Boston Tech Vs. the Bomber

An anonymous reader writes "Amid rumors of an impending arrest in the Boston Marathon bombing, Xconomy has a rundown of local companies working on technologies relevant to the investigation and aftermath. The approaches include Web analytics to identify communication patterns, image and video analysis of the crime scene, surveillance camera hardware and software, and smart prosthetic devices for amputees. A big challenge the authorities face is the sheer volume and different proprietary formats of video from security cameras, mobile devices, and media groups. Ultimately this will be a case study in whether an individual bent on destruction can remain anonymous in an era of digital surveillance, social media, and crowdsourcing."

Comments

recovery, not prevention.

[hendrikboom]

Well, the emergency response seemed to be on the ball, minimizing the damage. Now we get to see whether the surveillance technologies are up to scratch after the fact.

Prevention is probably impossible.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[girlintraining]

Prevention is totally possible. Strip all those pesky rights and liberties, problem solved.

It's a little known fact that an investigation of serial murderers has revealed that there isn't a single common motivation amongst them, nor is there a profile. The quintessential serial murderer, Charles Whitman, who climbed a clock tower and sniped dozens below, was at the time cast as the "typical loner". It wasn't released at the time that he had begged his doctors to help him for months beforehand, saying he was developing violent impulses and he didn't know why. He wrote a note just before climbing the tower asking that they do an autopsy after and look at his brain. They did. They found a tumor pressing against a region of the brain responsible for impulse control. The autopsy report at the time (incorrectly) stated that the tumor had no effect on his behavior.

There have been studies done linking lead poisoning to aggression control -- after banning lead in gasoline, the crime rate in every country that did so dropped within a few years by double-digit percentages. I guess what my point here is, is that prevention isn't possible because we don't understand what causes violent behavior. There isn't a single common thread linking them all; There is no profile, and sometimes no violent history. For some reason, perfectly normal people just... break. And it's likely there are many causes. But the takeaway here is that it is not in our nature to be violent to our peers unless threatened. Violent impulses are inherently anti-social, and the human race is a social one. Now, before you argue, note the caveat above: our peers. Our tribe. Our family, etc. Not strangers. In the same way ant colonies will war with each other so do we: But it is not a behavioral norm to attack our peers.

Which is why, in the final analysis, stripping away people's rights and liberties will do exactly dick for prevention. All it will do is lower the quality of life for everyone, while accomplishing a vanishingly small improvement in the safety of the same. We need to understand violence better before we can achieve long-term gains. Imagine if researchers discovered a drug that removes violent impulses. In fact, for schizophrenics, that's more or less exactly what we have today: A common mental condition which, if untreated, leads to violent impulses, but if treated, creates a productive and contributing member of society. Should we lock them up... or give them medical treatment?

Arguments for reductions in our civil rights and freedoms in order to improve safety are fundamentally flawed. The two aren't related -- not statistically, not empirically... there is no association between the two, except in our own worldviews which demand a link be there when one is not. And we do it because we want to feel like we have control. But we don't. We don't even know why... if there even is a why. And that is deeply unsettling to most. That's why people cry out for restrictions... not because they'll do any good, but because they feel a need to do something, anything, to restore their sense of personal power.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[sanman2]

the only way that'll happen is if the bomber is discovered to be a white anglo saxon male with a grudge against the government, like mcveigh

in that case, then the police state will quickly come out in full force, no questions asked

(I'm Asian myself)

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've confused serial killing and mass killing. And yes, there are motivations for both, though the reasoning may not always be clear. The Columbine mass killing certainly had a cause as well as many other mass killings where a man kills his wife and everybody around him. Outside of the cases of domestic violence mass killing, the common profile of the perpetrators is social isolation. For this reason, I have to wonder if many of these mass killings were not caused by a mental illness, but by the consequences of being ostracized and outcast due to having the mental illness. Perhaps it is the stigmatization of mental illness that is causing these problems. If this is true, then attacking the mentally ill after mass killings and using them as scapegoats might be very counterproductive since it will cause more of them to be socially isolated.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[girlintraining]

You missed the point. If you lock everyone into a prison cell at age 18, you'll reduce crime significantly.

No, you'll just move crime into the prison.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[pipedwho]

What's to stop the jailers from going on a rampage and killing or otherwise brutalising 'inmates'?

And when the police start attacking anything that moves, that makes them the problem, not the solution. You'd then have to have special police to police the police ... recurse ad infinitum.

I'd rather take the infinitesimal risk of getting killed by a mentally ill serial killer or terrorist than the certainty of having my life ruined by a power hungry jailer/guard/cop taking things too far.

If you have to change the law to make an otherwise criminal act 'legal', just to reduce the 'crime rate' metric, then you've failed. Why not go the other way and remove all laws making nothing a crime? Is anarchy any worse or better than being held in captivity?

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[girlintraining]

You've confused serial killing and mass killing.

No, I have not. Differing definitions do not mean differing underlying psychological conditions. My point was that violence is inherently anti-social. It doesn't matter whether you're anti-social with a lot of dead bodies in a short period of time, or anti-social with a lot of dead bodies over an extended period of time, you've still got a screw loose.

For this reason, I have to wonder if many of these mass killings were not caused by a mental illness, but by the consequences of being ostracized and outcast due to having the mental illness.

Despite reams of scientific studies and a great many books on criminology indicating that being ostracized and outcast is a stereotype, not a fact. You're drawing on a common prejudice that has no empirical basis.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[Kittenman]

It's a little known fact that an investigation of serial murderers has revealed that there isn't a single common motivation amongst them, nor is there a profile. The quintessential serial murderer, Charles Whitman, who climbed a clock tower and sniped dozens below, was at the time cast as the "typical loner". It wasn't released at the time that he had begged his doctors to help him for months beforehand, saying he was developing violent impulses and he didn't know why. He wrote a note just before climbing the tower asking that they do an autopsy after and look at his brain. They did. They found a tumor pressing against a region of the brain responsible for impulse control. The autopsy report at the time (incorrectly) stated that the tumor had no effect on his behavior.

Fascinating - I didn't know of the case and did some reading (ok, wikipedia...). But why 'incorrectly'? Shooting lots of people seems a very specific reaction to a loss if impulse control. Why didn't he lose bladder control, or some such more obvious reaction to loss of control. The Charles Whitman article states he was predisposed to violence and popped pills. Those seem more prone to be the cause of Whitman's instability. Disclaimer - I am not a Doctor. (IANAD?)

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[Anonymous Coward]

Serial killing: one after another, over a long period of time. Jeffrey Dahlmer was a serial killer
Mass killing: lots of people at once. Adam Lanza was a mass murderer.

And you are talking out of your ass. Name a non DV inspired mass murderer who wasn't socially isolated. I'm sure you will find someone, but it isn't easy. Lanza, Holmes, Loughner, Cho, Harris & Klebold, etc., were all socially isolated and had a very poor level of integration into society.

Here's a quick questionnaire:
1. Would you try to stop a brother or sister from dating someone who had previously been hospitalized for a suicide attempt?
2. Would you be willing to closely work with a person who was rumored to have bipolar II disorder?
3. If you were hiring a person for a job or renting a house, would it bother you if that person revealed an anxiety disorder? Depression? Schizophrenia? How would their compliance to medication affect your view?
4. If you knew a woman who had a mental illness, would you recommend an abortion if she became pregnant?
5. Do you think a person with a serious mental illness should be able to vote? To drive?
6. Do you think "due process" to contest confinement should be applicable to those who have been diagnosed with a mental illness?

