who got on with clearing up the mess.

    5. Re:Remember Warrington by spacec0w · · Score: 1

      This is indeed an over-reaction. Think of how many boxes can be found outside on a given day in the UK, and how many have bombs in them, really. It's not a rational fear, period. If one goes around with this mentality he or she will never feel safe, anywhere, ever.

    6. Re:Remember Warrington by JabberWokky · · Score: 1

      There is the "snow in Bahamas" effect. People in Pittsburgh don't freak out and gawk at snow in January. However, I was well over 30 before I ever saw it snow in real life. My wife had never seen it either. We moved to Pennsylvania and both of us just watched it all day in wonder as it came down. It was amazing and impossible to comprehend at a base level. We decided not to drive until observing other people (having no idea what level of ice was safe).

      By the end of winter, it was still neat, but we were both much more practical about it, having learned how to drive, shovel it, where and when to strew salt, etc. Before a plane hit the Pentagon and two collapsed buildings in the biggest city, nobody in a century had mounted a notable and successful attack on US military or civilians in any state of the union (although one territory was quite notably hit by the Empire of Japan's Navy a bit less than a century back).

      I'm content with it being a rare event in the US, even if it makes it tough to get everybody to react appropriately. You're casually tossing out dates for recent events; the US -- so far -- only has two major dates for attacks in the last hundred years, and one was in 1941, poised to fade from living memory in the next couple decades.

      May you and yours have no dates of memory other than happy ones. May our children (or children's children) not know about such activities except through history books. But while dealing with it, yes, those who deal with it on a regular basis will (hopefully!) be better able to handle it.

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    7. Re:Remember Warrington by AGMW · · Score: 1

      There is the "snow in Bahamas" effect...

      Nicely put ... of course bomb warnings were so common in the UK we'd have a "Bomb Warden" in the office (actually, I was the Bomb Warden at one place I worked in the City!), as well as the more usual "Fire Warden", but I guess it wasn't so bad as it wasn't like "snow to the Eskimos" 'cos we still only had one word for Bomb ... actually, strike that: Bin Bomb, Car Bomb, Pipe Bomb, Letter Bomb ... [sigh]. Mostly someone would walk into a pub and have a pint (of Guiness?) then leave but forget their holdall ... tick tick tick BOOOM! It's actually quite hard to understand how anyone could do such a thing, and yet I guess if push came to shove and you felt sufficiently oppressed who knows! The UK had plans to mount such 'guerilla' war if Germany had managed to cross the channel during WWII - caches of arms and explosives were secretly hidden all over the country in preparation. One of my Dad's friends was involved in the hiding and was witnessed by some (other) local. He reported that the cache location was compromised and was told that in the event of a successful German invasion he would have to 'deal' with the witness to ensure the cache location was safe. I guess these are the sorts of memories our parents (G-parents) have ... MY Great Grandfather fought in the trenches in WWI but very rarely talked about it - the one story relates how they'd take it in turns to go get breakfast for the residents of the 'hole' they lived in and on one occasion they were watching one of their mates return with the tray of breaky and he was hit by a shell and someone said "well, there goes our bloody breakfast!". I guess without the gallows 'humour' you would just go nuts in an environment like that!

      It would be nice to think that nothing nasty will ever happen again, and it's defo a good thing to hope for, aspire to ... but actually how likely is it?

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
  18. Wrong headline by mseeger · · Score: 1

    The headline should be "Terror paranoia shuts down british town", geocaching was only involved by random chance. If you write about it, name the real culprit.

  19. Why a police caution ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

    Why was he given a police caution ? He did nothing illegal, nothing that police had previously been asked to be told about, so why a caution ? Yes what he did accidentally caused some disruption; but this was not intended.

    1. Re:Why a police caution ? by DrXym · · Score: 2

      They could have charged him for breach of the peace on the basis that his actions were reckless and could have caused fear and alarm.

    2. Re:Why a police caution ? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They cautioned him to use common sense. It is only common sense to want to have others use common sense. Common sense says to warn the police when you start surreptitiously hiding mysterious packages.

