RIM Helping UK Police Track Down Rioters

jfruhlinger writes "Protests against a police shooting in the poor London neighborhood of Tottenham escalated into rioting and looting this past weekend. Initial reports have it that the activity was coordinated not by Twitter or Facebook but by the relatively old-tech method of BlackBerry messaging. Now the official Twitter account of RIM's UK division has announced that it is 'engaged with the authorities to assist in any way we can,' which presumably means that it's handing over messages sent by rioters. Is BlackBerry being a responsible part of British society, or is it overstepping its bounds?"

Comments

There's a line

[OverlordQ]

There's a difference between protesting and rioting/looting. So cheers for tracking down rioters and looters.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

One man's freedom protester is another man's unlawful rioter.

Of course, it's pretty clear that there was plain stupid rioting going on here, but were RIM there to watch? In fact, do recall that the UK government (through a quango) is censoring the 'web to shuffle kiddie pr0n under the carpet. Now you can say that child porn is so bad, it has to be censored, but while I agree that whoever made such ought to be tracked down and, er, corrected, I don't agree at all on the censorship. Exactly because right after that people will demand other things be censored too -- in fact it's happened in the UK where "parent activists" demanded the 'web be turned into teletubbieland wholesale unless some punter would phone in and ask for the smut to be turned back on, so they didn't have to watch over their underage kids' shoulders while surfing. The problem with that, and your, line of reasoning is that it's not a solid base to make policy decisions on. That line is wobbly, blurry, and vague. It's subjective, even if to most if not all onlookers it was crossed at some point during a particular (series of) incident(s).

Moreover, RIM is not a police agency and as such does have exactly no investigative powers. Strictly speaking they're not even allowed to mine their own data and if you put it to the information commissioner they might even end up banned from keeping it.

So I say that they are very possibly overstepping a line here. Exactly because to volunteer data they need to make judgements they're not entitled to make. So I hope for their sake they sweetly asked the plod for a court order demanding they hand over "processed data" regarding the riots or something, or they could (well, should, not many people actually understand how this works) rightly be in hot water for assuming police powers they are not entitled to.

Re:There's a line

[Seumas]

I'd say there's also a line between protesting/rioting/looting and shooting a citizen.

Re:There's a line

[cayenne8]

I've been reading the headlines on this a couple of days....and I'm still not sure what all the rioting is about?

The police shoot someone over there, and they have a riot? What's the deal with that?

We don't lose our minds everytime someone get's shot over here unless it is something pretty egregious....I mean, we just finished the trial (not that much national exposure I don't think) about all the people shot on the Danziger bridge post Katrina by the cops. They had an orderly trial, etc. We didn't go all apeshit over it and riot in the streets over the shooting. The cops were caught, tried and found guilty, and convicted...end of story.

Then again, I don't understand it why other towns riot in the streets and burn cars when "their" football/basketball/baseball teams wins the championship.

Re:There's a line

[jeffmeden]

I've been reading the headlines on this a couple of days....and I'm still not sure what all the rioting is about?

The police shoot someone over there, and they have a riot? What's the deal with that?

We don't lose our minds everytime someone get's shot over here unless it is something pretty egregious....I mean, we just finished the trial (not that much national exposure I don't think) about all the people shot on the Danziger bridge post Katrina by the cops. They had an orderly trial, etc. We didn't go all apeshit over it and riot in the streets over the shooting. The cops were caught, tried and found guilty, and convicted...end of story.

Then again, I don't understand it why other towns riot in the streets and burn cars when "their" football/basketball/baseball teams wins the championship.

Good thinking, point out a verdict that went in favor of "the people". When the Rodney King verdict came down (in the opposite direction) there were many significant riots... Forget about those? You are right, things are so different over there.

Re:There's a line

[jimmerz28]

If by "we" you mean America then you're taking it quite out of context. We live in a huge country with a lot of space; it's a lot harder to organize and protest with our geographic size.

We don't "lose our minds" by protesting because a lot of people don't care (like that innocent bystander that was shot to death in Miami and another that was shoved to the ground and has his phone smashed for taping it).

Stop living in whatever red, white and blue wonderland acid trip you're in.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

yes especially when he shoots first... the person who's death sparked this off was stooped in a Taxi and fired at the policemen with a gun before they fired back, this sort of thing is too common to get in the news in America but in England it is rare.

Re:There's a line

[Flipao]

I'd say with can live without both.

People get shot on a daily basis in London and nobody bats an eyelid. A gangster is shot by the police and the world has to end? Please.

Re:There's a line

[Riceballsan]

There's also a difference between due process and illegal wiretapping. I'm not sure about london vs united states law, but there is something wrong with just having the information given to the government at will. I don't care if they are alleged rioters, looters, child molesters, terrorists, pirates or murderers. The bottom line is once you give them the power once, they own it indefinitely, if you declare it OK but only during an emergency, there will always be something that can be declared an emergency.

Re:There's a line

[0123456]

yes especially when he shoots first... the person who's death sparked this off was stooped in a Taxi and fired at the policemen with a gun before they fired back, this sort of thing is too common to get in the news in America but in England it is rare.

Uh, the latest news reports I've seen were saying that the bullet that hit the policeman was... fired by the police.

So it looks like the police may have shot someone dead for no particularly good reason again, though at least this time it seems that they managed to shoot an actual bad guy.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

this sort of thing is too common to get in the news in America but in England it is rare.

lol

Re:There's a line

[DrXym]

The police shoot someone over there, and they have a riot? What's the deal with that?

The family of the victim supposedly arranged a peaceful protest and a bunch of outsiders hijacked it. I expect the shooting made a convenient to engage in a spot of rioting and looting. Probably a mix of local gangs and anarchists. I hope the lot get the book thrown at them.

Re:There's a line

[Aquitaine]

One man's freedom protester is another man's unlawful rioter.

How deep. Grow up.

How about this: in anything pretending to resemble a civilized society, smashing and destroying private property as a means to make your point counts as unlawful rioting.

It's amazing to me how much scrutiny anyone in authority gets (though deservedly so, in my book) but then how much latitude anyone who is ostensibly anti-authority gets. You can break shit, hack things, disseminate somebody else's private documents, so long as you're sticking it to the man.

Re:There's a line

[sjames]

Perhaps if we made a bit more noise about it, it would happen less often.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between protesting and rioting/looting

Not according to the mainstream media. Every incident of rioting and looting is a "protest", and rioters and looters and the media's preferred brand of terrorists are no different from peaceful protesters. A protest without rioting and looting, or the threat of it, is not worth reporting on so it does not exist.

Then there's the irony that the Tea Party types talk about revolution and how they want to shoot people and their protests are peaceful, while what's left of the Left talks about peace and then goes out and breaks shit and intentionally starts fights with the cops so they can complain about being oppressed. I'm sure there are protests by people who are not crazy, but they don't get media coverage.

Re:There's a line

[TehNoobTrumpet]

Responding to the first line you read and don't even bother reading the rest of the comment?
Then telling someone to grow up?
Need I say anything more?

Re:There's a line

[0123456]

If a police officer was shot, that means somebody had a gun who shouldn't have. Given that Mark Duggan was the one who was shot, it would seem logical that he was the one doing the shooting in the first place. So why, precisely, do you have such a problem with any of the above?

Because last night the British media were reporting that the bullet that hit the policeman was probably fired by the police?

I doubt you'll find many people in the UK who believe the police story on any shooting after the Brazilian Electrician fiasco of a few years ago where pretty much every aspect of the initial police story turned out to be wrong.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree... It's just too bad that RIM didn't as feel as deeply for those who were impacted by all the wrong doing that led to the financial crash of 2007-8, the Madoff scandal, Enron, WorldComm, the prosecution of the war in Iraq by Bush II, the Abrahmoff scandal or any of numerous other egregious illegal acts for which they undoubtedly have access to evidence because they provide service to such a wide diversity of clientelle.

And that about the phone hacking scandal with Rupert Murdoch, or is that a little close to home?

Re:There's a line

[manicb]

Because the police in London do not have a very good track record for honesty over this kind of thing. If there is a suggestion that the police have acted improperly, people are now inclined to believe it, as they are expected to deny everything and smear the victim either way.

Re:There's a line

[Heed00]

If a police officer was shot, that means somebody had a gun who shouldn't have. Given that Mark Duggan was the one who was shot, it would seem logical that he was the one doing the shooting in the first place.

You've omitted a scenario -- a cop shot another cop:

The Guardian understands that initial ballistics tests on a bullet, found lodged in a police radio worn by an officer during Thursday's incident, suggested it was police issue – and therefore had not been fired by Duggan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/07/police-attack-london-burns

Nobody knows for certain right now, but things that "seem logical" very often turn out to be not the case.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

Responding to the first line you read and don't even bother reading the rest of the comment? Then telling someone to grow up? Need I say anything more?

Actually you should have thought more before you said anything at all. Perhaps the GP only commented on the first line because that is all he disagreed with.

Re:There's a line

[kelemvor4]

I've been reading the headlines on this a couple of days....and I'm still not sure what all the rioting is about?

The police shoot someone over there, and they have a riot? What's the deal with that?

We don't lose our minds everytime someone get's shot over here unless it is something pretty egregious....I mean, we just finished the trial (not that much national exposure I don't think) about all the people shot on the Danziger bridge post Katrina by the cops. They had an orderly trial, etc. We didn't go all apeshit over it and riot in the streets over the shooting. The cops were caught, tried and found guilty, and convicted...end of story.

Then again, I don't understand it why other towns riot in the streets and burn cars when "their" football/basketball/baseball teams wins the championship.

Good thinking, point out a verdict that went in favor of "the people". When the Rodney King verdict came down (in the opposite direction) there were many significant riots... Forget about those? You are right, things are so different over there.

Yeah, it must be the case that he was selective about his example and has nothing to do with the fact that the danziger bridge trial verdict was only 3 days ago.

Here, I'll try it just like you... How about the 1985 Dorothy Groce shooting, subsequent riots (plural), and eventual acquittal of the officer who shot her. Meanwhile, cayenne8 is still accurate in pointing out you guys riot and kill each other when your favorite soccer team loses a match.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) ... the person who's death sparked this off was stooped in a Taxi and fired at the policemen with a gun before they fired back ...

(2) ... that the bullet that hit the policeman was... fired by the police...

So it looks like the police may have shot someone dead for no particularly good reason

You do realize that (1) and (2) do not contradict each other, that they are not mutually exclusive?

Re:There's a line

[DerekLyons]

There's a difference between protesting and rioting/looting.

From the point of view of individual privacy - no, there isn't. Regardless of the actions they are accused of, all should have equal rights and equal protection under the law.

Re:There's a line

[sl3xd]

But there is something wrong with just having the information given to the government at will.

The problem is in making the accusation that BlackBerry is just turning the data over, without any evidence to support it. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, because BlackBerry isn't so stupid as to think the law won't catch up with them if they are doing something illegal. They know their actions are going to be scrutinized.

If BlackBerry received proper warrants, then why shouldn't they publicly state they're helping in any way they can?

Is it better to keep that secret from your customers, or perhaps give them some warning that using their BlackBerry might not be the best idea?

Re:There's a line

[madprof]

Yep. You need to say "Oops I made an error in replying as I did. In fact that was a very good riposte to a vague, meandering post which made some trite points about data protection in the context of the UK becoming a virtual police state."
There are an awful lot of terrified people living in London right now, and RIM are doing the right thing. The rioters are infringing on other people's rights and libertarians really ought to be siding with the law on this one. Or maybe they would like ot be out on the streets asking the rioters what their problem with society is? They'll probably end up with a bottle in the face.

Re:There's a line

[ArsenneLupin]

that means somebody had a gun who shouldn't have.

Indeed. Only policemen who are good enough marksmen to not accidentally fire on their colleagues should have guns...

Re:There's a line

[Hatta]

Then there's the irony that the Tea Party types talk about revolution and how they want to shoot people and their protests are peaceful, while what's left of the Left talks about peace and then goes out and breaks shit and intentionally starts fights with the cops so they can complain about being oppressed

The tea party revolution is one to make the powerful more powerful. So they don't get any trouble from those in power.

The leftist revolution is one to bring the power back to the people. So they get a full force attack by both the police and the propaganda machine.

Re:There's a line

[carni]

Rodney King. Didn't even get killed.

Re:There's a line

[quetwo]

No, we never experienced anything like the Rodney King incident at all. Nope, never happened.

Re:There's a line

[asdf7890]

One man's freedom protester is another man's unlawful rioter.

How deep. Grow up.

In fairness, with regard to RIM there is more to that pithy oft-repeated-by-people-who-don't-really-think-about-it-but-want-to-sound-clever phrase than just a pithy oft-repeated phrase.

RIM have always protested the end-to-end security of their system to be unwavering for anyone, they have state that they not only will not but can not hand over any useful information to authorities or other third parties (hence the little spat with India).

If they are will, and show they are able, to help in a situation where we would support them snooping on some users (the looting little fuckwits who should be shopped), how do we know that they can't be cajoled into helping governments and security forces here and in other countries to monitor the activity of its users in ways we find less palatable?

If they show capability now then those wanting their assistance will know they can give it no matter how hard they protest otherwise, and with their declining position they are less and less unlikely to be able to afford to take the stance their users expect/want in the face of being cut off from an entire country worth of potential users for refusing (their declining market share meaning they can't pull anything out of the hat like a "you wouldn't inconvenience your own people like this" argument worth a damn).

If they are ever forced to do this, and it becomes known they did, they've blown their own unique selling point out of the water and their decline to irrelevance will be sealed with little hope of recovery. The way their CEO recently stormed out of an interview with the BBC like a petulant child when the India question came up, might be an indication that they know how precarious a position that does put them in. Maybe the access they have given that government (see http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20028395-83.html amongst other reports) gives them more useful information then RIM would like people to think, maybe the fall from grace is nearly complete. It would have ramifications far away from the freedom-fighter/looting-cock dividing line - if a government department or security force has access to useful data about messages being sent, then there are people who might be bribable by a commercial entity in order to get information about messages sent between other commercial entities (traditionally RIM's core market) and even if the content of the messages can not be gleaned, the fact they exist at all could be useful information to a competitor. If I were a high-flying BB user I might be concerned.

A bit of wild speculation on my part there, I'll admit, but far from implausible IMO.

Re:There's a line

[Serious Callers Only]

One man's freedom protester is another man's unlawful rioter.

Don't know where you're from, but round here breaking into shops and looting is not 'protesting'.

Re your bullshit about overstepping a line - the only ones doing that are those burning cars, assaulting innocent passers by, and throwing petrol bombs into neighbourhood shops.

Re:There's a line

[DevonBorn]

If an officer of the law breaks the law then they should be punished by the law. The whole point of the IPCC (Independant Police Complaints Commision) is to work out what the facts are and most of the semi/uninformed speculation is not helping. Deserved/accident/trigger happy cop it doesn't matter. Let the IPCC find out what happened otherwise we're just going on hearsay and rumour.
Torching cars and stealing TVs is not the solution. The shooting is just being used as an excuse by the rioters and the unhelpful people encouraging them. The rioters don't give a damn about the guy who was shot they just want to riot and loot. This sort of action will bring out a few more people to riot but the rest of the country will be calling for their heads.
The people worst affected by all this are blameless people who made the mistake of owning shops on a high street or renting apartments above shops or similar things. I mean who didn't see that coming? You live on a high street somewhere and then your house gets torched. It's obvious isn't it? People might think twice in the future before making such an obvious mistake again. That's not going to help anybody.
People like Ken Livingstone also won't be helping. Taking of advantage of the situation for a bit of inflammatory politics is the action of an inconsiderate jerk (First class Hons. University of Git). Hopefully the people who weren't out there upgrading their home cinemas or using other people's cars to keep warm will recognise this and sort him out next year.
Shame about the opportunistic cretins in Birmingham. Hope that gets stamped out.

The only people who are going to benefit from all this are the glaziers.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

and I'm still not sure what all the rioting is about?

It's about poor, uneducated kids with no future taking on society. The press here in the UK ran a "summer of rage" campaign a couple of years back -- promoting widespread civil unrest. The general population in the UK didn't take the bait but these teenagers are about dumb enough to bring martial law down on the entire country.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK, particularly in London, the Police don't get prosecuted. They get told it's OK and often promoted.
The Met has a bit of a problem with trigger happy officers gunning down what turn out to be innocent people and then nothing happens about it.

Re:There's a line

[moortak]

Yes they are wrong, and so is RIM for handing over the private communications of their subscribers to a third party.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess it's a good thing they didn't have 'berries in 1775 in the Boston area. We wouldn't have had a revolution by them "rioters & looters" as the King called them.