There have been surveys of these exact questions. You might not want to know what people answered. People are bigoted assholes, and to say the mentally ill haven't been outcast is bullshit.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[jhol13]

"But it is not a behavioral norm to attack our peers."

That is trivial to circumvent. Zimbardo, Millgram, The Third Wave, ...

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[girlintraining]

Shooting lots of people seems a very specific reaction to a loss if impulse control. Why didn't he lose bladder control, or some such more obvious reaction to loss of control.

Perhaps because the centers of the brain responsible for bladder control aren't the same parts that handle aggression... otherwise our action movies would consist of burly men gunning down their enemies while wearing Depends.

The Charles Whitman article states he was predisposed to violence and popped pills.

He passed Marine basic training and a full psychological workup. They didn't find anything. He applied to study mechanical and architectural engineering as part of his efforts to become a commissioned officer. Although his college career sputtered, he maintained his reputation as an outstanding Marine, and in one case single-handedly lifted up an overturned Jeep to free fellow soldiers in an accident. There's no history of a predisposition for violence cited in any available professional medical assessments for him. The pills they found on him after he was shot were part of a survival kit that he had assembled beforehand, no doubt part of his military training. He had no history of drug abuse, and the drugs given at the time were available within the military at the time (but not today) as stimulants for long-term deployments.

The article that you read, undoubtedly is sensationalist garbage, an attempt to try to explain irrational impulses. Because if it can be explained, then he can be blamed. We certainly don't want a mass murderer to appear as though his violence was the result of an uncontrollable medical condition -- because that would mean that the violence wasn't preventable. It would mean we were powerless against it. It would mean, most critically for the average person, that a higher moral authority didn't exist and didn't prevent it from happening -- that the universe doesn't reward good behavior and punish bad behavior, but that it doesn't care. That sometimes, bad things just happen. Whatever article you read, is based on emotive reasoning.

In actuality, this was a perfectly normal man who, likely as a result of an emergent medical condition, lost his impulse control through no fault of his own, became violent, and killed a bunch of people before being killed himself. That doesn't at all fit with our need for vengance -- though people usually call it 'justice' instead. But it isn't. The need for vengance is a major motivation for our justice system, just not one anyone wants to discuss because it's taboo.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[BrokenHalo]

...violence is inherently anti-social... ... you've still got a screw loose.

Indeed. And I guess we'll find out pretty soon just how understanding everyone is when they catch this person. From TFS, the following stands out:

...the sheer volume and different proprietary formats of video from security cameras, mobile devices, and media groups. Ultimately this will be a case study in whether an individual bent on destruction can remain anonymous in an era of digital surveillance, social media, and crowdsourcing.

...as meaning just one thing. We have a lynch mob here.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[Dan93]

It's my understanding that they found a tumor that might have (though it wasn't conclusively proved) caused him to loose control and kill all of those people.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[girlintraining]

That is trivial to circumvent. Zimbardo, Millgram, The Third Wave, ...

All three of the examples you state are a ringing endorsement of what I said: In each case, it was a peer giving the orders, or gaining obedience. In none of those cases, did people fall on each other like a pack of wolves. But even if that wasn't the case, your examples still don't touch my original assertion: Human beings aren't innately violent towards their peers. They can be coaxed into doing so, but it isn't something that comes naturally to them.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[gmuslera]

In fact, no matter the crime, even you can invent or fake it, what matter is in the end to have an excuse to strip those rights and liberties, who is in charge here after all?

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[c0lo]

Prevention is probably impossible.

You reckon? We've seen TSA banning liquids, nail files and what not, and not another terrorist attack flying a plane into a building... this means prevention should have been effective.
Tell you what: let's ban pressure cookers and black backpacks and we're safe... how hard can it be?

Also: what the hell TSA is wasting money for? After all, running is a form of transportation, isn't this also in the scope of TSA protection?

(</sarcasm>) Let me repeat my point: given that prevention is impossible, what the hell TSA is wasting money for?

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[c0lo]

I don't know who keeps modding this stupid tranny up, but it has no idea what it is talking about. In fact it is a mentally unstable indiivudal itself that should be put down for the betterment of society.

One name: John Nash. He was mentally unstable: had he been put down, would the society be better?

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[Opportunist]

Sorry, not possible. Sure, we could do medical examinations on those that need it instead of those that can afford them. Sure, we could stop poisoning our environment and of course we could stop meddling in international affairs with little to no knowledge of the local culture and cultural dos and dont's, but that's quite impossible. We cannot change the American way of life or the terrorists win.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[chargersfan420]

In actuality, this was a perfectly normal man who...

It is very difficult for you to make a statement like this with your proof being a few sentences about a person's life. For instance, I could say that Hitler was an artist, who had an accomplished military career, as well as a career in politics (which must mean he was popular, right?)

Now I really hate to go Godwin so quickly on this, but looking through that Wikipedia article makes it fairly clear that his father was abusive, and he joined the military to get away from him. These two facts scream "predisposition to violence" to me, and I think most other rational thinking people.

And before you try to tell me that the Wikipedia article "undoubtedly is sensationalist garbage", I'm afraid I have to point out that the burden of proof lies with you. Wikipedia is crowdsourced, so many people had to agree what they could post about this guy as fact, and disputed facts are typically mentioned in the "talk" section of the page, which makes no mention of any doubt surrounding the basic facts about his father. Your comment, on the other hand, is your own statement of belief. Why should I believe that your side of the story carries more weight than what many knowledgeable people have to say on the matter?

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[Opportunist]

Lowering unemployment rates with the otherwise unemployable duds?

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[SternisheFan]

Yeah, it's mean. Doesn't make it wrong. Just sayin' ...

That's the way the Nazi's thought about the so called 'lesser' mentalities, and yes, it's wrong, mean, and elitist. ''Judge not lest you be judged'' comes to mind. If you aren't just trolling, I suggest you try getting some compassion for your fellow human being into your psychological makeup.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[cold fjord]

1. You responded to a troll with a long post.

It's a little known fact that an investigation of serial murderers has revealed that there isn't a single common motivation amongst them,

2. I find this link to be informative: Serial Murder - Multi-Disciplinary Perspective for Invesigators

Which is why, in the final analysis, stripping away people's rights and liberties will do exactly dick for prevention

3a. You responded to a troll suggesting that rights be taken away.
3b. You articulate so many ideas with fine phraseology, and then invoke "dick." Kind of a waste.

That's why people cry out for restrictions... not because they'll do any good, but because they feel a need to do something, anything, to restore their sense of personal power.

4. That is contradictory.

.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[xelah]

My point was that violence is inherently anti-social.

Hmm, is it really? Some violence perhaps, like the mass/serial killer examples (though if one serial killer is copying his hero, is that social behaviour or not?). But take, say, Northern Irish terrorism, or perhaps extreme religious terrorism, too. Or gang violence. Couldn't that be caused in part by inherently social processes? By people wanting to belong to the group, to be admired by the group, or a group talking each other in to more and more extreme and 'pure' views? The most extreme example - war - is a very social activity indeed. Being anti-violence in a war can itself be seen as anti-social by others.