    3. Re:Why a police caution ? by isorox · · Score: 1

      Why was he given a police caution ? He did nothing illegal, nothing that police had previously been asked to be told about, so why a caution ? Yes what he did accidentally caused some disruption; but this was not intended.

      Did he get a caution? Or is it some in-experienced beeb hack that's interpreting "The police talked to him [to find out it was innocent]" and linked that to an official police caution.

      My bet's on the latter.

    4. Re:Why a police caution ? by maypull · · Score: 1

      Why was he given a police caution ? He did nothing illegal, nothing that police had previously been asked to be told about, so why a caution ? Yes what he did accidentally caused some disruption; but this was not intended.

      They probably mixed up the Simple Caution (that is a form of mild wrist slapping) with the warning, also called a caution, that the Police give you before talking to you about anything in which you could by any stretch of the imagination be considered a suspect or witness. The equivalent of the Miranda Rights in the US.

      "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned anything which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

      When I was in the (UK) cops we were trained to dish this out to anybody we spoke to even semi-formally. If nothing comes of your conversation then no problem; if you fail to caution somebody prior to speaking to them, and then their testimony becomes a big deal, the lack of a caution at the start can be a case-breaker. So you basically say it to everybody to be safe. But it is NOT something that is recorded (other than in your pocket notebook) or otherwise appears on anybody's record.

    5. Re:Why a police caution ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a bunch of catchall laws on the books.

      Even doing something completely legal could be causing panic, a nuisance, disrupting the peace or something.

    6. Re:Why a police caution ? by Builder · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand what a 'caution' is here.

      A caution is a criminal conviction that is issued by the police with no judicial oversight. The recipient has to accept it (if they're uninformed enough to) and it then has the same weight as a criminal conviction and appears on your record for at least 5 years.

    7. Re:Why a police caution ? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      It's the UK. If the police don't like it, it's illegal. You can get an ASBO for anything.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:Why a police caution ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh so reckless.

    9. Re:Why a police caution ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably accepted the caution rather than face the prospect of being charged & going to court over it. I would be interested to know if he consulted a lawyer or not before accepting it though.

    10. Re:Why a police caution ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He dosnt have to accept the caution - he could have requested a trial by jury. Now Im not a lawyer but I think the Crown prosecution service would have just droped the case.

      Sounds like he was overawed/intimadated by the entire system..

    11. Re:Why a police caution ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that his actions were not reckless. He was involved in a well-known game, played world-wide, and would have had no reason to think that it would "cause fear and alarm". Children playing hide-and-seek or cops-and-robbers would be less unreasonably considered a "cause for fear and alarm". (Not more reasonably, just less unreasonably.)

      Just because the government is causing the public to become more anxious over little things is no good reason to make some innocent person a scapegoat to further the state of paranoia.

    12. Re:Why a police caution ? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Don't be ridiculous. Just because some nerds know of the game doesn't mean that reasonable members of the public would know of it. All they see is someone acting in a highly suspicious manner and are obviously alarmed enough to ring the police. The police in turn are obviously alarmed enough to cordon off the town centre. Yes it was reckless and if so minded yes the cops could have charged him with a breach of the peace. He was lucky to escape with a caution.

    13. Re:Why a police caution ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe they found him in possession of something illegal that was unrelated while searching him down as a suspected terrorist
      hash or something maybe who knows?

    14. Re:Why a police caution ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any action can cause fear and alarm in sheep. Is everything illegal now?

  20. It wasn't Boston, this time... by meerling · · Score: 1

    Boston has massively overreacted to so much innocuous stuff over the past few years I had fully expected it to be them again.
    This time it was the U.K., go figure...

    1. Re:It wasn't Boston, this time... by timmydog2 · · Score: 1

      Well, Boston is just up the road and policed by the same police force, so I would expect them to react fairly similarly. Oh, wait, not Boston Spa?

  21. Old saying; by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't adjust your hat in your neighbour's orchard.

  22. Not allowed to have innocent fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police and terrorism, sucking the innocent fun out of life since forever.