Re:There's a line

[Existential Wombat]

Yea, we only riot when there's a worthy cause. Like the Lakers playing the NBA final.

Re:There's a line

[SecurityTheatre]

Wha?

Wikipedia says.... race riots in the last 30 years ....

1980: Miami Riots (Miami, Florida)
1980: Chattanooga Riot (Chattanooga, Tennessee)
1984: Lawrence, Massachusetts Race Riot: A small scale riot centered at the intersection of Haverhill and railroad streets between working class whites and Hispanics; several buildings were destroyed by Molotov cocktails; August 8, 1984.[46]
1990: Inglewood High School riot (Inglewood, California): A riot that broke out in front of the school between 30 Latinos and blacks after the black students leave the Cinco de Mayo day as revenge for running out on Black History Day.
1991: Crown Heights riot (Crown Heights neighborhood, Brooklyn, New York)
1992: Los Angeles Riots (Los Angeles, California): In a reaction to the acquittal of all LA police officers involved in the videotaped beating of Rodney King; riots broke out mainly involving black youths in the black neighborhoods and shop owners in Korean neighborhoods.
1996: St. Petersburg Riots (St. Petersburg, Florida): After Officer Jim Knight stopped 18 yr. old Tyron Lewis for speeding, his car lurched forward causing Knight to fire his weapon, fatally wounding the black teenager. Riots broke out and lasted for about 2 days.
2001: 2001 Cincinnati riots (Cincinnati, Ohio): In a reaction to the acquittal of Steven Roach after the fatal shooting of an unarmed young black male, Timothy Thomas, during a foot pursuit, riots broke out over the span of a few days.
2003: Benton Harbor riots (Benton Harbor, Michigan)
2005: 2005 Toledo Riot (Toledo, Ohio): A race riot that broke out after the Neo-Nazi protest marched through a black neighborhood.
2006: Fontana High School riot (Fontana, California): Riot involving about 500 Latino and black students[47]
2006: Prison Race Riots (California): A war between Latino and black prison gangs set off a series of riots across California[48][49]
2008: Locke High School riot[50] (Los Angeles, California)
2008: Hempstead High School riot (Hempstead, New York): Two days of fighting between Hispanic and black students.[51]
2009: 2009 Oakland Riots (Oakland, California): Peaceful protests turned into rioting after the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man, Oscar Grant, by a BART transit policeman.
2010: Hempstead High School riot (Hempstead, New York): A whole week Of fighting between Latinos and blacks.[citation needed

Re:There's a line

[xaxa]

Or maybe [libertarians] would like ot be out on the streets asking the rioters what their problem with society is? They'll probably end up with a bottle in the face.

Almost certainly. Several journalists (not bloggers, "real" press) have been assaulted already.

This is amazing. I'm very ashamed of my country.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that principles only apply when inconvenient? Well, at least that doesn't meander as much. Can't say I agree much with it either.

Part of the problem I have with the whole thing is exactly not so much where to draw, but what line. "CRIMES ARE BEING COMMITTED" is a clear practical problem, but if it's dire enough for the state to drop the pretense of rule of law, only then they'll declare a state of emergency. RIM doesn't have that option.

Meaning that RIM may well be doing what you feel is the right thing and still end up slapped by the information commissioner or something, and rightly so. Which is why I hoped they'd at least gotten the police to serve them with a warrant or other. It's a hack, but if they didn't they'd be on thinner ice.

If you think the points are trite, make better ones. So far you've exhorted people to abandon thinking about the issue and side with your view on pain of a bottle in the face. It sounds awfully like "if you're not with me, you're against me", and we all know what wonderful argument that was. Pass the WMDs, man, pass the WMDs.

Re:There's a line

[SwedishPenguin]

Isn't UK police generally unarmed? Under what circumstances can they arm themselves and where is the weapon stored? In Norway it's apparently stored in a sealed box in the police car and can be taken out when permission is given from higher authority, seems sensible to me. Our cops are always armed, I would much rather they only be armed when they have an explicit need to be, having the weapon too accessible causes more trouble than it prevents, at least in a country where gun violence is not an everyday thing.

Re:There's a line

[Paul Fernhout]

"Torching cars and stealing TVs is not the solution. The shooting is just being used as an excuse by the rioters and the unhelpful people encouraging them."

Much the same is said here:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html

But, the more a society is stretched to the breaking point by bad social policy, the more likely it will break into violence. Most humans can be civilized, but only while things are going at least not too terribly badly socially. The 9/11 attacks were also the product of social problems, although in that case, by frustrated young men from Saudi Arabia who blamed the USA for supporting who they saw as their local oppressors (ironically spun as "they hate us because we are free").

But, as far as the UK, from 2007, and I doubt it has gotten better with the global recession, consider this article (sadly, no longer directly at Adbusters):
http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/167082-How-Britain-is-Eating-Its-Young
http://web.archive.org/web/20071019031111/http://adbusters.org/the_magazine/71/Generation_Fcked_How_Britain_is_Eating_Its_Young.html
"Around the nation, airtime was cleared for cathartic phone-ins, heated discussions, and a torrent of contributors that simply would not stop. As if sensing that many of the problems might in part stem from the government's unparalleled obsession with monitoring, measuring and homogenising the very children it once sought to cherish, many former Labour advisors suddenly sought to introduce daylight between their ideas and those of the heavily surveilled nanny state. Neil Lawson of the Labour think-tank Compass bleakly admitted: "Society is hollowing out, but not just in the rotting boroughs of south London. The middle classes are anxious too. Many are richer but few seem happier. Mental illness abounds. White-collar jobs are outsourced to India. Everyone looks for meaning in their lives -- but all they find is shopping."
"The reason our children's lives are the worst among economically advanced countries is because we are a poor version of the USA," he said. "So the USA comes second from bottom and we follow behind. The age of neo-liberalism, even with the human face that New Labour has given it, cannot stem the tide of the social recession capitalism creates.""

Does not bode well for either the UK or the USA. And when the violence starts, things tend to just get worse for everyone, with more police, more fear, less comunity, and a downward spiral that is really expensive to recover from (like in Iraq after the civil war there that started after the US invasion).

I tried really hard to find other ways forward, and I found the conceptually, but implementing them against entrenched dogma is another thing.
"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft"
http://www.pdfernhout.net/media/FiveInterwovenEconomies.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY
"This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems."

The use of the word "Theft" in the title there is not intended as advocacy -- it is more to point it out as what happens w

Re:There's a line

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Worth noting that the latest reports still seem to confirm that he was carrying a gun -- specifically the rumour is that it was in a sock and therefore he couldn't have fired it... like that's a great alibi -- so whilst regardless of the situ. no one deserves to die, it seems that this guy wasn't exactly a pillar of society.

Re:There's a line

[madprof]

RIM will most likely comply with whatever the Police ask because the Police will most likely go through the normal channels. They're quite used to getting data from people. Your assumption that they will not bother with official channels is baseless. Plus you forgot the obvious, that RIM are responding to media speculation about Blackberry devices helping orchestrate the looting, which makes them potentially appear in a bad light with some. They're bound to want to appear helpful.

So if you want my view on it, it is this:
There are criminals out there committing assaults, arson, robbery and vandalism - these are serious crimes. People are getting hurt (I include police officers in this - they're people too) and RIM don't want negative publicity as a result of this.

If it genuinely concerns you more that the police have requested, in an unknown manner, data from RIM regarding intelligence about the rioting, rather than riots themselves then you've got your priorities all skewed.

Re:There's a line

[TheRaven64]

these teenagers are about dumb enough to bring martial law down on the entire country

I'm hoping for a big wall along the path of the M25. Lock the rioters, the bankers, and the politicians in and let them get on with it. Maybe chuck some more guns over the wall when it's finished.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been reading the headlines on this a couple of days....and I'm still not sure what all the rioting is about?

There's no political agenda. There was an original protest, but the rioting isn't really related. The rioters are not carrying placards, they do not give interviews, they aren't making demands and they aren't chanting slogans. They've being very aggressive towards reporters and do not wish to be identified.

I used to live in Tottenham and work in Hackney. There are quite a few entirely normal people there (housing in London is *expensive*, even in shitholes, so even people with professional jobs end up there) and many struggling or lazy benefit dependents. There are also quite a few aggressive young wannabe gangsters - the sort you'll see with hoodies, or fake limps and a tendency to forget to put their belt on in the morning. There are people who take pleasure in making others afraid, and people who enjoy dominating others and the space around them, even in petty ways. The sort who'll make you step aside when you're walking along the street or who'll walk slowly across the road in front of your car to make you wait.

Now imagine that many like certain pharmaceuticals they aren't allowed to have. Also imagine that the police are drawn from the same community and have members with the same attitude. And that people who dress a certain way, or are a certain age or colour, or drive a certain kind of pimped-out car get regularly harrassed or stopped and searched by those police. Imagine that many are genuinely criminal, too, and can't stand authority (a job is out of the question because that means having a boss). There's a lot of hatred of the police for good and (mostly) bad reasons.

Then something happens that lets them know that they can get together and take out their hatred of the police and live out their anarchist, violent and acquisitive fantasies on the streets.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

If I didn't have friends living within the M25 I'd agree with you. On a more serious note though, London is going to be locked down by afternoon. Giving the tories a mandate like that is going to be a complete fucking disaster for the entire country. I for one, don't much care for having the army on the streets.

Re:There's a line

[JumperCable]

There's a difference between protesting and rioting/looting. So cheers for tracking down rioters and looters.

It's all fun and games until you send several text messages about events occurring but are not participating in, nor encouraging other people to participate in and suddenly you are on a watch list.

Re:There's a line

[cayenne8]

Didn't say ever, but is pretty uncommon...considering how often someone gets shot over here. besides, Rodney didn't even get shot and killed

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been reading the headlines on this a couple of days....and I'm still not sure what all the rioting is about?

The police shoot someone over there, and they have a riot? What's the deal with that?

Well... I don't really know, but a WAG as to why they'd react more strongly might have to do with us having a tradition of gun-toting cops, whereas in London firearms are traditionally reserved for SWAT and such. That's been changing for a while, but that doesn't mean the public really accept it yet. So in our case, occasionally cops shoot the wrong people -- honest mistake. In their case, cops are strapping on pistols they shouldn't have in the first place, and then shooting people.

Doesn't excuse rioting, but may explain why tensions are higher such that rioting is more likely.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analysis, while lengthy, is riddled with inaccuracies and exaggerations. Your conclusions are based on anecdotal evidence and the lack of any facts that might interfere with your understanding of how the world works. While the US is portrayed as evil personified there are several facts that seem to contradict that description. The US is without a doubt the most inclusive and tolerant society when it comes to race, political parties, and religion. Even illegal immigrants get treated better in the US then in their countries of origin. How many "Little Chicago" or "Washington Town" enclaves do you see in any other countries? Almost all major US cities all have international enclaves full of people from other countries practicing their home country cultural beliefs and practices while at the same time integrating themselves into the US society as a whole. Most Americans need to go out of their way to remain invisible in other countries as a result of the hatred targeted at Americans. The US education system has it's problems like every other country of note but the US is also home of some of the most respected universities and research centers in the world. Compare the number of US citizens going abroad to attend college against the number who come to the US. The US is the home of IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, HP, Google, Apple, Facebook, Intel, Bell Labs, and dozens of other companies who are responsible for the majority of computer tech now being used in the world. Hell, even the Internet started out as a US DARPA project. For a country that is pilloried as containing nothing but stupid Americans it makes one wonder how the US economy is still leading the pack by a substantial amount. China might have reduced the lead but they are still about 4 trillion dollars a year behind and are currently facing problems of their own. The US is accused of exporting all manufacturing jobs to foreign countries but somehow the US is still ranked the #1 manufacturer in the world. How does that jive with a country accused of never manufacturing anything? Compare per capita economic production with any other large country in the world and explain how the stupid Americans could have pulled this off. All of the criticism targeted against the US over the past 10 years from both in and out is finally convincing a large majority the US citizens to stop seeking cooperation or multiculturalism and start looking out for #1 without regret or guilt. The current government is so reviled they will find it hard to politically justify contributing any money to international problem areas. Let others deal with the famine in Africa and the wholesale slaughter being perpetrated in Syria. Leave Afghanistan to the Taliban and stop financing Pakistan. Let Israel finish what they they started in 1967/1973 and put an end to their Palestinian problems once and for all. Let the world start dealing with their own problems without any US involvement and see where that leads. Civilization is not a destination but a journey. There have always been ups and downs but the difference now is we possess the ability to annihilate a good portion of the world when the next war arrives. While everyone is busy concentrating on the evils of the US famine is sweeping large parts of Africa, people are being slaughtered wholesale for political and religious beliefs, the European economy is making the US troubles look trivial by comparison. The US has it's problems and it some of them are serious but the criticism and unfounded accusations are excessive and radically partisan which will only result in causing more harm for others than it does to the US.

Re:There's a line

[Archimboldo]

What about the people these yobs can harm next? Don't they have a right to be protected? A law has to be reasonable, not stupidly rigid. Let the courts decide if RIM violates privacy of honest citizens or helps put thugs in jail.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when do libertarians care about what a private entity like RIM does?

Re:There's a line

[bmajik]

I'm somewhere between a libertarian and a full-on anarchist. Rioters violate the non-aggression principle. They initiate harm against people and property who are innocent, and completley unrelated to whatever legitimate greivance the rioters may hold.

A group of "people" who are randomly destroying people and property have voluntarily renounced their humanity. They should be given the starkest of terms: immediately cease or immediately die.

I would support executing rioters in the street. Procedures should be developed to give non-rioting bystanders or those who have not yet delved into total barbarism a chance to escape or assume a non-threatening position. Anyone who does not lay down and wait to be processed should be executed shortly thereafter.

Re:There's a line

[Paul Fernhout]

"Your analysis, while lengthy, is riddled with inaccuracies and exaggerations."

Thanks for your comment, AC. I guess it is hard to summarize ten years of thinking on these things and reading tons of references in a short post, but you can find lots of detail in essays on my website: http://www.pdfernhout.net/

Even in this comment, I cited an academic and a reporter citing sources. That article on the UK being last and the US being second to last in child welfare (of industrialized countries) was based on a UN report from that time, so, while anyone can question such a report, that is not an accusation made up out of thin air.

You can stick your head in the sand, but that is a fact -- many kids in the USA are suffering in a variety of ways. Example:
"Record numbers go hungry in the US: Government report shows 50m people unable to put food on the table at some point last year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/17/millions-hungry-households-us-report
"More than a million children regularly go to bed hungry in the US, according to a government report that shows a startling increase in the number of families struggling to put food on the table. President Barack Obama, who pledged to eradicate childhood hunger, has described as "unsettling" the agriculture department survey, which says 50 million people in the US â" one in six of the population â" were unable to afford to buy sufficient food to stay healthy at some point last year, in large part because of escalating unemployment or poorly paid jobs. That is a rise of more than one-third on the year before and the highest number since the survey began in 1995. ..."

That said, sure, I have no doubt there are inaccuracies and exaggerations in what I have written in various places, which I would be happy to eventually correct if supplied with specific information. But it seems to me that you have supplied mostly generalizations (and also responded to points I did not raise, as I agree the USA still makes a lot, at least by dollar value), generalizations that ignore how the USA has systematically disrupted grassroots movements for democracy and social accountability in other countries. That is why so many people in so many countries are angry at US Americans, just for two example where the USA helped overthrow a democratically elected government, see Chile and Iran.

Has the USA also done some good things abroad? No doubt.

Is the USA multi-cultural in a lot of ways? Yes, to its credit.

Has the USA some big technical accomplishments, like the internet? Again, no doubt. Although other countries did have computer networks, like France's Minitel or Chile's Cybersyn -- the last being destroyed by the US fomented overthrow on the first 9/11 in 1973 -- that could have become like an internet someday.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

Are US accomplishments commensurate with having a huge (genocidally) depopulated continent to work with and being the only major surviving industrial base after a World War (where it helped arm both sides?) and bringing in the best German/Nazi scientists both before and after the war? Well, that is subject to debate...

My understanding is that the USA would have collapsed a long time ago based on mismanagement had it not been so wealthy to begin with. And as I see it, both the USA and the USSR lost the Cold War; it is just taking the USA a bit longer to fall. I agree with you the large stockpiles of WMDs the USA has make its collapse very problematical for the world.

As I mentioned, I've tried to propose alternatives to collapse, but so far, without much success in implementation.