I wouldn't want to say that (especially) bizarre behaviour motivated by extreme religious views or behaviour isn't a mental health issue as well, though, one that sometimes turns in to a criminal issue. But it isn't easy to draw the line (Jonestown? Al Qaeda in 2001? The crusades? Terrorist groups responding to relatives killed by US drones? The Westboro nutters?).

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[ebno-10db]

Look at war crime records for non isolated mass murders.

Good point. I prefer socially isolated mass murderers. They kill by themselves, and that tends to limit the damage. It gets a whole lot worse when you can enlist lots of help from your "social circle".

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[tehcyder]

I don't see what your point is. The guy with a tumour needed medical treatments. Paranoid schizophrenics need medical treatment. In both cases, the violence can be predicted and hopefully prevented.

But compulsory treatment for the mentally ill most certainly has an impact on their freedom and rights. It is in fact a classic example of the greater common good overriding the individual's absolute freedom.

You can't prevent all violence, but that doesn't mean you can't try to prevent some of it.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[tehcyder]

Who said mentally ill people should be "put down"? They should be medically treated, and if necessary restrained to stop them hurting themselves or others.

The connection with trannys escapes me.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[gl4ss]

Is this a one-off decision w/ Nash, or are we repeating the choice with each mentally unstable person and trying to maximize the overall score? It makes a difference.

it's more of a question of if you're a nazi or not.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[tehcyder]

So you are asserting that if there was an 8 p.m. curfew with shoot-to-kill orders for the police that nighttime crime would not decrease?

What I think you would get is a lot of heavily armed well-organised criminal gangs acting proactively to kill any police they came across. So nighttime crime could well increase.

In a police state, more people become criminals.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[Archangel Michael]

It is just as likely, since most of the mass killers were (D) or tended to be (D), that being a (D) with mental disorders, is the cause. And that most of the places that had Mass Killings, with guns, have had very strict gun controls. In fact, the places that have the highest gun control regulations have the highest gun crimes (Chicago, DC ...)

Or, you could say, correlation doesn't equal causation. It is funny how correlation is all that the left needs to pin all Conservative / Libertarians as nut jobs, yet when applied in reverse, are just anomalies. Talk about bias.

But never let a good tragedy go by without trying to institute more government huh?

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[tehcyder]

Are you seriously suggesting that the US government and law enforcement agencies are motivated by anti-white racism?

I don't care whether you're Asian, black or Inuit, you're fucking delusional.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[chargersfan420]

I think the biggest failure in your reasoning is that we are arguing a black-and-white point here. This is most certainly not the case. There are many shades of grey as to the opinion of what caused Whitman to do what he did.

Since I chose to reply to your earlier post, you seem to be under the impression that I don't agree with everything you said, and that is just not the case. The only point you made that I take issue to is being able to call Whitman "a perfectly normal man". I don't dispute any of your claims that the tumor *may* have played a role in his violent impulses, and the Wikipedia article agrees with this assessment too. Furthermore, I would doubt any doctor in 1966 would be able to state as definitive fact whether or not the tumor played a role in his actions. It seems to me that the Connally Commission's purpose was to "right the wrong" of the previous medical examiner stating that there was no way the tumor did play a role. A responsible scientist would have to accept that we just don't know enough about the brain, or at least we didn't in 1966, and be forced to state their opinion in uncertain terms, which is precisely what the Connally Commission did; Wikipedia states that the tumor "conceivably could have had an influence on Whitman's actions."

The definition of a "perfectly normal man" varies from region to region, and changes over time, as Zynder points out. I assert that Whitman was not a "perfectly normal man", at least not by the standards of my region in this time period. I didn't grow up in America, and I wasn't subjected to the "gun culture" that seems to come with being an American. But again, in that Wikipedia article, Whitman's father makes the following statement:

His father said of him: "Charlie could plug (shoot) the eye out of a squirrel by the time he was sixteen."

In my region, this would be considered an early exposure to violence. I believe that if you're taught to use a gun at a young age, you shouldn't be taking the lives of innocent animals unless you intend to eat them for survival. Call me a peace lovin' hippie if you will, but this act demonstrates a lack of empathy for other living beings, and that, I would classify as not "normal".

But again, I must stress that this could be considered normal to someone living in another region, who perhaps grew up in America, in the "gun culture". The definition for a "normal" person is subjective.

On a side note, I have seen many of your posts on /. and quite often they are very informative and insightful. But I think a lot of people take issue with the way you refute their counterpoints by putting words in our mouths. For instance, in your reply to Zynder, you state:

... with the GP. He feels threatened by the idea that this sort of thing could happen to anyone and by anyone, I mean him.

I certainly do not feel threatened, and nowhere in my previous post did I even allude to that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Further to that point, I certainly do believe it is entirely possible that a brain condition could strike anyone at any time and cause them to do very irrational things, like Whitman here. I just think your Whitman example is of someone who was predisposed to violence, and his predisposal to violence *may* have played a role in his actions, too.

Lastly,

I'm right, you're wrong.

That's great. You found one medical expert who agrees with you. Bravo, good for you. But to make a statement like this just shows a childish approach to the argument and paints it as black-and-white. Surely you can see that there are shades of grey to this argument...?

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[RivenAleem]

There have been studies done linking lead poisoning to aggression control -- after banning lead in gasoline, the crime rate in every country that did so dropped within a few years by double-digit percentages.

If only there was some kind of drug that could produce the reverse effect of lead poisoning. Waaait, that sounds familiar....

[Mal and the crew watch a holographic report on the Mirandans' fate]
Dr. Caron: There's thirty million people here, and they just let themselves die.
[Everyone jumps at the sound of a brutal attack in the distance.]
Dr. Caron: I have to be quick! About a tenth of a percent of the population had the opposite reaction to the Pax. Their aggressor response increased beyond madness. They have become
[A crash is heard in the background, now closer]
Dr. Caron: [sobs] Well, they've killed most of us. And not just killed they've done things
Wash: [Realises] Reavers... They made them.
Dr. Caron: I won't live to report this, but people have to know. We meant it for the best to make people safer

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[Reservoir Penguin]

Why should a person be restrained to stop him from hurting himself?

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[Hognoxious]

I prefer socially isolated mass murderers.

I find them incredibly tedious and dreary. I really hate being seated next to one at a dinner party. Imagine being on a long flight with one. I'd be praying to be the next victim, and the sooner the better.

Re:recovery, not prevention.

[Hognoxious]

I think it's more a question of what that thing that flew over your head was.

Not in the article

[girlintraining]

Not in the article: Success rates and false positives.

The problem with these type of technologies is that even if they're 99% effective, that still means they're useless. You need to be about 99.9% effective before the false positive rate drops to a point where it is investigationally useful. If these technologies happen to finger the person who did this, everyone will point to it as proof that it works. But I can tell you right now, there won't be any news stories of the dozens to hundreds detained, questioned, and humiliated by simply matching an arbitrary profile -- because in both the media's eyes and the general public, that would be flinging mud on a "hero".

I'm all for investigation into these technologies... but none of them are mature enough yet to be used in criminal investigations responsibly.

Re:Not in the article

[viperidaenz]

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/how-%E2%80%98extra-9%E2%80%99-could-ward-zombie-apocalypse

Re:Not in the article

[AK Marc]

stupidest article ever. They make a judgement call that you wouldn't prevent the apocolypse if it harmed more humans than it saved, but you would if it helped more than it harmed. If it's an extinction question, I think we'd take the "hurt 80 to save 20, because if we don't, there won't even be 20 at the end" choice.