  23. Double statndard: by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

    Many geocachers will be thinking twice when planting their treasure

    Unfortunately no one will be thinking twice before re-enacting their own version of chicken little and calling the police for every little thing.

    --
    Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    1. Re:Double statndard: by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately no one will be thinking twice before re-enacting their own version of chicken little and calling the police for every little thing.

      Yeah. Goddamn busybodies. Who do they think they are? "Responsible Citizens"? Pah! They should mind their own damn business. If it's not you being mugged, raped, or blown up, why would you want to get involved? Just let it be.

  24. What's a geocache? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    I may have been living under a rock...

      but yeah understandably if someone leaves a 'bomb' you'd take precautions.

  25. Good sales push by cbrichar · · Score: 2

    I've cached for a number of years, and learned the benefits of having a quick chat with local businesses before planting full-on urban caches. Not only could it put them at ease, but it's also another group of people that would be "in the know" should someone unfamiliar with the sport panic about it.

    The main thing that I found was that, in nearly all cases, local businesses were thrilled with the idea of a dedicated group of people actively travelling to an area near to their business! Many went so far as to pass a few coupons along to hide in the cache, or offer a 'cacher discount' if people mentioned the cache when paying up at the counter.

    1. Re:Good sales push by ChocNut · · Score: 0

      Good idea. Ringing up the police each time is a bad idea - they'd be inundated.

  26. So what geocache was it? by will_die · · Score: 1

    Found one GC1WPTQ that has a note from July 3 "Disabled at the request of the police ..."
    The best thing is the previous find where the player wrote "My word this took some finding - amongst the trying to look natural as muggles walking doggles streamed by"

    1. Re:So what geocache was it? by jafffacake · · Score: 1

      all the caches within a few miles radius of wetherby have been temporarily shut down at the request of the police. the cafe owner involved got more advertising than the lost profits from a morning's business would have made. also geocaching as a hobby/sport got some publicity. anyone smell a rat here?

    2. Re:So what geocache was it? by cbrichar · · Score: 1

      It was Wetherby Shambles (GC2H9A2 - login required).

      There's quite an interesting discussion thread on the topic at the Geocaching Forums as well.

    3. Re:So what geocache was it? by NoseyNick · · Score: 1

      Amusing, but I suspect that's not the right one. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-14001576 references "The Gourmet Cafe", which is at "9, the shambles", http://coord.info/map?ll=53.928121,-1.386126&z=20 - nearly half a km away. I suspect the real GC has been completely removed, not just "needs maintenance" :-/

      --
      Nick Waterman, Sr Tech Director, #include <stddisclaimer>
  27. So... by CountBrass · · Score: 1

    And what's to stop a bomber writing 'geocache - contents harmless" on their bomb?

    Must.... resist..... argh can't hold back:

    DUH!

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  28. That's nothing ... ammo boxes used here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Around here, we use ammo boxes for geocaches. Of course, these are usually in the middle of the woods, not next to anything more interesting than a small, wooden bridge for 1 person to cross or a fallen tree. Only foot traffic areas.

    In urban settings, we deploy "micro-caches" - the size of a shotgun shell or smaller. I think the most harm something that size could cause is like an M-80 explosive (firecracker). Some of the most fun caches are found using magnetic cases under things in the middle of popular tourist locations - monuments, statues, etc.

  29. Ever heard of a pipe bomb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those were quite popular in my days.....and being surrounded by a bunch of idiot kids proud to have a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook. God, I hated high school.

  30. we need more people then... by vonshavingcream · · Score: 1

    MORE people need to GEOCACHE .. this is probably the best promotion for it ever!!! .. whoot!

  31. What if it wasn't a geocache? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taking the attitude of "It's probably harmless" could lead to dangerous situations in the future if people expect that all containers like this are perfectly safe. It is quite possible that this could have been a hazardous container.

  32. Which One???? by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

    The war has just begun. (Disclaimer: I'm at the front. For the people, by the people.)

