1) If something is in plain view, it can be evidence used to justify a search. I suppose it's a plausible interpretation that the heat something gives off could be considered in plain view when looking through an infrared camera. However, an x-ray scan is hardly plain view because it's an active scan, relying on backscatter in the case of these vans. Can any evidence collected from these vans, or evidence collected on the basis thereof, be admissible in court?
This is why they don't want to give any records of how and when these are used (and I'll bet you they'll fight the release of anything resembling *details* even harder). Right now, they can zap you with the machine, and then have an officer (possibly even an officer who isn't in on the trick) investigate you for "suspicious activity". When they detain, search, and find whatever the X-ray saw, it'll be recorded as based on the officer's judgement. The X-ray won't be mentioned, meaning the issue will never come up. See "parallel construction".
2) Is this safe?
Probably not. If you could prove that they were doing it to you - which you can't (see 1)
3) The NYPD is refusing to say what these vans are used for. If the NYPD won't say how they're being used, how do people know their privacy isn't being invaded and they're not being exposed to harmful radiation?
You don't know. And you can't complain, because you can't prove that they used it on you - and thus your rights haven't been violated. (see 1). Isn't this fun?
4) Because these vans are being paid for with tax dollars, don't people have a right to know how they're being used? How do the people know this is a necessary expense and the taxpayers aren't being ripped off?
Because the police told you it was a necessary expense to fight terrorism. We'd explain why, but the three-letter-agencies told it was a national security issue and we signed some paperwork agreeing we wouldn't discuss it with anyone.
5) At what point is it no longer acceptable to justify any and every form of surveillance under the excuse of terrorism? This is a tired refrain that has already been used to justify far too many abuses. Terrorism is the new communism, and I hope one day we'll be able to ridicule many of the things we've done just as we find McCarthyism and the red scare laughably absurd.
This will end when a politicians uses the terrorist card and the public openly mocks him for doing it. But given that "Soft On Crime" is still a working strategy, I think you're no-where near that point.
I used to buy the seasons from iTunes to watch with my daughter (because science!), until Discovery Canada started being insanely stupid with their release dates. OK, here's ep 1, next week 2, next week.. nothing? Oh, three weeks later is ep 3. (But we're already on episode 6? WTF?). The final straw was when the rest of the season dropped in one batch... after the *next* season had already completed airing!)
So, I may go back and get the seasons I'm missing to watch with the munchkin.
Also, the true star of that show is, was, and always will be Jamie. Sure, the other four are all fun and bouncy and screwing around. But Hyneman is the guy I'd pick to follow around for a day and buy a beer afterwards.
Women generally don't want to code. That's why every SWJ brings up Grace Hopper as THE icon. Yeah, I know about the pic of the woman that coded the lunar landing and the code that's stacked taller than see is. So that's two.
Look people, most women don't want to code. It's ok. Nothing wrong with that. Stop forcing things because you think a 50/50 split is the only "fair" way.
Oh, and asking someone to pay afterwards only if she gets a job is a FANTASTIC economic plan.
And no-one has asked *why* they "don't want to code"? It's in the sweet spot of well-paying without being construction/trades manual labor - you'd think a decent proportion of office clerk / admin ass't / secretary workers would love to move into that space.
And asking to pay afterwards is a great move - that's signalling that they're confident enough that women programmers will find jobs that they're willing to bet their own money on that market existing.
Sorry. A guy in Florida was fined $48000 by the FCC for operating a cell phone jammer in his car to prevent others near him from using their phones.
Which makes that guy terribly dumb - he was running it non-stop for almost two years, driving the same routine every day. (Yes, they used "sophisticated techniques" to find him - or, you sit with a cell phone and a video camera on the overpass for a week, and see which cars always show up when your signal drops. Not to mention that he wasn't bright enough to turn it *off* when the cops pulled him over.
That's not a problem with flat management - no matter what the org chart says, there's the people who get listened to because they know what they're talking about, or because they golf with the boss. I've seen cases where someone could order around folks who were several layers higher on the official org chart (and in a different department to boot) because they had the phone number of the president on speed dial. It's why you're polite to the receptionist and the payroll clerk - they can easily make your life miserable without being remotely in a "position of authority".
That, coupled with their tenuous release schedule (to put it mildly), makes Valve a perfect argument against this sort of structure.
And yet, Valve is by all accounts still making money (or at least enough money to keep the owners happy). So it's hard to argue that it's a failure, if it's making the people who pay the bills happy.
Exactly. My boss is great. She handles all the muckitymucks so all I have to do is sit in my box and code. I'm happy.
Of course, great managers have the same problem as great IT - the best evidence that they're doing their jobs really well is, a lack of evidence that anything is going wrong. But unfortunately the managers who get promoted are the ones who are running around putting out fires.
So I am not entirely sure that those were just "honest mistakes".
We can be a bit charitable and say that once they got the results they wanted/expected, they weren't as rigorous at checking the numbers as they should have been. (By contrast, I would expect that if the mistake had disproven their theory, they *would* have found that spreadsheet error.)
I do kind of feel for those guys - that's got to be embarassing to find out that you've made your bones on a typo.