Locic doesn't work when you don't agree with an unstated hidden premise.

Re:Not in the article

[davydagger]

criminal investigations responsible?

the cops complain about the CSI factor. I.E. being actually held to the same ethical standards as cops on TV.

Re:Not in the article

[cold fjord]

The problem with these type of technologies is that even if they're 99% effective, that still means they're useless.

No, it just means they need to do one of two things: use additional techniques to sift the first cut data, or expend massive amounts of time and manpower.

But I can tell you right now, there won't be any news stories of the dozens to hundreds detained, questioned, and humiliated by simply matching an arbitrary profile -- because in both the media's eyes and the general public, that would be flinging mud on a "hero".

That's nonsense. Practically any big investigation involves hundreds, thousands, or even more interviews and massive numbers of tips. reports, and clues. You only have to look at stories covering the 9/11 attacks, Unabomber, Oklahoma City, Anthrax mailings and plenty of others and they all involve massive investigations trying to match a partial description, a fragment of data. The reporting also reflects that. Maybe not while the investigation is ongoing and the information needs to be protected, but in time, or when it is over.

I also very much doubt a profile is "arbitrary." From what I know that seems to be the very opposite of what goes on. It may be wrong, but it certainly isn't arbitrary.

Humiliated, eh? Interesting theme....

I'm all for investigation into these technologies... but none of them are mature enough yet to be used in criminal investigations responsibly.

I can't help wondering if your actual view is that you can't investigate this sort of crime responsibly at all since it might turn up a politically incorrect suspect.

Re:Not in the article

[pipedwho]

This is due to lazy investigative techniques and incompetent use of forensic evidence. If you have multiple independent indicators that are individually only partially reliable, then you need to use a number of these in conjunction to produce a more accurate result.

For example if I have 5 separate unrelated pieces of evidence that all point to the same person, and each test has a non-systematic error of 5% (ie. 95% reliable), then the resulting accuracy becomes 99.9999%.

The problem is lazy police work. It's easier to stop investigating once you've got your first piece of evidence and someone to pin it on. Then, just let the courts sort it out.

The expression, "better that a hundred guilty persons escape, than one innocent party suffers", must be reversed in the minds of any detective/prosecutor/judge/juror too lazy to do their job properly and obtain or expect sufficient evidence.

Re:Not in the article

[jhol13]

"I'm all for investigation into these technologies... but none of them are mature enough yet to be used in criminal investigations responsibly."

Are you claiming that police cannot use those responsibly? Why not? If they know the technolgy is 99% effective they can question most if not all, but detain only those whose questioning and/or other evidence gives reason for that.

Even with 99.9% detaining and humiliating them would be a horrible thing to do, kids in prison for no reason ...

One can always remain anon if he tries hard enough

[Anonymous Coward]

If a person is reasonable intelligent, and a loner, I have no doubt that covering tracks would be possible if one really wanted to.

Don't talk on social media.
Don't tell anyone.
Buy supplies with cash in different locations, spread over significant time.
Wear different clothing/hat/sunglasses and don't ever use them before of after the event.
Die your hair, shave, obscure your style and gender.
Don't drive a car, anywhere.
Don't do obvious stuff like use cellphones in the operation.

Fortunately, the type of people capable of this kind of stuff tend not to be the brightest bulbs.

computers

[Anonymous Coward]

Computer, enhance!

I wonder if they tried. I know from various TV documentaries that it works.

Re:computers

[tehcyder]

Computer, enhance!

I wonder if they tried. I know from various TV documentaries that it works.

The really clever bit is when they turn a 2D photo into 3D then spin it through 180 degrees so you can see the suspect's face and not just the back of his head. It makes you wonder how criminals get away with anything nowadays.

What proprietary formats?

[SuperKendall]

I would think most video would be from iPhone or Android devices, neither of which shoots in a proprietary video format.

Unless you are talking about something like a Red? But even those use industry standard raw digital video formats.

At this point there are really only a handful of video formats and codecs in wide use, none proprietary.

Re:What proprietary formats?

[nomel]

"different proprietary formats of video from security cameras"

Since when are iPhone and Android devices considered security cameras?

Re:What proprietary formats?

[servognome]

The most important evidence probably comes from closed circuit security systems, since they are running constantly, monitored, time stamped, etc.
Guessing all the security companies have their own formats for data archiving and transmission, not to mention many of these systems are probably out of date because they've worked well enough for years.

I bet most of these CCTV systems don't even implement the CSI "enhance" feature so useful in criminal investigation.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster...

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation: 4chan accused everybody with a black backpack of being the bomber. Especially if they were caught looking at a girl's ass instead of the shitty view of the marathon.

And none of them match the FBI's person of interest description.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster...

[girlintraining]

4chan may have found them... http://imgur.com/a/sUrnA

They also found Natalie Portman, naked and petrified, thousands of times. 4Chan is not exactly a bastion of reliable information. Now I get what you're saying about crowdsourcing, but there's another, older term, for this sort of thing:

Witch hunt.

Re:The rumor mill

[Arker]

It's worse than you realise - the Saudi national you describe as 'still just a witness' with the first word implying suspicion - that fella was never a suspect, nor is he a witness other than incidentally, he's a victim. The Islamophobia is palpable.

Ok, even then...

[SuperKendall]

Aren't some security cameras Android based?

But even then, it seems like most security cameras use standard formats. So the question stands.

Re:Ok, even then...

[kwerle]

I know nothing about this subject. But I recall someone asking about [open source] software to run a [set of] security cameras and complaining that there are a lot of different formats and no standards. It could have been on /., but I can't find a ref.

So it seems like this might be a real problem - if only one that affects very few people.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster...

[russotto]

Translation: 4chan accused everybody with a black backpack of being the bomber. Especially if they were caught looking at a girl's ass instead of the shitty view of the marathon.

Yes. And they didn't take into account whether there's any way a pressure cooker would fit inside said backpack, probably because they have never seen a pressure cooker.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno

[greentshirt]

I agree with most of this but you don't need to kill your hair, simply coloring it would be enough.

Good luck with all that technology

[Geste]

"Ultimately this will be a case study in whether an individual bent on destruction can remain anonymous in an era of digital surveillance"

I would say that someone bent on destruction and bent on anonymity stands a very good chance of achieving both if they are canny and use commodity goods like pressure cookers, nails and match heads. I am preparing myself for the possibility that the perpetrator/s may never be identified. Depressing.

The nature of this thread disturbs me. That we somehow might get a jump on perceived opponents and/or frank miscreants with technology. What say Robert S, McNamara? Vietnam? Iraq, anyone?

During the late 70s I worked in an emergency room in Boston (my bittersweet home town). A regular visitor was a nervous, disturbing cop who had been farmed out to the graveyard shift after killing an innocent citizen, James Bowden, in Mission Hill. We had to put up with "Eddie" because we depended on the local police district when things got out of control.

But the number of criminal suspects (mostly minorities) they brought us who "fell down the stairs" never inspired confidence. As the city then waded through the racist swamp of the Charles Stuart case, that confidence only decreased. Police seemed much more interested in arresting "them" than solving crimes. I hear things have improved since I left Boston in the late 80s. I hope so.

So how about we put all of the technology in its proper perspective and lets see if the FBI and Boston PD can move beyond their checkered past and deliver some police work.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster...