    Is it the People's Front of Judea, or the Judean People's Front?

    SPLITTER!!!!

  33. Terrorists win, western world ended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are no longer free to play games outside. Either because of fear we end up as victims of terrorist attacks or because we are seen as terrorists ourselves (Who else would have reason to be outside? You can be attacked by terrorists!)

    When normal people doing normal things are submitted to suspicion and police action, we are no longer a free society, and yes September 11th. help that on the way.

  34. They do in Germany by daniel23 · · Score: 2

    I never saw it stated somewhere officially but my own experience points to the conclusion that indeed Berlin police checks on Caches listed on geocaching.com. There is one in Berlin (http://coord.info/GC2XDG3) by the name "BrandVerein" which would translate to FireAssociation. The name actually is a hint to the cache's location, if you go there, it's obvious.
    Still, that name hit a spot with the police since for some years there is this series of expensive cars burning at night and lots of pressure on the cops for not being able to stop the serial igniter(s).
    So, the first day the cache was published 2 searchers there found themselves under surveillance when they followed the gps compass. An officer stepped out of the car, to the exact koords of the cache and told them to go on searching. When they found the box, the officer took a look, approved it for being harmless, wished them good luck and left the scene.
    Cool and efficient

    --
    605413? Yes, it's a prime.
  35. Romanes eunt domus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wait! Romani ite domum.

  36. Police caution? by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    FTFA: Although this appears to be an episode executed in good faith from all sides, it left traders in a busy town out of pocket and the last geocacher to find the box outside Karen's café with a police caution.

    Exactly what offense did the geocacher commit in this case? Is acting in a manner somebody might possibly find suspect now a crime in the UK?

  37. They are winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is getting silly. Irrational fear and bankrupting countries is their goals. They are winning on both fronts.

  38. Terrorists and Governments wins! by lexsird · · Score: 1

    Terrorism isn't something new. It's been around for eons and how its been dealt with has just changed. There is a reason why we see uniformed armies, its to distinguish the fighting forces of a nation from the civilian population. Why is this important for reasons other than not to hurt civilians? It's important because it shows that if you conquer a nation, you don't have to commit genocide, the people will go along with whomever is in charge.

    Now in the modern era, we have become "civilized" but this comes at a high price. Our populations have to deal with the continued threat of reprisals from groups that are only encouraged to do more reprisals. Governments thrive on this because frankly, these days governments derive their power from fear.

    In America, our history shows how to deal with "terrorists". The native, aboriginal Americans, aka Indians, fought gorilla warfare against us and by modern definition would be considered terrorists. We responded with genocide, and containment. Had we not done this, we would still be fighting skirmishes with them, and people living in the countryside would be worried about getting scalped. Sure, your inner hippie can be repulsed by this, but the mechanics of it are pretty sound.

    But the modern world and all of its "civilization" give us impossible to win scenarios. The IRA situation is only on hold, we all know they will cycle back to violence eventually. The Palestinian situation will never resolve its self, even if they get their own country, they will still be wanting to blow up Israel. Enormous amounts of resources will be spent and innocent lives will be lost and in the end, we will still be in the same spot we are now.

    You can't play the "civilized human game" if only one side will play it. Take the United States for example, you couldn't beat our military and expect to take over this country. We are an armed camp here that would rather die fighting than live a second under foreign rule. (at least we used to be like that, we might be a bunch of pussies now) If you were an invader, you wouldn't turn your back on any of us for a second, even old women would be trying to kill you somehow. Nor would you engage us with any traditional sense of warfare rules. We shot all the conventional rules of warfare in the head during our Revolutionary War, and I am sure that 99% of all Americans would laugh at the Geneva Convention Rules of Warfare if it came down to a war on our own country. Not only that, you couldn't just pack up and leave, we would follow you home and kill every last one of you, then dance on your graves.

    Effectively, the IRA should have brought genocide to their country. If you kill every last one of them down to every man, woman and child. The problem is solved, you don't have terrorists popping up out of a population if they are all dead. Again this is back to why uniformed military are important for civilization and why adhering to this is a must unless you are willing to gamble the lives of EVERYONE in your country.