Anyway, I'd suggest there is a lot of exaggeration in what you have written. Where did I suggest the USA was "evil per

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

Still maybe the police might think twice before killing a black coke dealler.

Re:There's a line

[Dr Max]

Good way to get protestors to arm themselves better; and i hope this means any pig that kills an inocent person should be executed on site and without trial aswell. People get involved in riots because its the only way to show the goverment they arn't happy (don't give me that go and vote stuff its an illusion of control). Sure i don't like the idea of the occasional bystander getting hurt but i much prefer it to everyone just bending over and taking it. We wouldn't be living the quality of life we are now if it wasn't for our ancestors rioting.

Re:There's a line

[s73v3r]

The rest of his comment isn't any better. He goes on with some shit about "How does RIM know something is happening?" All someone has to do is look out the fucking window (or check the news).

Re:There's a line

[s73v3r]

Those rioters waived any right to "private communications" the second they started destroying property.

I hope they get fucked by the Long Dick of the Law.

Re:There's a line

[s73v3r]

And attacks from their own side, when shit like this happens.

Re:There's a line

[bmajik]

Protesting != rioting.

I don't think you have an actual defense or justification for rioting as I've defined it.

If people are mad at the government, why don't they go attack _government_ buildings and workers?

Have the populace at large ever rallied in support of rioters?

At least Timothy McVeigh and the IRS guy attacked federal buildings instead of random neighbors. Say what you want about their motivations and their plans, but they were at least somewhat discriminating about what and who they were hurting.

Rioters are worse than terrorists. Terrorists at least have a political goal.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

If a police radio managed to stop the bullet it probably wasn't fired directly at it, and most likely a ricochet which increase the chance it was a trigger happy bad shot cop.

Re:There's a line

[Dr Max]

The problem isn't the actuall riots, its that the rioters have no faith that the situiation will be handled properly by the goverment. You can kill every mouse that comes into your house or you could stop leaving food on the ground.

Re:There's a line

[timeOday]

You are talking about the spark, but what about the tinderbox? What does the unrest in London have in common with the revolts in Egypt and Tunisia? And for that matter the Watts riots of 1965 and LA riots of 1992? The rioters are always suffering poor economic prospects. January, 2011: youth unemployment hits record high in Britain. Of course, in the west we cheer on the "green spring" and assume it is about religion and "freedom" as we interpret it. But if that were it, what about China? It's simple: people rarely engage in risky behavior for idealism alone. Not for freedom, and not against unjustified shootings. The risk/reward ratio for smashing a window and stealing a TV is vastly different for somebody making a good living vs. somebody scraping along on the dole with too much time on their hands. No, I am not excusing lawbreaking. Instead, consider it a good statistical predictor: the less somebody is invested in the system, the more likely they are to honor its restrictions.

Re:There's a line

[timeOday]

...uh, the less likely they are to obey its restrictions. (doh!)

Re:There's a line

[qfman]

Why is NO ONE talking about the huge sums of money we (US) are spending to KILL people in other countries around the world and prop up brutal dictators. That S&*T is expensive and now after decades it is catching up with US. The last 3 wars Kuwait, Afghanistan & Iraq were placed on the national debt (credit card) and now someone must pay for that ongoing folly. We kill the pore to feed the rich. With the path we are on what wend down in London is headed here. The only way to change that path is to bring home the troops where they can be productive instead of destructive.

Re:There's a line

[Serious Callers Only]

Yes they are wrong, and so is RIM for handing over the private communications of their subscribers to a third party.

If the third party is the police or government, and their customers are breaking the law in an obvious way using BBM to communicate, I don't have a problem with that - do you?

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that the "arab spring" was started by a riot over the treatment of a Tunisian shopkeeper that set himself alight after brutal treatment by police, why is this different ?
Only "politics" causes the media to treat these events differently.
The West was happy to see riots change governments in Tunisia and Egypt because they didn't like their governments.
The West DID like the Saudi and Bahrain government, so their riots were NOT sanctioned by our media.
The West DO like the UK, hence these people are JUST rioting/looting and have NO support in the media.
If they were Syrians they would get 100% support !

A crime WAS still committed by police though - remember that !

Re:There's a line

[Dr Max]

They were mainly attacking the police (governments blue gang) although with that many individuals and no central management it would be hard to stop the people that just really want some new shoes. Thug cops are much worse than terrorists even though they have sworn to uphold the law they still criminally assault their own people and worse use there position of power to make life even worse for the victim. We all seem to rally behind Syria and Libya rioting (oh that because their government is evil but ours is made of flowers and should be able to do whatever they want). Rioting is a form of protest.

Re:There's a line

[DrXym]

You ascribe too much thought to the rioters. They don't give a flying fuck for some random person who got shot. They just see it as an excuse to have a go at the police, smash things, set things on fire and steal. Do you think these actions will have the slightest affect on how the police behave? Do you think the next time some guy is taking shots at them they'll hold their fire in case killing him kicks off a riot? Of course not.

Re:There's a line

[Grumbleduke]

I've been reading the headlines on this a couple of days....and I'm still not sure what all the rioting is about?
The police shoot someone over there, and they have a riot? What's the deal with that?
We don't lose our minds every time someone gets shot over here unless it is something pretty egregious....

I don't know about the rest of you, but personally I'm somewhat pleased that I live in a country where the police kill people rarely enough that it makes the national news and can spark a protest. I'm not sure I'd feel all that safe if I knew the authorities could go around killing people without anyone caring...

Of course, rioting and looting is just so uncivilised....

Re:There's a line

[madprof]

Which particular issue are these people "protesting" about then? I don't mean the ones who sat outside the police station after the guy got shot on Thursday, I mean the ones who are burning cars, looting shops and smashing up buildings.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the riots and looting have anything to do with protesting the shooting, other than the initial trigger point. They hijacked the original (peaceful) protest, and now it seems there are copycat ones springing up on other boroughs of London and even other cities.

It's just arseholes being arseholes and I hope they get caught and locked up.

Re:There's a line

[tehcyder]

yes especially when he shoots first... the person who's death sparked this off was stooped in a Taxi and fired at the policemen with a gun before they fired back, this sort of thing is too common to get in the news in America but in England it is rare.

Uh, the latest news reports I've seen were saying that the bullet that hit the policeman was... fired by the police.

So it looks like the police may have shot someone dead for no particularly good reason again, though at least this time it seems that they managed to shoot an actual bad guy.

You have no right to carry firearms in England. If you are holding a handgun in sight and the police tell you to stop and drop it, you'd better do it immediately or they will assume they are in danger.

Re:There's a line

[tehcyder]

that means somebody had a gun who shouldn't have.

Indeed. Only policemen who are good enough marksmen to not accidentally fire on their colleagues should have guns...

In the UK only specially trained police oficers are allowed to carry guns.

Re:There's a line

[tehcyder]

I've been reading the headlines on this a couple of days....and I'm still not sure what all the rioting is about?

The police shoot someone over there, and they have a riot? What's the deal with that?

We don't lose our minds everytime someone get's shot over here unless it is something pretty egregious....I mean, we just finished the trial (not that much national exposure I don't think) about all the people shot on the Danziger bridge post Katrina by the cops. They had an orderly trial, etc. We didn't go all apeshit over it and riot in the streets over the shooting. The cops were caught, tried and found guilty, and convicted...end of story.

Then again, I don't understand it why other towns riot in the streets and burn cars when "their" football/basketball/baseball teams wins the championship.

The trouble is that in the UK, when the police shoot someone, there is almost never a trial, and no-one is ever really held accountable. The most egregious example is the 2005 killing of John Charles de Menezes in Stockwell.

Re:There's a line

[hughbar]

Please do not use 'anarchists' in this sense, mainly it's a peaceful philosophy that happens not to believe in the conventional apparatus of government. Often that belief is as an end-point, not an immediate objective, gained by smashing up the place. You mean 'rioters', 'looters' or 'idiots'. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism for a more wide ranging explanation.

Re:There's a line

[tehcyder]

Didn't say ever, but is pretty uncommon...considering how often someone gets shot over here. besides, Rodney didn't even get shot and killed

Riots like this are also pretty uncommon in the UK you know.

Re:There's a line

[jonbryce]

Any statements by the police such as the one you have quoted should be treated as being wrong until proven otherwise. The Met has lied far too many times in these situations for anyone to be able to trust them.

Re:There's a line

[IrquiM]

And there's also a line between shoting a citizen, and police returning fire

Re:There's a line

[ArsenneLupin]

In the UK only specially trained police oficers are allowed to carry guns.

Apparently this "special training" does not prevent them from shooting their colleague's walky-talky instead of the intended target...

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

SO-19 do not rock up at your taxi in the middle of the day to offer you flowers and a balloon. Mark Duggan was Not A Very Nice Man. They had reason to suspect he was armed, and dangerous (hence SO-19 armed response officers).

The best bit is this entire story comes from the Guardian, who are well known for hating the police (They just can't get over the 80's), so I'll ignore anything they have to say on the matter until someone with some credibility on the subject pipes up and has some solid evidence, not just "The Guardian understands..." and some unsupported, unsubstantiated crap from an intentionally vague source.

It's also funny how everyone can read as far as the first paragraph but not as far as "A non-police issue handgun was also recovered at the scene where Duggan was shot dead in Ferry Road." Well gee Brain, I wonder who had that gun?

I doubt you'll find many people in the UK who believe the police story on any shooting

Oh well that's O.K then. Let's all carry on rioting and looting because we don't believe the police.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

Your reading skills are a tad poor, young grasshopper. There's a notion upthread, made explicit even, that proper channels be used. Instead of what the news seemed to say that they were about to assume police powers themselves. It's a lot of "if that's what they're doing then that's no good", but there you go.

Note though that your assumption it was the media that started the speculation appears to've been lacking solid base itself, as the "blackberry accusation" was at least reiterated by a police spokesman as a view of the police. This morning's bbc global news podcast contains suitable soundbites to that effect. Even if it required some reporter prompting, that is the plod are saying.

Re:There's a line

[Dr Max]

Ok maybe they are all mindless idiots but mindless idiots don't just naturally hate police and all simultaneously think its time to burn down a foot locker. Its not all about the dead guy, its also about all the discontent citizens. To be honest i don't think this will have much of an effect on police behavior not because it shouldn't (and it should) but because the problem lies so deep in the police (possibly in human psyche, think Stanford prison experiment), and would be quite hard to change. As far as some guy taking shots at them is concerned, I'm leaning to the idea that adrenaline hyped cops with a finger on the trigger got scared, opened fire, and ended up hitting one of their own with a ricochet (how else would a bullet not go through a radio), but then again i am a little bias about police brutality and their disregard for the truth (due to personal experience).

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

If an officer of the law breaks the law then they should be punished by the law. The whole point of the IPCC (Independant Police Complaints Commision) is to work out what the facts are and most of the semi/uninformed speculation is not helping.

Yes that is exactly the point being made - they never do what they're meant to. The officers are never punished under law in the same way a citizen would be. Never.

Even the corruption charges that are being talked about in regards to the hacking business will never truly be levied against those who deserve it, purely because the corruption is right to the core (and in every other branch of the apple tree :S).

You may not like the response being given - tough shit though. That is the response that we the people keep being given - that is now the response we will provide as this and every other action continues.

Re:There's a line

[AmiMoJo]

While I won't argue that what is happening is not simple criminal theft and vandalism I think we also have to accept some responsibility for it.

Half the people involved were not even bothering to cover their faces. They don't care what happens to them, if they go to jail or not, or what society thinks of them. We have an underclass who are basically trapped in poverty, disadvantaged from birth by social status and a lack of good parenting, and now with no real prospects.

As a society we are failing to fix this. I'm not talking about hand-outs, I mean really make our society fairer and give people who want to make something of themselves a genuine opportunity to do so. Otherwise the choice is basically between criminality or a lifetime of benefits and shitty minimum wage jobs that will never amount to enough to move out of that council flat, generation after generation.

I won't claim to know how to do this, only that it needs doing.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

from: http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/07/7292281-the-sad-truth-behind-london-riot

here's a sad truth, expressed by a Londoner when asked by a television reporter: Is rioting the correct way to express your discontent?

"Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"

The TV reporter from Britain's ITV had no response. So the young man pressed his advantage. "Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you."

Re:There's a line

[madprof]

I like the escalation of tone - that's awesome. I've not had an "I'm more experienced than you" conversation for a while now, where you progressively sound more and more formal to make yourself sound more intelligent.

So in that vein, the news did not say that they were assuming Police powers themselves, the IT World story was very clear that it was not known what they were doing. Who knows, maybe I am wrong and the Police got in touch and they subsequently issued the tweet about helping them in light of the lawful passing of information? I guess we shall wait and find out. There is no basis for assuming (other than your own crazy-eyed paranoia) that RIM are going to just turn over a load of information, especially given (here's another obvious clue being missed) that they don't know *which* information to turn over until the Police ask for it.

Strangely The Register (a pretty unreliable news source at times, I'll admit) seems to suggest "anecdotal evidence" of Blackberry usage in helping coordinate rioting rather than saying "the Police said". That the Police may also say Blackberry devices are involved this may be down to the fact that it's an obvious conclusion to come to, especially if such "anecdotal evidence" is a useful sample of what is going on.

So, er, there. The point still stands that if you're more concerned about RIM handing over data than the riots (which now involve at least one death according to news reports) then your priorities are wrong.

Re:There's a line

[jeffmeden]

Yeah, it must be the case that he was selective about his example and has nothing to do with the fact that the danziger bridge trial verdict was only 3 days ago.

Here, I'll try it just like you... How about the 1985 Dorothy Groce shooting, subsequent riots (plural), and eventual acquittal of the officer who shot her. Meanwhile, cayenne8 is still accurate in pointing out you guys riot and kill each other when your favorite soccer team loses a match.

LOL@ "you guys" I am not from the UK (or any other country that has "soccer" riots)...

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

Rodney King was back in 1992.

Re:There's a line

[jeremyp]

Protesting isn't illegal in the UK. Setting fire to other people's property is.

Re:There's a line

[Aceticon]

It also doesn't help that nobody from the police ended up suspended for the killing of the Brazilian Electrician.

More recently, a newspaper salesman died after being attacked without provocation by a member of the riot police during some (mostly peaceful demonstrations) some years ago (and the newspaper salesman was not demonstrating, just trying to leave the area) and nobody went to jail for it.

In the UK, police officers don't answer for this kind of crime.

Add to this:
- Distancing from the overall population (fewer cops that walk their beat and know the people of the neighbourhood, more ex-military types cruising about in police cars)
- The emphasis in the last couple of year on conviction-targets (that's right, cops have targets to get X people convicted) rather than public-safety targets.
- An almost complete reliance on using hard-power rather than soft-power (so the kid that throws a stone through a window and which in the past would be dealth with by a police officer taking him home and talking to his parents will now be arrested, taken to the station, fingerprinted and charged).

Things are even worse in London which suffers extra due to the big-city (lots of anonymous people) problem and has it's own police force which is more disfunctional than most other police forces in the UK (it's head is usually a politically adept type rather than an old-school professional, since the Mayor can and often does replace the head of the Met in reaction to the latest newspaper-pumped scare).

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

you can only make such a statement if you completely understand the mind of those taking action.

if rioting, burning a building, and looting is the only way to express your frustrations with the country you live in than that is what you need to do.

don't take the high road here trying to decry THESE people as "hooligans" while you praise others in other countries for DOING THE SAME THING.

the UK is on fire. the US is next.

Re:There's a line

[Paul Fernhout]

The people worst affected by all this are blameless people who made the mistake of owning shops on a high street or renting apartments above shops or similar things. I mean who didn't see that coming?"

Also related:
    "Can Economic Factors Explain The Riots?"
    http://news.sky.com/home/business/article/16046645
"There's no one root cause for the riots across the country, but a range of economic indicators often associated with social unrest have been on the rise for some time. ... Add this to the fact that overall UK inequality levels have risen to the highest levels since the 1960s (or alternatively the 1930s, depending on whose statistics you trust). It's notable that many of the areas affected by the rioting are within touching distance of poorer areas, as is the case in Tottenham where the rioting began. ... London's local authorities have borne much of the brunt of the Government's austerity package -- their grants from Whitehall fell by 11.3% this year and will drop a further 7.6% in 2012/13. And the first non-essential services to be cut include youth services budgets -- Haringey's was slashed by 75% leading to the closure of youth clubs."

"Blameless" is a problematical term when we are talking politics including how people vote about long term trends. People vote for the world they want to live in, and sometimes their assumptions or predictions are wrong.