[thisisauniqueid]

Update: these two guys were also photographed after the bombing, standing next to a police van, with their backpacks still on: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hahatango/8653970482/sizes/o/in/set-72157633252445135/ So at least those weren't the same backpacks that exploded.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster...

[Kielistic]

I'm pretty sure the "same skin tone" was part of their reasoning that the two people in one photo were the same two people in the other photo. Not, these two people are the same colour but the two people in that photo are the same as the two in this photo with evidence such as they have the same corresponding skin tones.

Woosh? Maybe?

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster...

[girlintraining]

Yes. And they didn't take into account whether there's any way a pressure cooker would fit inside said backpack, probably because they have never seen a pressure cooker.

I have. One could fit inside a backpack. But it would be a bloated backpack -- you'd have to carry/hold it. Trying to walk with a giant metal can rolling back and forth against your back would make you stand out in a crowd. And given the amount of materials they estimate to be in the backpack, there's a good chance it would rip the seams open if you tried, letting your makeshift bomb fall out before getting it to the target.

Which means that, in all likelihood, you're looking for someone carrying a backpack, not wearing it.

Is this going to start happening more often?

[jimmetry]

marathon run...
bomb goes off...
hundreds injured...
into hospital...
in come the businessmen...
"here's your free treatment, ma'am"...
fleet of cyborgs now living in downtown Boston...

Re:Is this going to start happening more often?

[tehcyder]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Re:Is this going to start happening more often?

[jimmetry]

Just deduced from all the different news stories :\ "there will be a lot of amputees", said they... while charities begin to ramp up their efforts...

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno

[girlintraining]

Don't talk on social media.
Don't tell anyone.
Buy supplies with cash in different locations, spread over significant time.
Wear different clothing/hat/sunglasses and don't ever use them before of after the event.
Die your hair, shave, obscure your style and gender.
Don't drive a car, anywhere.
Don't do obvious stuff like use cellphones in the operation.

You do realize that everything you just listed is what the Department of Homeland Security trains people are the things terrorists do, right? Let me tell you something about walking through the woods unnoticed; Don't try and cover your tracks. Every attempt to cover them is, in actuality, disturbing the surroundings even more. It makes you easier to track. If you want to go unseen in the world, step lightly and deliberately, and don't move in a straight line towards your destination. Take a circular route. Walk where others have walked (deer trails, for example). Disturb little, move erratically, sleep lightly, and nobody will find you.

Which is what anyone who's spent any amount of time outdoors can tell you. It's common sense. The advice you're offering, if followed, would be like shooting a flare up, saying "Hi, I'm over here!" Terrorists aren't stupid. They aren't exactly smart either, but they do plan. A lot. In detail. Because they know what's coming after them when they're done: A bunch of very pissed off Marines. And intelligence isn't really important, not nearly as much as planning. That's why 9/11 happened. That's why terrorism survives to this day, despite all our efforts to stop it. They aren't stupid.

Never underestimate your opponent. If you're going to catch terrorists, you have to think like one. And you sir, are a terrible impersonation of a terrorist. The real ones know better. Which is unfortunate. If they were more like you, we'd have won the war on terror by now.

Doctors, nurses were very near the attack site ...

[perpenso]

Well, the emergency response seemed to be on the ball, minimizing the damage.

Circumstances greatly facilitated that. There were doctors, nurses and medical personnel on site near the finish line. Marathon organizers put together a huge medical team. The minutes saved by being very near to the attack site surely saved lives.

Now we get to see whether the surveillance technologies are up to scratch after the fact.

At an event like this I'd wager cell phone photos and videos dwarf the traditional surveillance cameras.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster...

[darkstar949]

Off hand I'm pretty sure those two guys are some sort of police that are trying to keep a low profile.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno

[Opportunist]

In this time and age, I would not count on that last statement holding true. How many bright people were swindled out of their money, home and future by the irresponsibility of banks?

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno

[Opportunist]

Why brag about it at all? I certainly wouldn't. Although I'd probably make sure some kind of statement finds its way into the press to make sure people understand why I did it.

Though... it ain't my style. It sure isn't really an interesting target. The chance to hit someone who can be exploited to make me look like a monster is far too high.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno

[Opportunist]

Depends on your usual facial hair. Sure, if you usually run around like Santa's come to town, it is a long lasting change.

The opposite seems to be more suitable. If you get away from the public for 2 weeks or so, it should allow you to grow a nice beard that is easily removed again once you're done.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster...

[Opportunist]

Depends on the quality of the backpack and how you store the item inside. It's quite hard to tell after an explosion what else may have been in the backpack, maybe he did "pad" it, or did so for the transport. I, for one, would have a second backpack inside that I would take out after planting the bomb so I could wear that instead. Else, all the cameras have to do is look for the guy who had a backpack before and doesn't have one after a certain moment in time.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster...

[Opportunist]

That's no longer the politically correct term, please refrain from calling it that. We ask you to use the term "war on terror" now. Thank you for your cooperation.

Re:The rumor mill

[Opportunist]

Dude, when the police comes knocking and wants you to come with them "as a witness", get a lawyer! Now!

"As a witness" is a nice circumvention of the law here where they had to tell you why you're being arrested if you're being arrested.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster...

[pspahn]

And none of them match the FBI's person of interest description.

What about the two guys, one with the black backpack, the other with a shoulder type bag, who are later seen heading in the direction of where the second bomb went off, one of them no longer with a bag?

Re:Misdirection

[Opportunist]

For gun laws? C'mon, that story holds no water. To get rigid gun legislation, shouldn't a gun have been used? Or many? Where's the logic in "Hmm, someone blew up a house, let's tighten gun laws"? If someone sat on top of a building and sniped away at people reaching the goal line, I could see some connection, but bombs? C'mon, at least try to find some connection if you call it a conspiracy.

If you say that they want to tighten chemical control, now that's something we could start discussing (even though... I'd be hard pressed to find out what else they could regulate, monitor or outright forbid in that area, ever tried getting sodium persulfate lately? And that's not even bomb material (at least not that I'm aware of and no, I don't want to discuss it, lest someone reads it and feels the pressing urge to take away one of the last chemicals I can still get, with some hassle, that I can use to etch PCBs!).

But back on topic. Do you HONESTLY think they need to blow up shit to gain public support for tighter gun laws? The support is already there in some parts of the public. The amount of "gun nuts", people who dare to consider at least one part of the constitution important, is rather small. Very vocal, but also very small. Think banning assault rifles or making getting them hard enough that 99% of the people wouldn't bother would cause more than a "tsk" from 99% of the population? Doubt it.

When you want to make it a conspiracy, make it one for something where support is lacking. Like, say, yet another war.

Crowdsourcing means nothing

[Zynder]

Since you did go Godwin, let me say this: There was a time here in America pre 1865, when the majority of (white) men thought that those of African descent and those of the female gender (heaven forbid if you were both female and African!) were inferior folks and no better than property. Just because a majority feels something is right and good does not mean it is. That is why very few pure Democracies have stood the test of time. This is also the whole reason for the existence of the scientific method. You need empirical evidence, true proof if you will, that something is or is not. Emotions fool us all the time. The laws of physics are a cold hearted bitch though.