    The United States understands all of this. Why do you think we "over reacted" to 9/11? We have had to fight terror with terror. We had to show the world if you come blow up buildings here, we will come blow your country to utter hell. You can't hide from us just because you don't wear a uniform. If you hide in some dipshit country who is dumb enough to harbor you, we will blow that entire country to hell. If we think that you are squirrelly and MIGHT pull some bullshit like some terrorist actions, we will blast your asses all the way back to the stone age. Consider yourselves lucky you have something we can use, like oil, or we might just nuke you off the planet. The thought we pound home with bombs is this; "don't go fucking around with America or they will come kill us all." And yes, I think the world is finally getting the point. Fuck you and your "America is a paper tiger" theory.

    Oddly though, we have some kind of weird guilt about this, and when others try to do it, we get excited about it. Frankly you ca

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
    1. Re:Terrorists and Governments wins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking paranoid lunatic. And a coward as well.

  39. Analogies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we have a perfect 10!!

  40. Geocaching in US National Parks by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 1

    Here in the US, at least the National Park Service is enough aware of goecaching that they ask (it's not even required by law, they just ask) to be informed of where caches are placed in a park. This simple notification would prevent the problem in TFA - but only if it had happened in a national park.

  41. Re: Hoax Devices by billstewart · · Score: 1

    No, you've only committed the crime of using a "hoax device" if you've put something somewhere intended to scare people. That doesn't mean that you won't be accused of the crime for doing something that somebody freaked out about, especially if they called the police who freaked out even more, and you might even be convicted of it, but that's a different question.

    In England's case, there's enough history of Irish terrorism that there are actually some legitimate reasons people might freak out, unlike, say, the Mooninite invasion of Boston.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  42. People Need To Learn How To Say... by IonOtter · · Score: 1

    "Fuck you!"

    I read a news item a few years back? It was a commentary by a UK newspaper about when the IRA bombings first started up. People were all talking about it, of course, and it was the hot news item of the day.

    One reporter went up to an elderly gentleman and asked him what he thought of the IRA bombings.

    "Fuck you," he replied. "I've been bombed by professionals!"

    How quintessentially British.

    And how wonderfully appropriate for our times. We, as a race, need to learn how to say "Fuck you!" to the terrorists, whether they carry a holy book or a law book. When someone comes up to us, shoving a microphone in our face and asking us, all a-twitter, "ARE YOU SCARED?!? ARE YOU AFRAID?!?"

    We should simply say, "Fuck you! Of course I'm scared, but I'm not going to stop living my life?"

    "Fuck you."

    It's a phrase we humans need to use more often.

    --
    [End Of Line]
  43. That was my brother-in-law.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My new claim to fame, my brother in law sparks a bomb scare.

    Even better, he was watching out of his window when all of this was going on ( he can see the site of the cache from his kitchen - he likes to see who's using it ), ringing my wife in a blind panic asking what he should do. My wife was very helpful and gave him advice about not dropping the soap. He didn't laugh.

  44. NO Geocaching in US National Parks by sgauss · · Score: 1

    The NPS does not allow the placing of physical caches in National Parks. The only caches allowed are Virtual/Earthcaches.

  45. Brother's Keeper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Look, it was a mistake. It happens. The police need to walk it off and be glad it wasn't something more serious instead of handing out bogus cautions that do not sound very legal. Misuse of police power is just as bad as terrorism, besides, at the end of the day that's the wrong message we should be focusing on. Let the thoughtless geocaching jerk off with a warning instead of giving him a questionable caution so he can slink away into obscurity and we can concentrate on the real hero.... the guy who reported it. Now more than ever It's good to look out for one another. It was harmless this time, next time it could save someone's life. That guy is awesome.

    Just my two cents.

  46. In other news by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1
    Slashdotter beats up Geocacher.

    "He was hiding some small container in a flower box, so naturally I assumed it was some kind of surveillance device." The three FBI agents surveilling him arrested him on the spot.

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.