I don't know much about UK politics, but as for the USA, the current dominant voting pattern follows the idea that if we give all out money to rich people they will stick in their mattresses (or maybe use it in poker games with each other) and this will create jobs for everyone. If that does not work to create jobs, then the potential consequences are severe. Are the people who vote for such policies "blameless" if the consequences are social collapse?

Re:There's a line

[moortak]

Barring some type of court order to establish that, I do. Process matters in these things. I don't want my telecom provider making moral judgements on when to hand over my information to anyone else.

Re:There's a line

[robsku]

LOL@ "you guys" I am not from the UK (or any other country that has "soccer" riots)...

Me neither, and they are called football riots anyway - "soccer riots", for me, has similar sound to ie. "unicorn-love bloodbath" or something...

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

Who does this response hurt? It hurts innocent people, people who get injured by the rioters, people who get pulled out of their car and get to watch it being set fire to, people who lose their jobs because the shop they work for is burnt down, people who lose their homes and possessions because they live above a shop that was burnt down, it hurts businesses that have to shut down because of the riots. But it doesn't hurt the police, it just gives them more work, which they may or may not want to do, but they will get paid overtime to do it. The only conclusion I can come to is that the people getting involved in the riots are fucktards who don't think about the consequences of their actions.

Re:There's a line

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesnt matter that it was an armed, known criminal I suppose?

Definitely overstepping

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

If you want a messaging infrastruture that people can use and not feel like someone is deciding who else in the world is going to listen in, then yes they are overstepping and changing the contract they have with their users. Good luck RIM UK.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[LWATCDR]

I don't know about the UK but "I have a court order" means you hand over data.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[Anonymous Coward]

I would suggest you actually read that contract before you go making claims that RIM is changing it. From the BBSLA:

(i) You and Your Authorised Users will cooperate with RIM and provide information requested by RIM to assist RIM in investigating or determining whether there has been a breach of this Agreement and provide RIM or a RIM appointed independent auditor with access to the premises and computers where the RIM Products, Services or Software are or have been used and any associated records. You hereby authorise RIM to cooperate with: (i) law enforcement authorities in the investigation of suspected criminal violations; (ii) third parties in investigating acts in violation of this Agreement; and (iii) system administrators at Internet service providers, networks or computing facilities in order to enforce this Agreement. Such cooperation may include RIM disclosing Your or Your Authorised Users' username, IP address, or other personal information.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[gstoddart]

If you want a messaging infrastruture that people can use and not feel like someone is deciding who else in the world is going to listen in, then yes they are overstepping and changing the contract they have with their users. Good luck RIM UK.

This is one of those areas I'd say is getting a little gray.

On the one hand, you don't want RIM handing over information to every petty dictator who wants to suppress democracy -- which, sadly, nowadays includes the bastions of democracy who historically think themselves not in that club.

On the other hand, rioting looting and burning of buildings (and I think a murder) isn't exactly lawful behavior and not necessarily the kind of thing you want to let happen.

I'm pretty sure the contract with their users says they're not here to help you engage in illegal activities. And, if the government shows up with the right legal documents to compel you, the point is moot. But, if the government is there mostly oppressing peaceful demonstrations (Iran, Syria for example) then maybe this isn't a government you should be dealing with anyway.

I'm not sure this falls into an "always this" or "always that" scenario ... then again, almost nothing really does despite people's tendencies to do so. Either way, I'm sure this will lead to what people perceive as double standards and hypocrisy.

As technology becomes increasingly something you can look to in order to get this information ... I think you'll see this kind of thing happen more often.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[sl3xd]

I really don't see how it is any different than a regular wiretap: Blackberry gets a warrant on the grounds that the target is involved in a criminal activity, and BlackBerry is obligated to comply. It's certain that compliance with law enforcement is in the contract; they wouldn't be allowed to do business otherwise.

So my question is: Why do people think BlackBerry has a say in this? When the government asks them to jump, they jump - that is what the law demands. Failure to comply will result in fines and possibly forfeiture of their license to do business - either way their stock price drops further.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[couchslug]

"f you want a messaging infrastruture that people can use and not feel like someone is deciding who else in the world is going to listen in, then" ...you use encryption.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[Anonymous Coward]

Did News Corp turn them down?

Re:Definitely overstepping

[s73v3r]

Fuck that. It is NOT overstepping in situations like this.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[Patch86]

It's probably important as to how they're actually going about this. If the police have some suspects, have applied for a court order, and BB are now releasing BBM data for these suspects, that seems fairly reasonable. If the police just want to start going on fishing expeditions- looking at the BBM data for half the youths in Tottenham in the hope that they're saying incriminating things about rioting- then that's different.

My guess is there's a strong element of the latter- if the police already knew who was rioting, they wouldn't really need their BBM data; they could just roll on over and arrest them.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[Patch86]

Relative compared to what? Which text-based portable communications system is newer? BBM is newer than emails and SMS. I suppose Twitter is newer, but that's just a variation on the web-based message board, which isn't.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[Patch86]

Damn, posted in response to the wrong post. Ignore please.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is RIM just "assisting" its way to a government contract to overcome their sales crisis? Does any company really care about its users anyway?

Re:Definitely overstepping

[shilly]

You've got this the wrong way round. BlackBerry has been loudly and publicly saying they're going to help the police because they're worried about the damage to their brand if they're seen as the technology that Helps Young Thugs Riot.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[shilly]

BBM is encrypted.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[DarthVain]

The fact that they are RECORDING the messages is what is at issue here for me. Why are they doing that? I know when I saw this story on the news last night that was the first thing that came to mind.

Yes, just like anyone RIM is subject to a court order in whatever country they are in. The fact that RIM is RECORDING and STORING my private messages in the first place seems a bit like a HUGE privacy breach to me. They shouldn't have the records to hand over in the first place. Just another reason not to use BB.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[DarthVain]

I seriously doubt there is anything in the RIM EULA that says something to the extent "RIM reserves the right to record and store all messages for an indefinite period of time that you send or receive VIA your BB device."

Providing data to law enforcement is a given. Actually remotely storing you private messages for later inspection is a huge privacy breach. I mean they need to send it across their network, but once delivered it should only be stored locally on the BB device if anywhere, not on some RIM server for some period of time. Just like I expect the phone company isn't taking transcripts of every phone conversation I ever have and keeping it on file. Not only is this a privacy breach, but in many countries I would suggest pretty illegal. However UK is pretty big brother now, so perhaps this is a unique instance where RIM was expected, or required to store such information... pretty scary thought.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

Your right I don't see this a different than any wiretap except not wiretaps for the most part dont need a warrent and its the old tradeoff. If you want to keep your freedom you have to have some privacy rights. Otherwise those who seek deep power will look into everyting, root out desenter (see China , see the Middle East,... ). Sometimes you have to let some crime go by and use good old fashion police work rather than the 1984 world view. Really it is not a suble thing, but a hard choice. They will scare you into allowing them to listen in and tap in and monitor, for their purposes not yours. Freedom and liberty can be messy but we can loose both.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

Thats one expensive way, but limits the networks and possibilities. Like having to use the cone of silence to have a conversation. Remember how well that worked.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

In situations like that they get the data, then they get the data when there is a peaceful protest and tell you that they are worried that some day these people will not be peaceful and they should all go to jail, and their families with them, then they will come for you when you protest that your family was taken because your brother was in that protest....

Re:Definitely overstepping

[s73v3r]

No. You're stretching things to unbelievable levels. The fact of the matter is, your shitty little scenario isn't happening. These fuckstain rioters are NOT peaceful, and have shown no signs of stopping.

You can go on and on all you want about "Well what happens if there was a peaceful protest?", but the simple fact of the matter is that this is NOT that situation.

Re:Definitely overstepping

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

But you miss the point. There are ways to handle protests and illegal activity without giving up basic freedoms. I know its a hard one. Like giving your right wing dumb cousin a loan to help in an emergency out and expect to get any of it back. Once you give those who are power hungry, power, say good bye to freedoms. What I am saying is that, no you can't trample any rights in a crisis. I think the riots had a cause, didn't they, I think it was maybe an unjustified killing by the police. Actions have consequences. I know the police don't want to be held responible. I think they have been pooring gas on the fire. Won't people learn, sometimes you have to negotiate and take responsibility.

If they can...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can do it for the UK, they are probably already doing it for someone else... India, Saudi Arabia, US??

Re:If they can...

[bhcompy]

It's not if, it's only a question of what is expected of a company in this situation within a particular jurisdiction.

Re:If they can...

[rvw]

If they can do it for the UK, they are probably already doing it for someone else... India, Saudi Arabia, US??

They can - that's not the issue here.

Do they want to do this? Without a warrant it would be commercial suicide, and they can stop pretending to resist Indian and Saudi Arabian governments. UK judges cannot give out warrants I think, because how do they know which numbers are used for these riots? Only if they have caught people, then they can ask for their messages, but nothing more.

...what?

[Anonymous Coward]

relatively old-tech method of BlackBerry messaging

So basically, texting. Did you really just call texting old?
Using carrier pidgins is old, texting is not.

Re:...what?

[nedlohs]

Do you know what the word "relatively" means?

Re:...what?

[turtleAJ]

Do you know what the word "relatively" means?

Relatively speaking, no.

Re:...what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not "basically" texting; texting in the walled garden that is BES/BIS. Given the typical userbase of BBM (hint, most corporate users ignore it) it has definitely gone the way of the carrier pigeon; most people have gone back to actual texting as the abandonment of RIM continues.

Re:...what?

[newcastlejon]

SMS has been around for over a decade, easily. In technology terms that's pretty damn old.

Re:...what?

[Anonymous Coward]

BlackBerry Messaging does not use SMS.

Re:...what?

[Anonymous Coward]

stupid Americans. Over here, we have outhouses older than your "country".

Re:...what?

[CapuchinSeven]

If things carry on like this for much longer, we won't have houses, let along outhouses.

Re:...what?

[Anonymous Coward]

If things carry on like this for much longer, we won't have houses, let along outhouses.

I foresee a real-estate bubble in the area - will give the current protesters some jobs, isn't it?

Re:...what?

[Patch86]

Relative compared to what? Which text-based portable communications system is newer? BBM is newer than emails and SMS. I suppose Twitter is newer, but that's just a variation on the web-based message board, which isn't.

(Reposting as accidentally posted in wrong place)

Re:...what?

[nedlohs]

Relative compared to the items mentioned in the sentence obviously.

Good move on their part

[hilldog]

Blackberry most likely feels being proactive is better than waiting to be subpoenaed and looking like they are protecting looters and criminals.

Re:Good move on their part

[rvw]

Blackberry most likely feels being proactive is better than waiting to be subpoenaed and looking like they are protecting looters and criminals.

Yeah right!!! Proactive! :-P

This applies to T-Mobile and Vodafone and all phone and internet providers. Do they look like they are protecting "criminals"? Because right now somewhere somebody is planning a crime over the phone. I hope you see where I'm going.

Re:Good move on their part

[DerekLyons]

Blackberry most likely feels being proactive and potentially violating individual's civil rights as well as privacy laws is better than waiting to be subpoenaed and looking like they are protecting looters and criminals.

There, fixed that for you. It doesn't sound nearly so pretty when you include all the facts.

Re:Good move on their part

[hilldog]

And I still prefer "potentially violating individual's civil rights as well as privacy laws" than protecting a bunch of fuck ups that use any damn excuse to loot and burn! How about shop keepers rights to not have their business burned down? How about peoples right to walk down the street and not be beat up by a bunch of assholes? Where are their civil rights you fuckwit?

Re:Good move on their part

[DerekLyons]

I see, toss out due process and the protections of the law - they're inconvenient to vengeance and violence. How then are you different from those you seek to prosecute?

Re:Good move on their part

[Cederic]

What about the civil rights of the millions of people that didn't go out and riot, but are now getting their personal private messages trawled through by a corrupt, incompetent and malicious police force?

Re:Good move on their part

[Anonymous Coward]

Who started the violence you nitwit? Yes by all means lets pussyfoot around these poor misunderstood babies. Idiot child!

it's England.

[nedlohs]

The police just get a warrant* for the data and then "Give us the decryption keys or you go to jail" to each BB executive/IP staff member.

* Or is mumbling "terrorist" sufficient these days?

easy answer

[circletimessquare]

if RIM were asked to track down users engaged in a peaceful protest, this is a negative commentary on RIM for colluding with a vile regime, and it would paint the british government as a vile regime

but if RIM were asked to track down out-of-town hooligans intent on turning a peaceful protest into a riot of window breaking and looting (which seems to be the case here), then this is a noncommentary on simple law enforcement, which is justifiable by any government of any free society, and it is expected that companies like RIM would help out

Re:easy answer

[LWATCDR]

One mans riot is another's protest.
I tend to agree with you but others will not.
What I don't get is the people getting bent over it that do think crimes are happening.
If you have evidence of a crime you are not allowed to withhold it. If you get a court order you have to turn it over.
 

Re:easy answer

[jeffmeden]

Easier answer: RIM said "holy ****, we still have users? sure, we will do whatever you want as long as it's proclaimed far and wide that we do indeed have users left!"

Re:easy answer

[circletimessquare]

a protest is what started in tottenham: peaceful demonstrations in front of the police station

then hooligans, from outside the neighborhood, came in to turn it into a riot

and no, i'm sorry "one mans riot is another's protest" is a stinking pile of steaming bullshit

people marching down the street is in no way the same thing as hooligan assholes throwing rocks through windows and walking off with loot

in fact, protests around the world and throughout history, protests that in a different universe would move society and government to change policy for the better, have been ruined by hooligan assholes hijacking peaceful protests and using them as an excuse to commit simple crimes. this in turn causes society, public opinion and government to turn from the protesters and their just demands in disgust, through no fault of the protesters

so no: to confuse criminal rioting with genuine protesting is disgusting

Re:easy answer

[JockTroll]

if RIM were asked to track down users engaged in a peaceful protest

It can still happen, the UK has a history of sending FITs (Forward Intelligence Teams) to photograph, film, identify and intimidate anyone who is engaged in peaceful protest. It's a highly effective tactic because people who would otherwise participate in the protest out of personal belief would give up and go home in fear of being harassed by the police later, or end up in some black list and be sentenced to life unemployment. It will happen. The UK is fully committed to the Safe Society For the Upper Class Under the Watchful Eyes.

Re:easy answer

[circletimessquare]

it seems that scotland yard has been contracting that sort of murky work out to murdoch's scumbags lately

Re:easy answer

[LWATCDR]

As I said, "I tend to agree with you but others will not."
Trust me that statement is true and the best part is we have no idea what that one line tweet really means. Everyone is jumping to conclusions.

Re:easy answer

[jeffmeden]

so no: to confuse criminal rioting with genuine protesting is disgusting

But you admit that for almost any sufficiently long protest, criminal rioting is an inevitability... This is what causes confusion to some not intimately familiar with the details of the event.

Re:easy answer

[circletimessquare]

so you doubt that hooligans frequently piggy back and parasitize peaceful protests, ruining them?

you can't tell the difference between the guy chanting and holding a placard and the guy throwing a rock through the storefront window to walk off with jewelry? what cause is he protesting? what injustice is he correcting? what wrong is he righting?

he's a criminal, and he is ruining the protest

it's a clear line, there is no confusing the two

Re:easy answer

[circletimessquare]

yes, a peaceful protest is hard to pull off. but when you do, you impress society, public opinion, and the government. and then real justice happens. if someone riots, anyone, the message is muddied. and society and public opinion is unimpressed and disgusted, then government is unmoved

so a PEACEFUL protest, however it is achieved, is of the utmost importance

Re:easy answer

[stubob]

this in turn causes society, public opinion and government to turn from the protesters and their just demands in disgust, through no fault of the protesters

Right, who would ever want to hijack peaceful protests?

Re:easy answer

[madprof]

Have you even seen what is happening there? Please show me the sane man who thinks this this "protest" legitimately involves smashing things up and burning people's houses, shops and cars?
Maybe if this "one man's riot is another man's protest" holds true then I can go and shoot some people in the face and steal their wallets, in a protest against the industrial-military complex continuing to subvert the honesty of government and making vast profits from the death and misery of others? I mean it's a nice thing to protest against and you with this meaningless platitude you have to respect my form of protest, right...?

Re:easy answer

[madprof]

Where is the black list that stops people from employing you? This must be one hell of a list because the police would have to go to every single employer in the country and make them follow it. Which they don't.