Also be aware when you say "predispositon to violence" you walk that razor's edge of falling prey to stereotypes. There is still plenty of conjecture and debate regarding Nature vs. Nurture because that happens to be an area where easy math formulae such as E=mc^2 just don't seem manifest. For instance, I grew up poor. I am not poor any longer. In your words, "most other rational thinking people" often throw the stereotype around that if you grew up poor then you will be poor your whole life, that you will end up in jail as a criminal most likely for drugs or gang violence, an so on. A person should not be judged on where they came from, grew up, race, etc. Their own merits speak all on their own. Look at that.

I have not researched this particular killer in any detail. This is actually the first time I have heard of him. However, his military career was evidently impeccable, all previous evaluations of him seemed normal, there were no issues with law enforcement at any time previous to the shooting then up to that point, "most rational people" would have called him an upstanding citizen and hero. But he knew something was wrong, he knew he was fucked up, and when he did the rational thing and sought medical help, he got turned away. That tumor continued unabated and we have known for ages that tumors can cause you to go crazy, lose motor functions, sieze, etc. Well look what the evidence shows us: a man that wasn't crazy, who goes crazy, and upon autopsy find a tumor in his brain in an area that we now know today controls your aggressive behaviors. That's a walking, quacking duck right there. So let's call it a duck ummkay?

I can tell why you seem so incensed and defensive in your response. You feel that by girlintraining's & my stance that we will be soft on criminals, that we will excuse thier behavior, and by being this way "justice" won't be served (check out her paragraph on bad things just happening and revenge). You may even believe that if we can't blame the bad man for being bad then we may blame you as in "society failed him." Speaking for myself, I can say that the act itself should not be excused. He killed alot of people and that is a heinous thing. However, those family's that lost people that day, still grieve today even though justice was served by his death. The best way to honor them, and make them feel that thier sacrifices were not in vain, would be to prevent this from happening again but as girl pointed out you simply can't effectively do that until you understand the problem.

So to answer your final question, why should we believe her over consensus? We shouldn't. We should give them equal consideration with the facts that we know. I know science and I know how mob rule works and mob rule is the last thing one should defer to.

Re:Crowdsourcing means nothing

[girlintraining]

Also be aware when you say "predispositon to violence" you walk that razor's edge of falling prey to stereotypes.

I thought it was a pretty clear indication that he hadn't just walked it, but decided to make a running start and go leaping off.

In your words, "most other rational thinking people" often throw the stereotype around that if you grew up poor then you will be poor your whole life, that you will end up in jail as a criminal most likely for drugs or gang violence, an so on. A person should not be judged on where they came from, grew up, race, etc. Their own merits speak all on their own. Look at that.

In conservative circles, we refer to this kind of wild conjecture and vague allusionary statements as conclusive proof. See also: Fox news. And the funny thing is? People who run around screaming "I'm the sanest one here!" usually aren't, anymore than people who yell on internet forums "I'm rational! I'm so very, very rational!" ... :)

That's a walking, quacking duck right there. So let's call it a duck ummkay?

"B-b-b-ut, that doesn't fit with my worldview, therefore it must be wrong!" See also: Cognitive dissonance. And my good man, you've hit upon a goldmine of it with the GP. He feels threatened by the idea that this sort of thing could happen to anyone and by anyone, I mean him. Because if an upstanding and heroic person can, through no fault of his own, go straight to crazytown, then that means that all the notions of punishment and fire and brimstone and raise the pitchforks hu-ra are all bullshit rationalizations... and what is needed here is compassion instead of vengance. But vengance feels so good... and compassion more like that bread they put out at the table while you wait for the main course.

So to answer your final question, why should we believe her over consensus? We shouldn't. We should give them equal consideration with the facts that we know. I know science and I know how mob rule works and mob rule is the last thing one should defer to.

Fair point. And I agree; I claim no special access to the truth. I am merely advocating the position that an enhanced understanding of the causes of violence will likely lead to more effective treatments for it. I haven't said anything, at any point, about the judicial response to what he did... which was to kill him. Whether it's a bear trying to eat members of the public, or a guy with a brain lesion trying to pump them full of lead, really makes no difference: You have to stop it.

But we don't have to stop asking questions once it's over.

Re:Crowdsourcing means nothing

[operagost]

Since you did go Godwin, let me say this: There was a time here in America pre 1865, when the majority of (white) men thought that those of African descent and those of the female gender (heaven forbid if you were both female and African!) were inferior folks and no better than property.

[citation needed] (for "majority")

Re:Crowdsourcing means nothing

[tehcyder]

. In your words, "most other rational thinking people" often throw the stereotype around that if you grew up poor then you will be poor your whole life, that you will end up in jail as a criminal most likely for drugs or gang violence, an so on. A person should not be judged on where they came from, grew up, race, etc. Their own merits speak all on their own. Look at that.

Nonsense. It is a simple fact that most people born poor stay poor. It's not a question of judging them, just looking at the statistical probabilities.

The fact that you as an individual are no longer poor says absolutely nothing about whether most people born poor stay that way. Any real world situation has outliers.

It is pure rightwing elitist-individualistic garbage to say that anyone can make anything of themselves, and that therefore we shouldn't worry about poverty, racism or anything else because if you're strong enough you'll rise above your beginnings.

Re:Crowdsourcing means nothing

[Archangel Michael]

He doesn't have any, he is just a Leftwing parrot repeating what they tell him at Weather Underground, and Earth First Meetings, in an effort to dismiss some of the best legal thoughts that are the basis for our country, which they hate. If they loved it, they would respect those that paved the way for the rights and Constitution we are supposed to be defending.

These people hate that piece of paper, because it limits their plans and goals for their brand of tyranny. They work feverishly to chip away, and diminish it, because they cannot attack it directly. So they work on incrementalism that if people realized how it was working, would round them all up as co-conspirators of treason.

Next time, someone mentions something about wanting gun control, stop them, and ask them if they are willing to stop hiding in the shadows and ask for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, the proper form of establishing gun control. If they answer no, then simply say to them, that they don't want legal gun control, they want to undermine our Constitution, and are traitors to their country.

IF you want gun control, do it properly, repeal the 2nd Amendment, otherwise any other form of gun control is treason. Period.

Re:Crowdsourcing means nothing

[Archangel Michael]

Not really trolling. I'm just sick and tired of Parrots who get traction because nobody calls them out on their bird brain ideas.

Re:Crowdsourcing means nothing

[Zynder]

Well it's a good thing that I'm not a rightwing elitist-individual. I'm socially liberal, believe in equal rights for all, and think that it is indeed those asshats at the top who are fucking us over. I said I wasn't poor. I'm not rich either- barely middle class. When did looking out for your fellow man, asking people not to judge one based on his race, religion, color, or creed become a RIGHT WING doctrine? Keep changing those definitions to suit your beliefs. If all you can do is call me names, I think I've won here.

Re:Crowdsourcing means nothing

[Zynder]

I think we agree here, and I'm on your side. That last statement is simply how I roll. If someone makes a claim, I look at their presentation of facts and evidence, and then I look at the other side. I do not defaultly believe anyone. Your arguments presented excellent reality based assements & facts that I could not debunk. His side did not. I joined your side. In the future, should you make another claim, I will assess your facts, weigh them against the opposing viewpoint and judge at that time. Just because I liked what you said once, doesn't get you a free pass forever. Though looking historically every post of yours that I have read has deserved the mods it has gotten. People like you are why I still come to this "dying" site. Everyone should be this objective. It is true skepticism (and no true Scotsman doesn't wear a kilt!). We'd stop getting the wool pulled over our eyes much less often!

Re:Crowdsourcing means nothing

[chargersfan420]

Wow. Your post reads so far past what I was attempting to say that I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. I'm not here to argue about how we treated people in America pre-1865, and I'm not here to make blatent generalizations about poor people. Please don't put words in my mouth.

All I am here to argue about is in my humble opinion, it is clear that Charles Whitman did have a lot of exposure to violence, especially at an early age, and that *likely* contributed to his actions. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please see my latest reply to girlintraining and note how I point out that this issue isn't as black-and-white as either of you make it out to be.

I can tell why you seem so incensed and defensive in your response

That's odd; I don't think I conveyed either of those things. I have no idea where you got that impression.

Re:Crowdsourcing means nothing

[Zynder]

I was not attempting to put words in your mouth. I gave an example, the slavery part, of why deferring to consensus will get you bit. You did claim consensus should negate her opinion because the way that whole last paragraph reads, it's implied. If you weren't attempting to imply anything, restate your argument.

You do claim violence *likely* contributed. This I completely disagree with. There is no evidence that the Nature vs. Nurture argument has been settled. Your argument says if daddy beat him then he is more likely to beat others. Stats will say if I am poor then I am more likely to stay poor. Both of those statements are negated everyday by people like me. And before you claim outlier, read my stats post response to tehcyder which is in this thread.

Why did I think you were offended/incensed/defensive? Because girlintraining's post was mostly neutral (that sensationalist garbage part did start sway it the other way though I'll concede) and fairly compassionate but you took the complete opposite stance and used words such as "screams predisposition." People who scream are often offended. To back that up, your last post, when boiled down, said "the writers of wiki all agree so why listen to you?" That is why I can rule out that you weren't screaming because you were happy or excited. Those little words, man, what a pain in the ass. Everyday laws are negated & criminals set free because of how something is worded. Us debaters call that rules lawyering and it'll make or break any argument.

And finally it was because you played the Godwin card. That's what even caught my attention in the first place. Had you not said it, I probably wouldn't have even responded. The Godwin card is like a nuke. You don't fire that one off unitl you got nothing left, a hail Mary if you will. To open with it is generally an attempt to shutdown discussion completely because it's a corollary to it's definition which is: the longer a debate goes on, the likely hood of someone mentioning Hitler or Nazi's increases exponentially. The commonly accepted corollary to that is once it does, game over man! Godwin's have alot of power. With great power comes great responsibility. Don't just go throwing them out there!

Re:Crowdsourcing means nothing

[chargersfan420]

You did claim consensus should negate her opinion because the way that whole last paragraph reads, it's implied.

Perhaps that was poor wording on my part. All I was trying to state was that if we were to believe girlintraining any more than we are to believe wikipedia, I simply wanted her to back up her claims that Whitman was "normal". Now that she has provided citations from medical experts to make her case, I applaud her efforts. But people are entitled to their own opinion, and she failed to sway mine. Speaking of that,...

You do claim violence *likely* contributed. This I completely disagree with.

I think it is fair at this point that we agree to disagree. Nature vs. Nurture may not be settled scientifically, but since I am entitled to my opinion, I'm going to keep believing that nurture has a profound impact on human beings. To me, the Whitman story reinforces that point. If you wish to believe I am wrong, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, too.

Why did I think you were offended/incensed/defensive? [...] People who scream are often offended.

Again, poor choice of words on my part, and for that I apologize. My intention was to post a somewhat neutral position, but my last sentence certainly didn't help that cause.

And finally it was because you played the Godwin card. That's what even caught my attention in the first place. Had you not said it, I probably wouldn't have even responded.

It's funny, this is what prompted me to reply to you this time, too. People need to stop putting so much emphasis on the "Godwin card". Why is it that people's brains just shut down the minute Hitler or Nazi's come into an argument? I will concede that it is abused, but that doesn't mean any argument should be dismissed the moment it makes an appearance. People can carefully play that card without unraveling their own argument, and it seems to be your belief that this isn't the case is what makes these arguments break down. I was only trying to say that a person's life, or karma, if you will, can't be boiled down to a couple of sentences about their life. In this case I think I did play it carefully. Would my point really be any different if I had picked another example? And if I had chosen one much less well known, my point wouldn't have gotten across with anyone who had never heard of them and had to run off to Wikipedia to find out what I was talking about. (which incidentally is what led both of us to find out just who the hell this Whitman guy was in the first place...)

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno

[dcollins]

"Don't do obvious stuff like use cellphones in the operation."

CBS News tonight:

"[CBS News correspondent Bob] Orr said authorities have video of a man in a black jacket on a cell phone, wearing a gray hoodie and a white baseball cap backwards placing a black bag at the second bomb site outside of the Forum restaurant on Boylston Street and then leaving the area before that explosion. Orr said the man was on the phone at the second bomb site when the first bomb exploded. Orr said the FBI determined the time the man was on his cell phone, then went back and scanned all the calls made in the area to track who they wanted to talk to."

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/17/cnn-boston-marathon-bombings-suspect-identified-in-surveillance-video/

The Survey

[SuperKendall]

Would you try to stop a brother or sister from dating someone who had previously been hospitalized for a suicide attempt?

No, why would I?

Would you be willing to closely work with a person who was rumored to have bipolar II disorder?

Of course as long as they could do the work.

If you were hiring a person for a job or renting a house, would it bother you if that person revealed an anxiety disorder? Depression? Schizophrenia? How would their compliance to medication affect your view?

I am in fact a landlord and I don't care about ANY of those things. At all. Again, why on earth would it?

If you knew a woman who had a mental illness, would you recommend an abortion if she became pregnant?

I think I'd let her decide what was right for her instead of forcing and pre-conceived notions I might have on her.

Do you think a person with a serious mental illness should be able to vote? To drive?

Sure if it does not affect the ability to do those things.

Do you think "due process" to contest confinement should be applicable to those who have been diagnosed with a mental illness?

Of course it should.

Your survey, as usual for that kind of things, reveals way more about YOUR perceptions of people than it does about how people actually react to mental illness. Very few people would answer any differently than myself for most of those questions.

Do YOU think that someone diagnosed with a mental illness should be able to buy a gun? I do, because I realize that the term "mental illness" is absurdly broad.

Re:The Survey

[canadiannomad]

Sure..... And only 20% of statistics are made up....

Re:The Survey

[tehcyder]

Do YOU think that someone diagnosed with a mental illness should be able to buy a gun? I do, because I realize that the term "mental illness" is absurdly broad.

No it isn't. "Mental illness" is a clinical diagnosis. Calling yourself depressed because you're a bit fed up is not.

On the subject of guns, anyone who has shown serious signs of harming themselves or others should not be allowed anywhere near firearms, simple as that. And no, I don't care about their fucking constitutional right to bear arms. The safety of the community as a whole is more important than your ability to express yourself creatively through violence.

Re:The Survey

[Hognoxious]

Missing question: Do you believe that people's answers to hypothetical questions bear any resemblance to how they'd actually behave?