Re:easy answer

[circletimessquare]

absolutely, they will destroy a peaceful protest

so between such agents and the hooligans, peaceful protests fight a difficult path to change society and public opinion

i believe the protesters in tahrir square manned checkpoints and didn't allow any weapons or any suspected undercover cops into the protests

this job is part of making a successful protest. and it look like the protesters in tahrir square succeeded

Re:easy answer

[Anonymous Coward]

a protest is what started in tottenham: peaceful demonstrations in front of the police station

Where one young female protester got into an argument with cops, maybe got beaten up by cops, and things went downhill from there.

then hooligans, from outside the neighborhood, came in to turn it into a riot

No, the local hoodlums wouldn't have stood still for that, these guys and gals were local, there are postcode (=zipcode) gangs.

and no, i'm sorry "one mans riot is another's protest" is a stinking pile of steaming bullshit

So why burning? If it was all about looting, burning wouldn't have been part of it.

people marching down the street is in no way the same thing as hooligan assholes throwing rocks through windows and walking off with loot

Sure. It certainly was criminal. The criminals were local though.

in fact, protests around the world and throughout history, protests that in a different universe would move society and government to change policy for the better, have been ruined by hooligan assholes hijacking peaceful protests and using them as an excuse to commit simple crimes. this in turn causes society, public opinion and government to turn from the protesters and their just demands in disgust, through no fault of the protesters

Yeah but no.

so no: to confuse criminal rioting with genuine protesting is disgusting

Crime is never a form of protest? That's as bullshit as saying it always is.

Re:easy answer

[Cederic]

Where is the black list that stops people from employing you? This must be one hell of a list

Oh, it is. It even has its own website:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/agencies-public-bodies/crb/

Don't be thinking anything foolish like "only criminals will be on there" either. The police are perfectly willing to tell people what you were once arrested for, no matter how wrong that arrest might have been, or comically what you were once accused of, without even mentioning that the person accusing you has a history of lying about such things and there was insufficient evidence to even inform you of the accusation, let alone make an arrest.

Yeah, it's one hell of a list.

Re:easy answer

[Anonymous Coward]

You should make a movie about protesting zombies. That would be great.

Re:easy answer

[madprof]

Er....you're completely blowing this out of proportion.

I know full well what the CRB is and the "soft information" (this is the phrase you are looking for, by the way) is indeed contentious but it does NOT stop you from getting a job!
I don't CRB check people when they come to work for me. I just interview them and hire them based on what I think.

This is, therefore, not a blacklist, nor a "Do Not Hire" register.

Some places require CRB checks, such as schools etc. They, and only they, will be privy to the information revealed in the check. They are not allowed to share that information which is why you must get one done each time you move job to somewhere where they need a CRB check.

You are right, in my view, about the soft information. It's definitely something that can be abused.

Re:easy answer

[Anonymous Coward]

from outside the neighborhood

No evidence has been presented that the rioters are actually "outsiders." This was offered early on as a weak excuse by some community leader type and the media have been mindlessly repeating it ever since, in-between unfairly bashing the police.

In any case the war-zone is spreading across London and to other cities, getting increasingly brazen / violent all the while, so it indicates a generalised social collapse however you slice it. Years of misguided government policy have given us a weak police force / justice system and a large, violent criminal underclass ... who have just realised that they vastly outnumber the former, and can easily overwhelm them with multiple incidents in order to go on a risk-free looting spree.

(Also make your horror film CTS you have to)

Re:easy answer

[circletimessquare]

"In any case the war-zone is spreading across London and to other cities"

in other words, outsiders

zzz

Re:easy answer

[c0lo]

so no: to confuse criminal rioting with genuine protesting is disgusting

But you admit that for almost any sufficiently long protest, criminal rioting is an inevitability...

I guess, by your terms, more than 6 months isn't long enough, eh?

Re:easy answer

[Anonymous Coward]

> into a riot of window breaking and looting (which seems to be the case here), then this is a noncommentary on simple law enforcement, which is justifiable by any > government of any free society, and it is expected that companies like RIM would help out
And who will decide if society is free :-)? Or do you assume, that if riot is going on in UK or USA or Germany - then it is riot in ree society, but if riot is going in Syria, Lybia or Iran - it is "opressive goverment beats its own citizens"?
Brrr, I don't like what I just have written, but I could not to not write it.

Re:easy answer

[Dr Max]

i've seen a fair few peacefull protests but not much change.

Re:easy answer

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you focus your shooting and mugging to generals in the military.

Re:easy answer

[tehcyder]

Your link is to the CRB (Criminal Records Bureau)

The extended CRB check (which includes cautions and arrests not leading to conviction) is used to screen out paedophiles from working with children (primarily).

The basic CRB check shows unspent convictions, and is simply a record of criminal convictions. If having a criminal conviction for something prevents you from getting a job, that is part of the price you pay for breaking the law.

But these are not lists of people arrested at peaceful demonstrations and released without charge being made available to the general public.

Re:easy answer

[circletimessquare]

i've seen tahrir square

Re:easy answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could make a movie about Egyptian zombies. That would be great.

Re:easy answer

[Anonymous Coward]

people marching down the street is in no way the same thing as hooligan assholes throwing rocks through windows and walking off with loot

in fact, protests around the world and throughout history, protests that in a different universe would move society and government to change policy for the better, have been ruined by hooligan assholes hijacking peaceful protests and using them as an excuse to commit simple crimes.

We've had nothing but peaceful protest for the last decade - we marched against the wars (both of them), we marched against the human rights violations (all of them), we marched against the public cuts, we marched against the illegal killing of innocents, we marched against the student fee's... we've marched against every single fucking cause of the last decade and it hasn't even raised an eyebrow in Westminster. Two nights of rioting has seen all police leave canceled and all the MP's recalled from their summer break (which btw is longer than teachers get and Mp's get twice the fucking pay :S).

Peaceful protesting is what you do to start with - but when the government restricts where and when you can protest (try marching within sight of Westminster and you'll be arrested under terrorism legislation), uses brutality such as horse charges and plain and simple beating of protesters who refused to be herded like cattle and completely ignores every single peaceful march - then you only have a few options left. One of which is put your fists up in anger and not just your voice.

There are many different ways of doing this, and rioting is no doubt the worst, but it's the most likely to happen in volatile situations like this. They could occupy buildings like they did during student protests, but all that served to do was bottle up the protesters so the police could scoop them up easily.

We take our lessons from the international community - sometimes violence is required. It was required from the French during the Great Revolution - it was required from the Americans during the Civil Rights struggle (we study this extensively during high school / college history, and the conclusion from all students and lecturers is that inevitably peaceful protests were never going to be enough) - it was required in Egypt to depose a leader that would not otherwise be removed. There are countless examples throughout the last 200 years where violence has been required - many of them from American history.

I was going to say that I can count the number of times peaceful protest has resulted in desired change, on one hand - but I cant actually think of a single example.... some try to count Martin Luther's note on a church door, but to many Brits that was only seen as the start of long and extremely bloody war.

So you tell me any examples you can of peaceful marching causing any actual change. I'll wait patiently and peacefully until you provide them. However since the result of this action has been to make parliament consider curfews and suspension of due process, it may that further action is required, even from those of us who would not riot.

Re:easy answer

[circletimessquare]

violence is never required

maybe you should consider that your agenda is unpopular, and that your demands have no resonance with the public at large

they were successful in tahrir square with overthrowing a vile regime via peaceful protests because it was genuinely what the people want

if you use violence to further causes the general public does not want, you are just as evil as the mubarak regime, or any other force which wishes to impose the agenda and will of a minority interest on the majority

so fuck off, you asshole: you're just looking for an excuse to use violence

you are no better than what you fight

Re:easy answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could make a movie about violent zombies. That would be great.

Re:easy answer

[Anonymous Coward]

You must've missed them commandeering the army vehicles and lobbing the paving stones then..... or did you just forget that bit because it doesn't fit with your mental image of how things 'should work'.

Re:easy answer

[circletimessquare]

i recall the armed forces rolling in and not firing, and the protesters embracing them

there is violence everywhere, always, all the time

i am certain you can find a handful of assholes who behaved badly in tahrir square. but because such outliers exist does not give you the right to recharacterize the simple fact that the protests were almost completely peaceful

the protesters manned checkpoints: no undercover cops, no weapons. they KNEW violence would defeat them, turn public opinion against them, and so they made sure it didn't. of course, some asshole like you will rewrite history to suit your purposes, but it is obvious peaceful protest toppled mubarak

the dominant tenor of the protests in tahrir square was peaceful. and so the protests worked, because they were peaceful. even with mubarak trying to send in agent provocateurs and thugs on camelback. if they were actually as violent as you believe, mubarak would still be in power

Re:easy answer

[circletimessquare]

it's easy to decide. what are the people fighting for? is it the right to simple political expression? or is it the "right" to smash and grab electronics?

Re:easy answer

[LWATCDR]

You are so funny. Again I said that I did agree but other will not. I am getting blasted in another discusion by someone that thinks I don't get the big picture. You know that these riots are a political protest and not just crimes.
Is I said I agree with you but others will not. I suggest you read and understand that statement or just go and look at this http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2371448&cid=37033608
  Just read that thread if you think that others will not disagree with you. I do they they are in error but there you are.

Re:easy answer

[Anonymous Coward]

a protest is what started in tottenham: peaceful demonstrations in front of the police station

then hooligans, from outside the neighborhood, came in to turn it into a riot

and no, i'm sorry "one mans riot is another's protest" is a stinking pile of steaming bullshit

people marching down the street is in no way the same thing as hooligan assholes throwing rocks through windows and walking off with loot

in fact, protests around the world and throughout history, protests that in a different universe would move society and government to change policy for the better, have been ruined by hooligan assholes hijacking peaceful protests and using them as an excuse to commit simple crimes. this in turn causes society, public opinion and government to turn from the protesters and their just demands in disgust, through no fault of the protesters

so no: to confuse criminal rioting with genuine protesting is disgusting

So you say the American Revolution was not violent protest? How about the French Revolution? Beheadings are not peaceful.

Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Samalie]

You know, even though I long ago forsook my BB, I understood why business & government wanted them.

Secure reliable communications.

Today....reliability? Sure, if you pull the battery once a day (yes, I know you can reset it without yanking the battery. Still stupid as fuck you have to reboot them constantly) Secure? RTFA.

RIM is toast...and fuck it, let them die already.

And I even get it...they're trying to put "bad people" away. BUT THAT ISN'T THEIR FUCKING PLACE IN THE WORLD. It would be one thing to answer a suponea. It is another entirely to hand over records voluntarily.

Fuck RIM. Fuck them right in the ear.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like you have something to hide. Throwing bricks were we? A little looting perhaps?

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[jimmerz28]

I'm just surprised this many people use it that RIM can even help.

Was just at GenCon in Indianapolis and one of our GM friends was using her BB to try and scan QR codes for a contest; it was hilarious to see.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[kevinmenzel]

Secure? Use BES. Still secure.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[hawguy]

You know, even though I long ago forsook my BB, I understood why business & government wanted them.

Secure reliable communications.

Today....reliability? Sure, if you pull the battery once a day (yes, I know you can reset it without yanking the battery. Still stupid as fuck you have to reboot them constantly) Secure? RTFA.

Which BB did you have to reboot once/day? I have a BB Tour and I've never had to reboot it (aside from software upgrades). And it runs for 3 - 4 days on a single charge (as opposed to about the 18 hours I get on my Android device).

As for security, I read TFA and though it speculates that RIM handed over the unencrypted chat messages, it's not clear that they did or even can.

But it doesn't matter to me because as a Corporate user, I'm more concerned about the security of my emails, not my SMS's, and the encryption key for those messages lives on my BES, not in RIM's network.

There's lots of reasons to dislike blackberries, but security is not the best example, especially when compared to most of the rest of the options.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[idontgno]

our GM friends was using her BB to try and scan QR codes

You have genetically-modified friends? That may explain the continued use of a Blackberry.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Anonymous Coward]

People's apartments are being burnt down in areas miles from the original event that sparked the Tottenham riot. In this case this is a company cooperating with authorities within the framework of the law (including, I'm sure, the Data Protection Act and Hman Rights Act) to try to put an end to violent rioting. I don't like the current gov't and I don't like telecoms providers that bend over for them but in this case it is the right thing.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Samalie]

Use BES? That somehow brings the magic?

Bullshit.

You are still routing every single byte of every single message through THEIR equipment. THEY have physical access to the equipment. They have the keys...and even if they actually don't have the keys (bullshit), they have physical access to the servers.

Secure my ass.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, law-enforcement may not be my place in the world either, and I would not report a person for jaywalking. But if I were able to help solving a real crime, I would definitely do it. Looting qualifies...

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't people ever learn. If you want to commit crime and mayhem, don't broadcast your plan, and, this is important, don't leave any trace like email, texting, voicemail, paper notes, etc...

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think RIM is incapable of reading your BES-server email communications, you're dumber than you look.

That is all.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[jimmerz28]

General Motors, but I agree in either case.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Samalie]

I'm not saying remotely that these assholes don't deserve to be locked up. They absolutely do.

If I had information personally that could lead to one of these jerkoff's arrest, I'd hand it over to authorities in a heartbeat.

But this isn't a private individual with first-hand knowledge of the incident going to police...this is a private company we trust to keep our information and communications secure doing exactly the opposite. This isn't some loser posting how he just broke a window & looted on twitter, or a pic of him coming out of a store with a TV posted to Facebook (which are both PUBLIC mediums). RIM prides itself on security...and running to the police with everyone's shit because of a riot defeats their sales pitch towards secure communications, especially in a market where RIM is already taking the long cock up the short ass.

Fuck RIM

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[hawguy]

If you think RIM is incapable of reading your BES-server email communications, you're dumber than you look.

Do you have evidence that RIM is able to decrypt customer communications? RIM says:

RIM says it doesn't have 'master key'
That architecture, RIM said, is "based on a symmetric key system whereby the customer creates their own key and only the customer ever possesses a copy of their encryption key. RIM does not possess a 'master key,' nor does any ‘back door’ exist in the system that would allow RIM or any third party to gain unauthorized access to the key or corporate data."
In fact, the system is "purposefully designed to exclude the capability for RIM or any third party to read encrypted information under any circumstances," the company said. "RIM would simply be unable to accommodate any request for a copy of a customer's encryption key since at no time does RIM, or any wireless network operator, ever possess a copy of the key."

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I dislike Blackberrys as archaic and buggy semi-smart phones, I'll add that when you use BES, RIM does not have your keys. It's possible that their gear is backdoored to provide the keys to RIM on demand, but that's true of pretty much every commercial encryption system.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Anonymous Coward]

Two words:

RIM says

Bottom line...and we say it here ALL the fucking time...Security through obscurity is nothing. We don't know shit about fuck...all we know is what they tell us, with no source to back up their claims.

Bottom line...if you have physical access to the information, even if there isn't a backdoor or decryption key...there IS one, and it can be found given enough time.

It is entirely about trust...and I don't trust anyone to keep my confidential information 100% secure. And RIM seems to go day after day lowering my personal trust in their ability to keep private communications private.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Anonymous Coward]

torch or any other modern touchscreen bb.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[jsherring]

> BUT THAT ISN'T THEIR FUCKING PLACE IN THE WORLD

Is it your place in the world to say what is RIM's place in the world? Or are you a qualified and legal opinion-giver? Or are you acting under a warrant?

It is the responsibility of every individual AND ORGANISATION to act upon their principles and beliefs. You get the society that you help build.

I agree that RIM should not normally break customer privacy without a warrant. But for every rule there is an exception. Blindly following rules is worse than having no rules.

I am watching my city burn and listening to many terrified people, and I thank RIM with all my heart for having the courage to do what is right, legal and just: to help stop or catch the small number of criminal perpetrators of this violence.

I am a BB user and a privacy-rights freak, but if RIM have broken my privacy in attempting to help, then so what? I wont mind **in this instance**, nor will the majority of London BB users.

Let's respect their legal rights, but fuck the privacy of the scum who are responsible for the violence.

---

Peace, and thoughts for all affected by the violence.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Lehk228]

I don't know what you did to your blackberry, but mine crashes no more than about once in a month, and I use it all the time, a much better rate than my android tablet or windows PC, the only machines I have that are more stable are my three linux laptops, two running xubuntu and the third running the asus EEE 701 custom linux

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Anonymous Coward]

RIM used to be that reliable, but ever since the storm came out you have to pull the battery every so often.
I've had to do that less with my iPhone (once every couple months) & HTC HD2 (once every other week) than with my Blackberry Storm (once every week, if I'm lucky).