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno

[Intrepid imaginaut]

The only thing that would cause problems for a terrorist in that list is changing your hair colour. If you immediately show up with a different hairstyle and colour after a terrorist event, people are going to ask questions, much better to shave your head constantly and then wear a wig. The rest is either untraceable or useless even if it is traced. Of course it's barely a start if one really wanted to commit an act of terror, but in and of itself there isn't much wrong with it.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno

[hairyfish]

Because none of that would raise any suspicions with your family, friends, workmates or neighbours (if you had any). Your problem is that even though you have no social skills (ie a loner) the people in your community do, and part of those skills involve identifying strange behaviour in others.
Where do you live? Who do you pay rent to? Where do you buy your food? If you don't drive where do you buy your train/bus tickets? (all the transport and stations here have cameras), how do you research your masterplan with no phone or internet? You think the people at the library or internet cafe not going to think it strange when some androgynous weirdo comes in each day with different coloured hair doing google searches for home made bombs? How about the girl at the hair dye selling shop? It's a lot harder than you think to get "off the grid".

This. Blood Levels

[ThatsNotPudding]

There have been studies done linking lead poisoning to aggression control -- after banning lead in gasoline, the crime rate in every country that did so dropped within a few years by double-digit percentages.

I keep thinking those that were literally raised in gun culture (and within the mist of lead it generates) can be explained by this phenomena. An enlightened society would conduct a thorough and statistically meaningful study of those that were 'gun raised' and ended up putting them to their inevitable use; I think the correlation between their actions (including domestic abuse) and their lead contaminated development would be very strong. Then again, an enlightened society wouldn't be awash in easily accessable weapons in the first place.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno

[should_be_linear]

So, it is enough to filter people buying sunglasses, without car and facebook account?

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno

[tehcyder]

The two best disguises for a terrorist I can think of are:

1. A normal-looking, middle-aged. white, middle class guy with a travelling salsman-type job, car, suburban house and family. You can go most places without question, no one's going to remember a guy in a cheap suit eating a sandwich in his car at lunchtime (or whatever).

2. A youngish student in a student city. No matter what colour you dye your hair, or how late you wander around singing drunkenly, no one's going to bat an eyelid.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster...

[tehcyder]

Most of the 4chan "suspects" looked like undercover Special Forces types to me.

I expect conspiracy theorists are already working on this.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster...

[tehcyder]

And none of them match the FBI's person of interest description.

What about the two guys, one with the black backpack, the other with a shoulder type bag, who are later seen heading in the direction of where the second bomb went off, one of them no longer with a bag?

You do realise the bare possibility that, in the aftermath of the shock of having a fucking bomb go off next to him, and possibly seeing his friend's leg blown off, he dropped the bag in a state of some little confusion?

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster...

[tehcyder]

Off hand I'm pretty sure those two guys are some sort of police that are trying to keep a low profile.

I thought "not-very-convincingly-civilian-looking off-duty military" myself. But they could equally have just been a couple of butch gays.

Re:The rumor mill

[tehcyder]

Some of us wait for our news to be be verified by a proper news source like the BBC or a decent newspaper quoting an actual law enforcement officer before assuming that someone is a suspect.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster...

[TCQuad]

The men on the front page of the Post today?

CBS News reported that the FBI sources said it wasn't them (they're not white, 6'2", wearing the right clothes or... well, anything like the suspect).

Muslims

[NewYork]

The Arabic countries led by the Muslims were the most advanced scientists and engineers in the world, until they let the religious crazies take over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_science_and_engineering_in_the_Islamic_world

FAIL TROLL

[Zynder]

OH FAIL TROLL IS FAIL!

I didn't mention anything about the second amendment. We were talking about ways to prevent future crimes and I never once even typed the word "gun." I am not Leftwing. There is no party that represents me, though in social matters I am liberal. I hate the Fuck You I Got Mine mentality that is destroying us. I want to help raise up our nation, including assholes like you. I don't necessarily want gun control, I want the US to stop being the world's #1 incarcerator of its citizens, to rehabilitate instead of seek vengeance, and to return to the glory the old timers tell me stories about. I LOVE me some Constitution. It was a pretty good document as it was laid out, and I will argue TOO well written, since evidently the powers that be can't get what they want without utterly ignoring, twisting, or rewriting it! I served in this nation's military. Don't tell me I hate my country. And of course if you were too busy flying high in heaven "Archangel" then you need to come back down here to Earth and THANK ME for defending your right to spew your vitriol in my face.

Citation not needed

[Zynder]

I love how out of everything I wrote, you thought you found a weakness in my armor with the word majority. You failed. The US had slavery. This is a fact. It was not condoned by everyone, sure, but it took almost 100 years (1776-1861) before enough people finally got fed up with it enough to revolt. That is another fact. There were enough people who wanted it to remain the status quo that they started a civil war over it! Sure it was State's Rights: The State's right to own slaves. You can spin it all kinds of ways but that's just how it is. The results speak for themselves.

Even today, there are plenty of crimes that you can be convicted of for only KNOWING it was happening. Sure you may not have killed that guy, but you were there, you saw it, and you did nothing to stop it. That's accessory to murder, conspiracy to murder and a whole bunch of other crimes. A majority of the population knew and condoned the use of slaves for nearly 100 years. Finally that majority became the minority and we ousted that barbaric practice. That is a dark and evil blight on our nation and we should fight tooth and nail to ensure heinous things like that NEVER become reality again.

When I hear people screaming [Citation Needed], I prepare 2 responses. One, you are ignorant or lazy and I drop some education on ya. Or Two, you are being a fecetious troll, trying to make me appear ignorant so you can discredit me because you don't actually have any kind of logical argument to thwart my assertations. You failed on that account. I got history on my side.

Re:Citation not needed

[Bloke down the pub]

Even today, there are plenty of crimes that you can be convicted of for only KNOWING it was happening. Sure you may not have killed that guy, but you were there, you saw it, and you did nothing to stop it. That's accessory to murder, conspiracy to murder and a whole bunch of other crimes.

[citation most definitely needed]

Well you failed then

[Zynder]

You didn't call me out on any brain dead idea. I didn't propose ANY solution. I simply said that the key to prevention is learning the cause and understanding the process if you want success. You call that a brain dead idea? The American business & scientific community would beg to differ with you. That's the basis for the Scientific Method and ISO:9000 among many other types of Quality Control, Hazard Analysis, & Risk Management.

YOU made this a gun control debate. You ASSUMED (and assuming makes an ASS out of U and ME) I was talking about guns. I never even mentioned a gun. You're a Thread Hijacker and declare you to be an Internet Terrorist. How do you like dem apples?

And one other thing

[Zynder]

I love me some statistics. So where we agree here is that statistically, the poor do have a higher probablity to stay poor. But then you claim my experience doesn't say anything about the staistics because you fire off the classic "You're an outlier" response. Do you actually do any statistics? So many folks throw out the outlier excuse that one could conceivably claim that anything not exactly on the median is an outlier! That's preposterous! That's the whole basis of the 3 & 6 Sigma rules. A guesstimation, because I don't have a spreadsheet full of figures available right now, is that I'm not even 1 sigma away from the mean. I make 70k a year for a family of 4. That isn't even double what the IRS claims is poverty level which I believe was 45k-ish for a family of 4. When you talk outliers you have to quantify that with your confidence level. 3 sigma confidence claims that all values will be within 3 standard deviations from the mean 99.7% of the time. What is that 0.3%? THOSE are the outliers. Yeah I got out of poverty, cause I make more than the poverty level, but I sure as hell didn't make it to the top!

SCIENCE BITCHES. IT. JUST. WORKS.