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously clueless about how RIM architecture works, so STFU already.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[DevonBorn]

Here's hoping they never learn.
A stupid enemy is a gift from god/the gods/spaghetti monster

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Samalie]

Let's respect their legal rights

Now, I don't know UK law as well as that of Canada, so my comment may not fit the law of the land...

But what about the right of due process?

Again, I am not against RIM providing information to law enforcement, providing that said law enforcement follows due process in legally attaining the information.

I feel for all the people who have been fucked hard by these few assholes.

But even those scumbag assholes have rights.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell is this voted "Insightful". It's full of baseless venom.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Samalie]

And you're obviously clueless of what an individual can do when given physical access to the equipment.

Maybe RIM's encryption is as solid as possible. Maybe it isn't. Quite honestly, we don't know shit from fuck, except what RIM decides to tell us.

Tell me, how many of us have lost our shit over Microsoft saying one thing and nobody trusting it? Or Apple? Or Google? How about Diebald?

Security through "Trust us, it is secure" is a fucking lie.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[nyctopterus]

Blackberrys are the phone of choice for the "youth" of the UK. I'd guess they have a significant majority market share in the segment.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[kevinmenzel]

http://docs.blackberry.com/en/admin/deliverables/7325/How_BESolution_uses_AES_to_encrypt_data_834424_11.jsp

Well documented as to exactly what the security offered is, and how it works. Not exactly "trust us" style security. Not to mention that the security has been certified independently by world governments. So, actually it's "Trust 256 bit AES by CBC at transport level, and trust all of the people who certify this."

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[jimmerz28]

I must have not paid enough attention to phones in Skins.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what the hell RIM IS but good for them for turning it over! Bunch of right criminals if you ask me. Right?

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Laurence0]

The reason is simple - Blackberries are significantly cheaper than any other smartphones in the market. This makes them appeal to young people with not much money, and from there it's a network effect - people get them because their friends have them. And, presumably, because they don't want to miss out on the "hot new thing" of BBM.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[shilly]

The reductio ad absurdum of your argument, though, is that you'll only trust solutions you've built yourself. Which doesn't really work for comms between you and another living breathing person.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[tehcyder]

But even those scumbag assholes have rights.

Plotting criminal acts is not a matter of the right to free speech.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[tehcyder]

I'm just surprised this many people use it that RIM can even help.

Was just at GenCon in Indianapolis and one of our GM friends was using her BB to try and scan QR codes for a contest; it was hilarious to see.

Blackberries are very popular in the UK for teenagers because they are good for texting. These riots are in the UK, not Indianapolis, so your ancecdote is even more meaningless than it would be normally.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[tehcyder]

Everyone, whether a company or an individual, has a moral duty to report serious crime.

Boo hoo if the looters' right to privately plot criminal conspiracies is compromised, and the police are able to arrest a few of the fuckers.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[jimmerz28]

I understand the geographical difference between the UK and Indianapolis and that they didn't happen in Indianapolis. It was an anecdotal reference to the parent post about how useless BB are and why people would use them.

Thanks for tunnel-visioning your reply and understanding of the conversation we were having.

Re:Goodbye RIM - it was nice knowing you

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not sure what you mean by due process. Just because there is a process for law enforcement to follow if RIM don't voluntarily cooperate, that doesn't mean RIM has to wait for a court order before helping the police just so long as it doesn't violate the T&Cs of the agreement with their users, which I imagine it doesn't. Scumbag arseholes may have rights, but it isn't RIM's job to protect them.

If the police were coercing RIM or otherwise forcing them to hand over the information without a court order, that would be a different kettle of fish, but I doubt that is happening.

Why no PGP instant messaging?

[craftycoder]

How come PGP instant messaging isn't a reality yet?
Private messages that turn out to NOT be private will have a chilling effect on technology. I would think that these companies would encrypt everything just so they were not put in a position to have decide IF they should rat out their customers.

Re:Why no PGP instant messaging?

[YodasEvilTwin]

The US government would just force them to store plaintext copies. Just like they forced Google to put a backdoor in Gmail. Just like they tap your phones and sniff your dirty packets.

Re:Why no PGP instant messaging?

[craftycoder]

Yoda's paranoid twin...

Re:Why no PGP instant messaging?

[sl3xd]

As always, the problem with PGP comes down to trust. Do you trust:
- The other user's key
- The other user's key has not been compromised (i.e.. stolen, 'missing', used by somebody else.)
- The other users's device isn't compromised remotely (at the service provider level)
- Keys the other user may have signed (or the other user's restraint in signing keys) are also valid - and so on along the chain.

And so on...

Encryption is a false security blanket in this case - it's already a given that mobile devices are, as a whole, remotely compromised by the service provider. The best you're going to hope for is that the communication to the other device is encrypted. There is no guarantee that the person holding it is your friend. The police could have already arrested her, and are in fact the ones you're sending incriminating messages to the police - which your phone happily decrypts for them.

Re:Why no PGP instant messaging?

[craftycoder]

We are not looking for a panacea here. If you raise the bar to the level where you have to actually take possession of one of the users phone in the conversation, it would become a matter for a judge to decide in US. That costs lots of money which means it won't happen willy nilly. I just want surveillance of the people by the government to not be trivial. I don't think that is a lot to ask.

Re:Why no PGP instant messaging?

[Hatta]

Aren't there PGP front ends to text messaging for the major smart phones?

Re:Why no PGP instant messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ultimate concern in all cases is: Will your cohort ever be coerced into informing on you. The end.

Re:Why no PGP instant messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

Encryption is a false security blanket in this case - it's already a given that mobile devices are, as a whole, remotely compromised by the service provider.

Maybe with RIM/BB. With GSM providers, you can bring your own phone and the service provider doesn't get administrative or even user privileges unless you let them.

The best you're going to hope for is that the communication to the other device is encrypted. There is no guarantee that the person holding it is your friend. The police could have already arrested her, and are in fact the ones you're sending incriminating messages to the police - which your phone happily decrypts for them.

Depends how inconveniently you set it up. As always, there's some tradeoff between security and convenience; practically nobody wants to type a passphrase every time they receive an email or SMS, but requiring one on startup is reasonable and entirely possible. Shut down (if necessary pulling the battery) or purge the keyring before the police sieze your phone, and you're golden. Of course, there's no way to be sure they _did_ take that precaution, but this issue is in no way unique to mobile devices.

It's also pretty much irrelevant to the current discussion, which is about preventing communications from being logged in plain-text (or with known decryption keys) such that police can access it after the fact with a court order (or even less) to your wireless provider.

Re:Why no PGP instant messaging?

[Hal_Porter]

No he's not. Any communications network operator in the UK or US will honour a lawful intercept request from the authorities.

If you're doing something illegal or even if you are being investigated for doing something illegal you should assume the police can listen to every phone call and read every single email or instant message.

In fact Blackberry specifically say

http://us.blackberry.com/legal/pdfs/BBSLA_UnitedKingdom_English_UK.pdf

You hereby authorise RIM to cooperate with: (i) law enforcement authorities in the investigation of suspected criminal violations; (ii) third parties in investigating acts in violation of this Agreement; and (iii) system administrators at Internet service providers, networks or computing facilities in order to enforce this Agreement. Such cooperation may include RIM disclosing Your or Your Authorised Users' username, IP address, or other personal information

A little bit of insight I read today..

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't quite understand looting whilst rioting. At what point do you stop standing up for what you believe in and decide life would be better with a free radio alarm clock?"

From Sickipedia, no less.

Rioter with a blackberry?

[synthesizerpatel]

Yeah, not quite.

This is part of Blackberry's effort to ingratiate themselves to Government. First with their security compliance, now with the 'Hey, we'll do anything we can to help you!' regarding text messages.

My guess is Blackberry is positioning themselves to be the handheld client of government since they don't have any competitiveness in the consumer market.

Re:Rioter with a blackberry?

[Nick Fel]

Actually, Blackberry's are massively popular with the country's yoofs. I was surprised to find this out a few months ago myself, but apparently they really like BBM

Re:Rioter with a blackberry?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why you would want blackberries as a government if they are so willing to give up all data on other people to you.
Wouldn't that make you think twice before using it yourself?

Re:Rioter with a blackberry?

[wool.in.silver]

Indeed, reportedly a third of young people have Blackberry here. It makes sense: BBM is the killer app for them, they don't even necessarily use the email functionality. It offers the functionality of SMS, but free (from their POV) and allows multi-recipient.

Re:Rioter with a blackberry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, I wish more corporations would be more blatantly sycophantic to government. It will make it so much easier to take out the trash when the proletariat get fed up of getting fucked over.

Re:Rioter with a blackberry?

[Laurence0]

Also, Blackberries are significantly cheaper than Androids or Iphones (especially Iphones!), at least at the low end. This, I believe, has been a significant factor in their popularity.

Re:Rioter with a blackberry?

[tehcyder]

Blackberriesare about a hundred times easier/quicker to use for texting than a touch screen phone.

yessss master..

[zlives]

It could be a business decision to have atleast one market still tied to them (i.e govt)

No, it's following the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the British government makes a lawful request of information from RIM, and if by law RIM is obligated to fufill that request, then no it's not overstepping its bounds; it's doing what it's supposed to do. (Regardless of what you think is morally right/wrong).

If you'd like to make a moral judgement on whether laws should be upheld/enforced, or venture down the path of comparing it to hitler/ww2/providing information on jews as requested by the government... well now you're trying to define where the line is on right vs. wrong. Short version: "the company" won't decide, the individuals running RIM will make their own individual decisions and/or perform actions that will be considered/judged only in aggregate rather than individually.

I didn't RTFA, but if it's some hazy middleground where RIM is proactively turning over suspected wrong-doers for no other reason than the soulless corporation has somehow developed a method for determining right from wrong and is applying its conscious... well that probably constitutes 'overstepping its bounds'. Although it "may be within its rights" to do so. (Whether you agree or not).

There, that's probably all of your options and the article probably hovers around/between some of those points.

Re:No, it's following the law.

[Samalie]

Agreed....if Law Enforcement gets a proper suponea for the data, I have NO issue whatsoever with RIM complying.

But TFA suggests no warrant/suponea...this is RIM going "Hey, some BB users were there...we have the logs of the chats. Here ya go!"

THAT is fucking bullshit.

Don't Broadcast Your Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

My god. Don't people ever learn. If you want to commit crime and mayhem, don't broadcast your plan, and, this is important, don't leave any trace like email, texting, paper notes.

Re:Don't Broadcast Your Crime

[Dr Max]

Instead use Chinese whispers to spread the plan of the protest

Re:Don't Broadcast Your Crime

[tehcyder]

Instead use Chinese whispers to spread the plan of the protest

Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance.

Damn, they're easy

[overshoot]

Looks like the Brits are still not getting the basics right. Back in the 60s we'd already taught the authorities who tapped our phones, read our mail, and sent ringers to our gatherings not to trust that kind of "intelligence."

It only takes a few cases where they prosecute someone based on that kind of "evidence" and it turns out that the defendant was in another country to make the prosecutor a laughing stock. Again.

Re:Damn, they're easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the Brits are still not getting the basics right. Back in the 60s we'd already taught the authorities who tapped our phones, read our mail, and sent ringers to our gatherings not to trust that kind of "intelligence."

It only takes a few cases where they prosecute someone based on that kind of "evidence" and it turns out that the defendant was in another country to make the prosecutor a laughing stock. Again.

Like the Topiary arrest?

Re:Damn, they're easy

[tehcyder]

OTOH, if a few of the cunts doing the looting can be identified by the fact that they texted their mates to come and help them pick up a big TV from Currys, I'm not going to complain about the intrusion on their fucking privacy.

No good can come of this

[HangingChad]

When authorities corrupt one messaging platform, users will either switch or employ more sophisticated means of masking their activity.

Anyone remember which credit card payment service cut off Wikileaks? That kind of memory sticks with the collective a long time. Sell out your users and you can expect them to remember a long, long time.

I don't think this is good for the state or RIM. There are other ways to get the same information that rely on nothing more than good old fashioned police work. RIM volunteering to help police identify their customers, many of whom may have had legitimate reasons for being in the vicinity, is not a message I'd want to send.

Scale

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone worried that rioters text messages are being handed over should worry a lot more that every single call in the US is monitored.

"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[Kupfernigk]

Yeah, right. Richer than most of the UK. One view of what is going on (and favoured by this former North Londoner) is that the police shot a "professional criminal" and the criminal gangs of North London are retaliating by demonstrating their ability to get out the foot soldiers. This is an area popular with the BNP/EDL, a stronghold of the original National Front, the British Nazi equivalent. The subsequent riots were mainly in strongly BNP areas like Enfield.

This looks like the Mob trying to intimidate the Government and the police because one of its capos got shot. If this is in fact the current line, RIM is obliged to co-operate. It is probably nothing whatsoever to do with poor people opposing Government cuts.

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[ZG-Rules]

Yes, opinion varies, but it is alleged that Mark Duggan both owned a handgun (an offense under the Firearms Act 1997) and used it to shoot at Police, injuring one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022670/Gangster-Mark-Duggan-shot-police-London-cab-shootout.html

Incidentally, for those fans of history, what happened last time there was a riot in this area, is documented in history as the Broadwater Farm riot: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2011/aug/08/anger-tottenham-broadwater-riots-1985. Given that then an innocent, unarmed policeman was brutally hacked to death, by person or persons unknown, I would not blame the Police for going in hard and fast with all means at their disposal, including asking RIM for some messages.

Don't get me wrong, I am just as much of an advocate for free speech and privacy as the next man, but there are considerations that outweigh this. I shall quote you Mr Spock, from the 1982 classic STII: The Wrath of Kahn - logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

In this case, the vast majority of people don't believe that rioting is a proportionate response. It is their property that is being destroyed, and I bet they don't care one iota if their BBM messages are read as a by-product of the search to catch the opportunistic thugs who are doing this.

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[0123456]

Yes, opinion varies, but it is alleged that Mark Duggan both owned a handgun (an offense under the Firearms Act 1997) and used it to shoot at Police, injuring one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022670/Gangster-Mark-Duggan-shot-police-London-cab-shootout.html

It was also alleged that a man who looked a bit muslim wearing a thick overcoat in the middle of summer jumped over the barriers at an underground station when challenged by armed police and then ran onto a train where said police shot him dead to avoid a suicide bombing.

Of course that all turned out to be nonsense and he was just an electrician who the police decided to kill because it seemed like a good idea at the time. And in this case, while Duggan was probably worth shooting, the British media is already saying that the policeman was probably shot by another policeman.

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[ZG-Rules]

I believe you skipped the word "alleged" when reading my sentence. I don't believe there is such thing as absolute truth in the media either, but whether the shooting of Mark Duggan was a righteous action, or not, does not change the fact that rioting is not a proportionate response.

There are also allegations that at the peaceful protest about Mark Duggan's shooting, a teenage girl who threw a stone at Police was beaten by Policemen and that is what all the rioting is about. I find that quite hard to believe as no-one is able to substantiate it, or name the girl and no reputable Journalist has given it anything more than a passing glance for credibility. Beatings by the UK Police really isn't that common.

Even if it were true and could be proved, rioting and general disorder will not fix that - bringing it to the correct channels for Police complaints should. There is no valid excuse for this riot, it's just young people using something for which the truth is not yet known as an excuse to wreak havoc.

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea what you're talking about. I doubt the black kids are working for the white supremacists.

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?

I hate the BNP as much as anyone, but I certainly wouldn't call Tottenham a BNP stronghold, it's one of the most ethnically diverse places I've ever been. It most certainly is not wealthier then most of the UK either.

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[Inda]

MP David Lammy-me-me would say you're full of shite.

The whole of N17 needs flattening. It's a shithole.

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[plasm4]

Regarding the teenage girl, apparently she didn't throw a stone, but she was beaten. The following v http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPIq9tOoHLM&t=4m41s

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[ZG-Rules]

That doesn't actually show the event (I saw that report before I posted my original update), it's a report by a bystander of the event. That might be dismissed as hearsay... as that bystander may or may not be correct, and without evidence (and again, I don't believe having been caught up in this kind of event before, that the Police just randomly "set upon" people) it's hard to form a considered opinion.

But even if there was such a girl and she was involved with an incident with the Police, which I acknowledge is possible, I still don't see a justification for this kind of disorder

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[DNS-and-BIND]

Ah, I had wondered what happened. All the media coverage has been focused on the riots, not why the riots happened, nor who was rioting. I assumed it was a minority group because the media was studiously avoiding any mention of the characteristics of the rioters.

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[Anonymous Coward]

The rioters are roughly 90% black or mixed race, as anyone can confirm by spending 5 minutes on youtube. You are either blind, mentally ill or a troll.

I wish I was surprised that this spectacularly retarded comment is at +5.

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[Anonymous Coward]

His point's a little more paranoid than you seem to have taken it: he's suggesting that the (black) gangs have begun using Blackberry messaging to encourage large numbers of (black) thugs to descend on areas with wealthier (whiter) stores to loot. The original riot was in Tottenham because that was where the Duggan stuff was happening, but the subsequent riots have been elsewhere, in increasingly better areas. The natural and logical explanation is that the thugs are going after bigger and better targets, which don't generally happen to exist in the hood; they want to profit as much as possible before the army declares martial law or the police get over pussyfooting around, whichever comes first. The paranoid, but not illogical, explanation is that the messages have their origins in highly-placed members of the local gangs, people who have an interest in intimidating the police by showing that they can conjure trouble at any spot, not just in the hood; they want to force the police to back down on Trident and anti-gun, anti-drug operations. If the latter case is true, that's highly relevant to this story: if RIM can figure out who sent the messages, that would allow the police (or some security apparatus) to arrest (or...) the ringleaders, which would probably improve life in Britain vastly.

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[Anonymous Coward]

omg, let me help you here, your ELBOW is that bit in the middle of your arm...

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[Builder]

When the media go MONA (Men of No Appearance) in their reports you can always assume that the people in question are generally not caucasian.

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[Anonymous Coward]

"that the Police just randomly "set upon" people"

tell that to Ian Tomlinson, oh sorry you can't, he's dead, though I'm sure it was nothing to do with being randomly set upon

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[shilly]

He's probably confusing it with Totteridge, which is.

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[shilly]

No. The whole of N17 needs the kind of *love* that Camilla Batmanghelidjh provides so amazingly at Kid's Club. People are behaving like this because they have known no love care or affection in their horrible bleak lives. You have to be extraordinary to *not* grow up to be a twat under those circumstances.

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[shilly]

Well, you know what they say: don't assume, it makes an ass out of u and me. In this case, more you. The common characteristics of the rioters are youth, poverty and ethnic diversity, as you can see for yourself by looking at the hundreds of photos online.

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[Anonymous Coward]

> The subsequent riots were mainly in strongly BNP areas like Enfield.

There must be a lot of black BNP members, judging by what I saw on the telly.

Re:"Poor London Neighbourhood"

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you an idiot?

There is a difference between Crime and Protests

[GREY_LENSMAN312]

When you are hurting innocent people, your right to privacy is tossed out with the first firebomb. I know that can be an excuse for governments to try to suppress valid protest; but this is criminal looting, not political protests. People are losing their homes and livelihoods to these thugs. Put them in jail.

It can't happen here

[overshoot]

they are probably already doing it for someone else... India, Saudi Arabia, US??

They don't need to in the USA, since the ability to go fishing in RIM's data and connections was designed in from the beginning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act

Wow.

[LWATCDR]

I just love this! It was a tweet by RIM.
This is all that it says.
"We feel for those impacted by the riots in London. We have engaged with the authorities to assist in any way we can."
This can mean anything from providing extra coverage of the area so any police using blackberries get coverage or buying people free beagles?
Wow what a jump to conclusions this has inspired.

Re:Wow.

[Loosifur]

Hey, I don't know. If you give somebody a free beagle maybe they'll be so distracted with puppy-cuddlin' they'll stop rioting. Shoot, I might go throw a can at a cop if they'd give me a pug or something for it.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uncertain how a free dog is going to help the situation, but hey, everyone needs a companion... ?

Re:Wow.

[chrb]

Actually newspapers and blogs are also mentioning the odd Blackberry usage. Allegedly some of the rioters were bragging about how the police don't monitor Blackberrys unlike Facebook etc. London riots: how BlackBerry Messenger played a key role, London riots: how BlackBerry Messenger has been used to plan two nights of looting.

Re:There is a difference between Crime and Protest

[Anonymous Coward]

Your right to privacy, maybe. Your right to due process, absolutely not.

Or is mumbling "terrorist" sufficient these days?

[overshoot]

Not necessary. All of the major communications hubs have built-in taps (this sounds awfully tinfoil-hat, doesn't it?)

Getting humans involved, especially at the carrier end, is expensive, time-consuming, and totally pointless. Instead, someone at Homeland Security just taps the data directly.

Sing Along With Me +4, Informative

[Anonymous Coward]

Anarchy In The (Former) U.K.

Yours In Minsk,
Kilgore Trout.

P.S.: Arrest Tony Blair. War Criminal !!!!!!!!!!!!

RIM are going to be very, very busy...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are currently "copycat" riots springing up all over London. I wonder if they'll stop at London - there's the lethal combination of lack of employment/opportunities, massive cuts to police funding, god knows how many "not-wars" going on (so we are currently short an army if things get REALLY out of hand) and a disgustingly large gap between rich and poor.

I think looting and burning peoples' property is an utterly horendous thing to do, you can sort of see why they're all so pissed off. The rioters' apparent obsession with stealing shitty sports shoes probably isn't doing them any favours in the sympathy department though.

You have to ask?

[overshoot]

Who's going to get on the wrong side of Homeland Security by providing it?

Bear in mind that a carrier's messaging traffic is a data gold mine. In a totally open market (as distinct from the cosy oligopoly that telecom really is) you might see one carrier offer security as a value-added marketing advantage. Sort of like SMS at less than the per-minute voice charge.

However, getting on the wrong side of Homeland Security just makes it that little bit less attractive to step out of line.

stolen BBs

[yeswework]

Is it wrong to hope that every Blackberry used by a protester/rioter/looter was also stolen... perhaps from an investment banker or civil servant?

Lock the bastards up!

[xirtam_work]

I've got two friends who are now homeless and have lost everything apart from the clothes on their backs and their mobile phones after scum broke into a jewellers in Tottenham on Saturday night and then proceeded to torch the place. They lived above the shops and barely got out with their lives. For twenty minutes the Police were nowhere in site. My friends were posting on Facebook as the riots got closer and were frightened that they'd have to arm themselves to protect against a home invasion and then their worse fear happened - fires were started.

These kids aren't making a statement, they aren't fighting the system, they aren't protesting against jack shit. They just want to run riot, smash shit up and set fire to stuff whilst getting away with stealing as much as possible.

I'm quite happy the RIM are helping. Hopefully Skype, MSN, etc. will be on the case too. I'd send in the army with tear gas and rubber bullets (to start with) if I was in charge.

Re:Lock the bastards up!

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why I backup off site. The only material things I give a shit about and can't replace - photo's and videos of my kids and the music I made in former days - is backed up. You never know when a group of tw@s may burn your place down. Backup off site everyone.

Re:Lock the bastards up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree, completely. In addition, make the assholes pay for the damage, even if it takes them 10 years! Who needs scum like this?

Re:Lock the bastards up!

[Builder]

I've got just over 1TB of raw video and images now. I can't find a well priced service to back this all up to :(

Re:Lock the bastards up!

[shilly]

Sorry to hear about your friends. That is horrific for them.

Re:Lock the bastards up!

[DarthVain]

Not to defend the position, however:

These kids aren't making a statement, they aren't fighting the system, they aren't protesting against jack shit. They just want to run riot, smash shit up and set fire to stuff whilst getting away with stealing as much as possible.

One might ask why the UK has so many youth that "want to run riot, smash shit up and set fire to stuff whilst getting away with stealing as much as possible." It might be that, while not a protest, is an indication that the UK has some problems that it should really be dealing with.

Off the top of my head: Education, Jobs, Poverty and Wealth inequality.

If the UK as so many youth in this situation, that they can hold the city hostage and overwhelm police, I would say there is quite a large problem that has existed for a very long time, that has not been addressed. Not all protests are rational planned things with signs and marching, some are simply outrage at current conditions.

That said, sucks to be caught up in that mess through no fault of your own...

On the other hand..

[angiasaa]

It's probably safe to assume that any provider that stores your messages beyond what's required (purging from servers immediately post delivery, or not saving them in the first place) for proper functioning of the service, is a lousy choice for rioters and looters.
 
If these idiots had any sense, they'd send coded messages or use a different means of communication. It's not RIM's problem really. I for one, am against corporates spying and monitoring their people etc, but I have faith in my theory that people who are like minded as i am about privacy, would boycott companies and enterprises that embrace such ideologies.
 
For what it's worth, BBM ain't the real issue here. They never said they kept messages private, or that they are saved and stored for possible future retreival. In fact, it says so in their contracts! I find it hard to believe in mob stupidity.. All I can say really, is "What on Earth were those idiots thinking!?"

Re:On the other hand..

[xaxa]

All I can say really, is "What on Earth were those idiots thinking!?"

Unfortunately (i.e., this is something I don't like about my country), they were probably thinking "what do I have to lose?".

Questions!

[Bromskloss]

Is BlackBerry being a responsible part of British society, or is it overstepping its bounds?

These useless questions at the end! Is Slashdot trying to look like journalism or is it mocking it for its wicked ways?

To those who are surprised

[Gonoff]

BBs are actually quite popular amongst the young here in the UK. It is the BB messenger that seems to be the driving force too.

Blame the people?

[hjf]

Hello? Seriously, no one here think that the government and the police are to blame - not for "shooting someone", but instead, for letting the situation escalate to this?

Hello? Tear gas? Water jet trucks? Rubber bullets? Seriously, look at the images. The UK cops don't even have decent riot shields! What are they going to do, blind people to death with their yellow vests?

Apparently slashdotters here are up in arms when there's a "privacy" issue, but if a policeman shoots someone - even if he executes him summarily - it's OK, because the policeman represents "good". This mentality is what leads to unprepared police. This has nothing to do with being a developed country, or an educated society. Riots turn violent sooner or later. Even in the most tame societies, and for the stupidest reasons (Canada and hockey...)

Re:Blame the people?

[ZG-Rules]

Why do you say that they don't have proper riot shields?

Are you seeing footage of them using small circular shields, which are better for mobility (try running with a full-size riot shield...) and assuming from that they don't have the full-size versions?

Using those shields is a tactical choice, not a lack of equipment...

Re:Blame the people?

[hjf]

I live in Argentina. I see protests every day. And for much less than this, the police deploys a much larger operation. Several trucks, tens (if not hundreds) of men wearing all sorts of protection, helmets, and large shields. This is common after every football (soccer for americans) match, where usually 1500-2000 men are deployed inside and around a stadium.

If you take a look at HOW a riot is controlled, you will see much more organization that this show put by the UK government. If they wanted to control the riot, I'm sure they could have done it already. When you have a mob throwing stones and chairs, you don't use a small shield. Damn it, this is not a RPG, this is the real life. You use large shields, and a tight formation. Like the romans did centuries ago. Like what you see in Asterix cartoons. Behind this line, guys with tear gas grenade launchers fire at the crowd in different angles (to maximize the area covered by smoke). This disperses the crowd, and leaves the most vicious still standing. Once you have them identified, slowly advance towards them. When they're close enough, order the shielded guys to jump at them and proceed to arrest them. You just can't arrest everyone who participated, so just stick with the high profile ones, who are usually the instigators.

The key here (big cops dressed in black, with helmets, shields, armed,etc) is INTIMIDATION.

This is only 1 example. There are several tactics. And lots of resources: rubber bullets, high pressure water (colored for later identification. They catch the painted guys at subways, trains or buses here). Even the mounted police is useful (remember, intimidation. A horse can run faster than you).

What you should read from these events is that the UK government has something else in mind. This is either distraction for some other political maneuver, or they're using this for leverage in order to tighten "security" laws.

Re:Blame the people?

[jemmyw]

Or they were caught out unexpectedly (probably more than once) by the scale and escalation of these riots. Why assign malicious intent when it could be mere incompetence?

Re:Blame the people?

[Builder]

It's not incompetence. It's fear.

Baton and shield charges hurt people, and whenever the police here hurt anyone, deserved or not, they get canned for it in the press and by the public.

The UK have got the police force they deserve. They've got the police force that The Guardian and other softies have been agitating for years for. And now London is burning as a result.

Re:Blame the people?

[Anonymous Coward]

I watched the first TV report on the BBC about the shooting incident, a police spokesman was calling for calm, they knew the riots were coming, this should have been dealt early and professionally.

Re:Blame the people?

[shilly]

Ya know, from several thousand miles away, you might want to be a bit more cautious about your jumps to conclusions. Tear gas, water cannon and rubber bullets have *never* been used in mainland Britain, despite a very long history of rioting. The police and gov't will be well aware that those tactical options exist, but will be extremely reluctant to deploy them as it would be a tacit admission that other tactics were no longer working, would represent a major escalation of force and a serious erosion of policing-by-consent, and be very difficult to turn back from.

Re:Blame the people?

[shilly]

Bollocks. The police have no qualms about using force against large crowds, as they showed during the student protests. But they are used to dealing with *protest*, not rioting. As a result, they're too brutal for the former, and ineffective against the latter.

Re:Blame the people?

[tehcyder]

I live in Argentina

Or maybe it's that the UK isn't a violent third world country with a recent fascist past and so our politicians and police aren't quite up to your standards of state thuggery?

Re:Blame the people?

[Builder]

I have to assume you're British then. What was used in the student protests was hardly force. There were a few pushes and shoves. If you want to see force, look at somewhere like South Africa, Argentina or even to a very small degree, Greece.

Riot officers here do this as volunteers and more than a few have handed their L2 tickets back in because they do not get the support of their management or the public for the job they do.

Re:Blame the people?

[hjf]

Sure. But your cities are on fire, and mine aren't. You fail.

Re:Blame the people?

[hjf]

When I see a building burn in flames, I'm pretty sure it's a tacit admission that other tactics are no longer working...

Re:Blame the people?

[shilly]

There were more than a few pushes and shoves. There were broken bones, cracked skulls and a dead bloke called Ian Tomlinson (at an earlier protest). Have you never heard that two rights don't make a wrong? The fact that others use greater force shows nothing about whether we should be allowing greater force to be used by British police.

Well there goes RIM security again...

[c.r.o.c.o]

At this point, pretty much the only selling point a BB has over its competition is the security of its messaging and email system. But if they are willingly cooperating with police to out their customers, then they really do not have a led to stand on anymore.

Don't misunderstand me, in cases like the London riots such behavior is justified. But these cases also undermine any security argument they make. Then there are also the servers set up in Saudi Arabia and in other places that are expressly under government control. I can just see RIM's next ad:

"Your communication is 100% secure*. And yes, it does Flash too**."

*as long as you're only messaging grocery lists and baseball scores
**we know nobody cares anymore, but it's all we've got.

Re:Well there goes RIM security again...

[narcc]

Someone doesn't understand the difference between BIS and BES. You're still secure in Saudi Arabia if you're communications are secured over BES.

I won't bother to list the many other advantages that the BB offers over the "competition" as you only seem interested in spreading misinformation and not actual facts.

(Yes, "competition" is in quotes. No other company offers a phone that is even remotely comparable in terms of utility and security.)

Re:Well there goes RIM security again...

[DontBlameCanada]

I swear, I've read this exact post before. Its as inaccurate now as it was then. Public instant messaging is just as secure or more secure than other phone vendors

Fortunately folks like you don't make the security related decisions at large corps or governments and savvy private individuals can see through the hyper and misinformation.

Re:Well there goes RIM security again...

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like someone can't afford an iphone, and is a teeny weeny bit sore about it!

Re:Well there goes RIM security again...

[tehcyder]

sounds like someone can't afford an iphone, and is a teeny weeny bit sore about it!

Anyone who can afford a Blackberry on contract in the UK can afford an iPhone, dickwipe. It's just that some people prefer utility over shiny white pieces of polished turd.

Re:There is a difference between Crime and Protest

[hjf]

Put them in jail.

Sure buddy, gotta catch them first. Do you see the police even trying? And the government is just whining and blaming twitter. Fuck people like you. Wake up and realize the problem is the government NOT DOING SHIT, and not the people rioting and looting.

Just drop a few tear gas grenades and rubber bullets, and this ends today. But the government isn't doing it. And as long as they don't, this will go on. NEWSFLASH! you can't arrest and charge everyone on the street at the moment of the protests. There are more protesters than policemen.

Re:There is a difference between Crime and Protest

[couchslug]

"People are losing their homes and livelihoods to these thugs"

The victims also have no legal right to effective self-defense because there is no practical unarmed self-defense against a mob.

If someone came to torch my home in the US, I would be well within my rights to kill them on the spot and the world would be a better place for their passing.

Who was more violent? (answer: not the rioters)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the protests turned to riots. People were pissed with "law and order" and the only way to express that with more than just empty words is by ignoring it.

What I find interesting is that the reports emphasize the violence perpetrated by the protesters, while that violence has resulted in zero casualties. The cops involved, however, murdered someone. Clearly, the most violent agents in this scenario have been the police: the protesters are mostly guilty of property damage, theft, and non-lethal resistance, while the police used lethal force. Who is more violent? The murderer, or the vandal? The gunman or the thief? If we're looking for lesser evils, it's pretty clear who ends up on top.

When your house is burning down, do you care more if your family member dies, or your TV no longer works?

Re:Who was more violent? (answer: not the rioters)

[wool.in.silver]

Disclaimer: I live in Hackney (East London), and this is happening up the road from me right now. Whilst I understand your reasoning, the line in this case is quite blurred: there are people in Tottenham who have been lucky to escape with their lives from burning buildings, because arsonists have torched shop premises on the ground floor. There is a specific and harrowing case of a (now cruelly destroyed by fire) 1930s building housing a branch of "Carpet-Rite". In interview, a tearful woman describes narrowly escaping with her life whilst seeing upon egress laughing looters removing rugs and carpets from the premise. London has a historical propensity to combust (read Peter Ackroyd on this subject); if the current activity continues, it is highly likely that someone will be killed in a fire, which will make your thinking non-academic.

Re:Who was more violent? (answer: not the rioters)

[Anonymous Coward]

anon 452 here.

Disclaimer: I live on the other side of the world, so I probably have much worse information than you, and am totally unaffected. Best wishes for you and your friends, etc

Now, understand your reasoning also: the rioting is clearly dangerous. I don't want anybody to get hurt as much as the next guy. However, you must realize that your logic goes both ways. If the current behavior of the police continues, that is, treating the populace as would an occupying army, it is even more likely that someone will be shot. Furthermore, if someone were to be killed as a result of fire, that would be an accident, even if the fire itself were arson (although of course I can't speak for every case). Police, on the other hand, apparently shoot to kill. Thus, while it is understandable to say that it is highly likely that "if current activity continues" someone will be killed (by accident) in a fire, it is even more likely "if current activity continues" that another person will be shot by a cop.

Re:Who was more violent? (answer: not the rioters)

[xaxa]

The man was shot by police on Thursday, but by the specialist police unit investigating gun crime in London -- I wouldn't be surprised if he'd murdered someone else, though I don't think there's been any information released about that.

Killing someone through arson is not "accidental". It might not be the primary intention, but in a dense city like this fires are really dangerous, and the risks are obvious.

Re:Who was more violent? (answer: not the rioters)

[shilly]

This is a pile of cock. Rioters have been busy beating the shit out of each other, police, journalists, bystanders, shopkeepers etc. The notion that any injuries caused are simply accidental is risible.

Re:There is a difference between Crime and Protest

[DerekLyons]

When you are hurting innocent people, your right to privacy is tossed out with the first firebomb.

No, it isn't. Because if you do, you're essentially tossing the very basis of a free society on the trash heap in the name of expedience.
 

this is criminal looting, not political protests. People are losing their homes and livelihoods to these thugs. Put them in jail.

Yes, let's put them in jail - after adhering to the law and following due process.

Invoking Star Trek *and* Daily Mail law! ;-)

[fantomas]

A measured response, sir. However my scepticism arises as you invoke both the Daily Mail Law and the Star Trek Law:

- be suspicious if somebody quotes the Daily Mail as a reliable source of evidence
- be really worried if somebody argues their position is correct *because something similar happened in Star Trek* ;-)

I'd definitely agree we need to work out how much of what is happening is due to underlying discontent that's just bubbling up (rumours persist of some police being less than professional in dealing with youths), and how much is opportunistic crime (smashing stuff and nicking tellies and trainers because you can get free stuff while the rioting is kicking off, also just having a riot because its a chance to chuck a brick at a copper or have a laugh).

My guess is a bit of each and like the 80s we've got to sort out what's going wrong before it goes *really wrong*. There is the potential for things to go really wrong in the next few years (rising unemployment, soft social services like youth clubs being closed down, police budgets tightening, etc). It's undeniable that there are a good number of chancers out there, equally, my own personal experience is that the police can pull you over randomly and be rude and swing their weight around if they feel like it. After my (black, Barbadian) mate got pulled over in his car half a dozen times and let off every time I told him to get his driving licence updated with his proper prefix so at least he might get half an apology when they realised they should call him Dr. ...

Re:Invoking Star Trek *and* Daily Mail law! ;-)

[ZG-Rules]

1. I used the Guardian, a bastion of liberalism and reasonably fair journalism as my second example, just o make it balanced
2. I was playing to the audience ;o) - had I wanted to invoke a popular book of earlier provenance instead, I might have said And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. - John 11:49-50

Re:Invoking Star Trek *and* Daily Mail law! ;-)

[phantomfive]

You do realize that quote by Caiaphas, is portrayed as that of an evil man, who was trying to justify his desire to kill he who was portrayed as the most honest, good and perfect man who ever lived, right? I don't think your quote supports the point you want to support.

Re:Invoking Star Trek *and* Daily Mail law! ;-)

[c0lo]

A measured response, sir. However my scepticism arises as you invoke both the Daily Mail Law and the Star Trek Law:

- be suspicious if somebody quotes the Daily Mail as a reliable source of evidence

- be really worried if somebody argues their position is correct *because something similar happened in Star Trek* ;-)

Run as fast as you can if they start using the Chewbacca defense.

Re:There is a difference between Crime and Protest

[xaxa]

If someone came to torch my home in the US, I would be well within my rights to kill them on the spot and the world would be a better place for their passing.

But the attackers would have guns in the US too, and they have less to lose. Do you risk your life for your home? I wouldn't. (Fortunately I'm 5 minutes cycle from the nearest high street, and 10 minutes cycle from the nearest looting, so I won't have to make any decisions like this.)

As it is, it seems there are no guns on the streets -- so far, I've only read of one shooting since Thursday (when the police shot the man), and that was in Leeds (city in North England).

Also, the burned homes have all been above shops. The shops have been set alight, and the whole building has been ablaze by the time the firefighters can get through -- they're being attacked and have to wait for the police to control the area.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ is good with reporting facts at times like this in their "live feed" things, if you're interested. (It's the furthest-left of the ~4 major newspapers, which you might not like, but the equivalent quality right-leaning paper is The Times, which is unfortunately paywalled. The live feed is mostly just facts.).

Presumption of security?!

[mosseh]

People deserve to get caught if they're stupid enough to communicate criminal conspiracy over such an insecure channel. Broadcasting photos of yourself with stolen goods on the Internet is a blunder of almost comical proportions. Thankfully they are obviously not very organised or clever if they're working like this. To me it looks like a bunch of unaffiliated troublemakers and petty criminals who are behind this rioting. People will bitch about RIM giving up this data so easily but there's an easy way to make this a non-issue. Yep you guessed it - encrypt stuff yourself first! Is there no decent encrypted messenger for blackberries? I know the platform was pretty awful to develop on last time I tried it out but I'm sure there would be a market for this. I think if I went around asking non-technical people if they would be comfortable with all of their mail being on postcards they would be quite appalled. But this is what email is like and people use it in plaintext for all kinds of sensitive stuff.

Well well well.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought RIM said that the messages sent by the BB we encrypted and not even they could decrypt them. Seems that they LIED to the UAE (you UAE folks might want to make a note of this one).

Yet another lie by a dirty corrupt slime ball abortion of a company.

Re:Well well well.....

[thaig]

If you trust anyone to handle your comms securely then you deserve whatever happens to you.

Trying to be relevant?

[cpscotti]

Dunno, but all this seems bullshit.
First, I believe all this kinds of riots are just group/herd behaviour ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_behaviour ) and any blackberry "coordination" was probably some innocent people inviting others to join the protest.
Come on those are just a bunch of angry kids that thought they were "doing the right thing" by raising hell and going against each and everyone...
No major coordination.. no major plots or conspiracies.

Going after everybody's bbms just to try to find out who were the rioters is just plain Orwellian.

Finally, blackberry stepping up publicizing that on twitter looks just like "hey hey people! Look at us! We want to protect you! We still exist and we are responsible!"
If it was that important they wouldn't make their support public...

Re:Trying to be relevant?

[Builder]

You sound a little deluded or willfully uninformed when you say
First, I believe all this kinds of riots are just group/herd behaviour ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_behaviour ) and any blackberry "coordination" was probably some innocent people inviting others to join the protest.

Here's a message that was sent:

"Everyone from all sides of London meet up at the heart of London (central) OXFORD CIRCUS!!, Bare SHOPS are gonna get smashed up so come get some (free stuff!!!) fuck the feds we will send them back with OUR riot! >:O Dead the ends and colour war for now so if you see a brother... SALUT! if you see a fed... SHOOT!"

That's not an invitation to peaceful protest. That's incitement to rob, loot and kill. There is nothing innocent about that.

Re:There is a difference between Crime and Protest

[Falconhell]

Ah the typical american response, guns will make it better. Will you people never learn?

Re: So sorry for you Britts

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between protesting and rioting/looting. So cheers for tracking down rioters and looters.

We have looters here and its always the same type of people. They even loot they're own neighhood. No gentleman behaviour to spesk of thats for sure. I feel sorry for the real Britts. Here in California we think we have immigrant problems. I think that chunnel a big rathole that brings in more scum. I've heard there are shanty towns at the openings.

RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

I just threw my Black Berry in the trash I wont be going back ever.
On the reals.

Everyone gets a PS3 and 50" flat panel ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... improved subsistence ...

Yes because food, shelter and medical care are not enough. The safety net should include PS3s and 50" flat panels like those the rioters are carrying off.

Re:Everyone gets a PS3 and 50" flat panel ...

[Paul Fernhout]

"Yes because food, shelter and medical care are not enough. The safety net should include PS3s and 50" flat panels like those the rioters are carrying off"

Two ways your sarcasm misses the point:
* Advanced 3D printers could print out PS3s and flat panels someday, probably sooner than you think (say, twenty to thirty years, maybe sooner).
* A basic income is not a "safety" net; it is about human rights, and the right of a citizen to make a claim on the industrial commons as a right of citizenship and having some equity in the land the government is the ultimate owner of.
    "The Mythology of Wealth"
    http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402

Already in the USA, the old have a basic income (called social security) and the young get money spent on their behalf (problematically) in schools. With unemployment and some other things, that averages out to about US$700 per person per month. Why not just give everyone that much money directly at any age (and take it away again when they are in jail, so, an incentive not to riot)?

Really, how expensive are PS3s and Flat Panels, anyway? They are getting cheaper all the time. It is a lot cheaper even for the government to give such things away then pay for face-to-face education or entertainment or deal with civil unrest. Not saying drugging the country with PS3s is an optimum strategy for social health though (it's fairly Brave New World-ish).

Seriously, if someone has been so disadvantaged in our society by not being able to find meaningful work, or not having great friends and family to help them out when they are down, then you begrudge them a home entertainment system to hide away from that painful reality with? These rioters are essentially stealing (computerized) painkillers.

The USSR had to guard its borders against potential escapees who hated it there; it seems the USA (and UK etc.) needs to guard its medicine cabinets for the same reasons. What does that tell you about a society?

Re:Everyone gets a PS3 and 50" flat panel ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... improved subsistence ...

"Yes because food, shelter and medical care are not enough. The safety net should include PS3s and 50" flat panels like those the rioters are carrying off"

Two ways your sarcasm misses the point:
* Advanced 3D printers could print out PS3s and flat panels someday, probably sooner than you think (say, twenty to thirty years, maybe sooner).

Well in 20 to 30 years perhaps I'll change my sarcasm.

* A basic income is not a "safety" net; it is about human rights, and the right of a citizen to make a claim on the industrial commons as a right of citizenship and having some equity in the land the government is the ultimate owner of.

That's nice, but I was not commenting on "basic income". You might notice I clipped "basic income" and kept only "subsistence" in my reference.

Armed shop owners have deterred rioters ...

[perpenso]

If someone came to torch my home in the US, I would be well within my rights to kill them on the spot and the world would be a better place for their passing.

But the attackers would have guns in the US too, and they have less to lose. Do you risk your life for your home? ... Also, the burned homes have all been above shops.

I understand your sentiment. Deadly force should only be used to protect people and not property, and property is not worth dying over. However you seem mistaken with respect to the odds of success for those who think otherwise. During the 1992 Los Angeles riots armed shop/home owners in Korea town successful defended homes and businesses with a visible heavily armed presence. Human predators are probably like other predators, they prefer weaker prey less able or inclined to defend themselves.

Re:Armed shop owners have deterred rioters ...

[xaxa]

Apparently, people (shopkeepers etc) have been successfully defending shop and other buildings, (e.g. churches and mosques). They're very unlikely to have guns, but I don't have any information. The looters presumably prefer the weaker, undefended targets. Guns would just up the ante.

I'd assumed the area I live in would be fine, it's relatively wealthy and in the west, but the local food shop has been smashed up, and the nearest high street destroyed (all the shops smashed, all parked cars torched). Fortunately I live on a residential backstreet surrounded by electrified 24/7 railways, so it's not really a good target. (Only very few houses have been targeted, so far.)

So far 45 police have been injured, four seriously (which I think means "remaining in hospital"). No one has died, although a 60 year old man has life-threatening injuries. I don't know the scale of the LA riots, and they seem to have different motivations (race, so targeting people?) but 53 people died there.

Re:Armed shop owners have deterred rioters ...

[perpenso]

Guns would just up the ante.

Absolutely. However the bad guys may be the ones making that decision.

I don't know the scale of the LA riots, and they seem to have different motivations (race, so targeting people?) but 53 people died there.

And many have suggested that Korea town was targeted for such a reason. However the rioters were successfully deterred. I believe the deaths you refer to occurred elsewhere.

This is a complicated topic. There is no universal answer that fits all situations. There is no universal response, there is only a scale of possible responses depending on the circumstances. My point is only that some individuals seem to have additional options should the circumstances warrant it, and that recent history does show responsible and successful use of such options. YMMV.

Re:There is a difference between Crime and Protest

[perpenso]

Ah the typical american response, guns will make it better. Will you people never learn?

The lesson learned from recent US history may not be what you expect. To avoid redundancy: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2370164&cid=37029720.

Jesus

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know that ALL the data RIM is handing over belongs to the rioters? You're putting a lot of faith in the cops not to request (intentionally or not) the information of innocent people. Or have they also "waived any right" in your eyes?

Re:Jesus

[s73v3r]

And you're putting a lot of faith in a conspiracy theory. These requests are the result of court orders and arrests.

Re:Or is mumbling "terrorist" sufficient these day

[Anonymous Coward]

We're talking about Britain here. Thankfully we still don't have anything as "hurr hurr hurr, dang ol' terrsts ah tell you whut" as "Homeland Security".

Obviously, they were

[Anonymous Coward]

overstepping their boundaries.

Is BlackBerry being a responsible part of society

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

citizen =/= armed-drug-dealer

[Anonymous Coward]

The shot "citizen" was a drug dealer who has already been imprisoned once before. At the time of shooting he was armed with a handgun.

The handgun can be quite clearly seen in this picture:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/07/tottenham-riots-relatives-dead-man

Re:There is a difference between Crime and Protest

[tehcyder]

Your right to privacy, maybe. Your right to due process, absolutely not.

They will still get a fair trial. If concerned citizens (RIM) provide evidence against them, what's wrong with that?

Re:There is a difference between Crime and Protest

[tehcyder]

If someone came to torch my home in the US, I would be well within my rights to kill them on the spot and the world would be a better place for their passing.

Good luck trying that with a mob of a fewf hundred who will be at least as well armed as you.

Re:There is a difference between Crime and Protest

[tehcyder]

When you are hurting innocent people, your right to privacy is tossed out with the first firebomb.

No, it isn't. Because if you do, you're essentially tossing the very basis of a free society on the trash heap in the name of expedience.

this is criminal looting, not political protests. People are losing their homes and livelihoods to these thugs. Put them in jail.

Yes, let's put them in jail - after adhering to the law and following due process.

Protecting life and property is not just "expedience" it's the basis of civilization. And no one's saying they shouldn't be given a trial.

RIP RIM

[RockDoctor]

Subject says it all.

Re:There is a difference between Crime and Protest

[anotherzeb]

Individuals won't last long against a mob, but this supposedly shows a group of people scaring the looters away from their businesses. Seems like the looters don't deal well with people standing up to them