And no, I do not feel the need to spend $1500 on a new machine just so advertisers can serve me up more ads faster.
Or you could uninstall Flash and Java. That would be free.
Why uninstall software they might need? Much simpler and more effective to simply refuse the ads.
Of course, what I would really like is an ad-blocker that still "hits" the page (so the owner gets credit), but simply blackholes the image/video instead of displaying it. (I'm firmly in the camp of "my browser does what I tell it to do, not what you tell it to do")
If what I say is untrue or grounds for harassment there are already laws in place to deal with that (as the GP suggested, that's what libel laws are for), but you would (as far as I understand such things) have to sue me for making the untrue statement and not my web host for enabling me to distribute it.
There may be grounds if the "web host" is putting ads on the site and therefore profiting from it.
After all, that's the real play they're making here - it's not Yelp, it's an extortionist version of Facebook or LinkedIn, where you'll need to regularly log in (and look at their ads and such) in order to make sure your next employment interview doesn't bring up some puppy-drowning incident you've never heard of before that moment.
You know, I had a friend in Canada who swore blind he saw 1960s episodes broadcast that are now missing but when this was mentioned to the upper echelons of Dr.Who fandom, we were told it wasn't true, his memory was faulty, or that he was wrong. The man is sure he was right, but to those of Fandom Royalty, it seemed to be much effort to check the basis of this story. It was much easier to label it as "rumour" or "wrong."
And it's entirely possible that he's right - a lot of the lost episodes are being found in the archives of foreign television stations. So it's not impossible that the network *did* air it, and then did whatever you do with old shows you didn't care about pre-reruns.
No. . Being a minor is not enough. The cops can and have questioned kids before. No Miranda does not say anything about it until the boy was under arrest. Being questioned - even if detained - does not equal under arrest. You are never under arrest when getting a speeding ticket but you are detained and often questioned.
Of course, you're also not required to answer questions unless you're under arrest. (See the classic "Don't Talk To Police"). And the child was obviously not free to go. So something is still wrong here. And it still doesn't answer why they didn't allow him to call his parents.
As for fake bomb. The first teacher he showed it to told him not to take it around school because it looked like it could be a bomb. My guess is that it actually looked like a bomb until you examined it closely.
Which is still on you, not him. And it begs the question of "where was he supposed to put it"? Is anyone going to claim that this would have went better if it was found in his locker?
But all this still misses the key problem - no one has shown any hint that this kid, at any time, intended this clock to be interpreted as a bomb. We can dissect the relative merits of a teenager's mechanical aptitude, judge his family life, and cast doubt on his character - but that doesn't change the fact that faking a bomb threat does, by definition, require claiming, hinting, or otherwise acting in a manner consistent with the idea that you have a bomb.
Now what evidence do you have to refute the fact that the kid is a fraud?
The fact that he's fourteen, and people seem to be forgetting that in junior high, being able to disassemble and (correctly) reassemble a COTS device is actually a bit ahead of the curve in most schools? It's junior high - most kids have never seen the inside of their Xbox, much less know how to do anything with it.
I'm not saying let's give the kid a Nobel. Hell, let's go one step further and take your idea - the kid is a total fraud who patched together something to brown nose a teacher. Last I checked, that wasn't cause for suspension and arrest. So *at worst*, he's the equal of every parent who does their child's science fair project so Little Timmy looks awesome.
Putting it that way, maybe we should be making more arrests...
I've looked and looked. I cannot find anything saying due process required parents outside of tv shows.
He's a minor. And if that's not enough, then Miranda says he should get a lawyer. But what you have is a combination of the police questioning him and the school not permitting him to leave (or call anyone). And I'm sure when the inevitable lawsuits come, the story will be that the school wasn't questioning him, and the cops weren't preventing him from leaving - while dismissing the reality that you've now confined someone without due process. And that still ignores the question of "why isn't the school calling the parents". Isn't this a disciplinary issue?
And you should investigate this a lot better. No-one started freaking out when he brought it to school. He showed two separate teacher- one of which said not to carry it around because it looks like a bomb. It wasn't until several classes latter that it went off in a class disrupting it while he opened the case and turned the alarm off. This is when he was asked why he still had it with him. The principal remembered suspending his sister for uttering a bomb threat and called the law reporting a fake bomb. The cops asked him why he had it and he refused to say anything so they arrested him.
I know , the real story is not as inciting as the popular narrative. But as far as i can tell, That's what happened
No, this still smells like BS. How is it a fake bomb? At any point, did this kid do *anything* to suggest, hint, or otherwise indicate that he wanted people to think he had a bomb? Or is this just another case of a school deciding that pop tarts in the shape of Idaho are a clear and present danger?
Well first of all, someone could have manufactured it for him. People have used little kids to give bombs to soldiers in war zones before - sacrificing the life of the child who didn't even know they were going to die. And secondly the GP was indicating that there was nothing in the box but electronics and therefore could not be a bomb. That's obviously not true.
And now we're adding "the US is a war zone" to the list of assumptions, along with "there's a mastermind and this kid is merely a pawn in his Dark Machinations", except that our mastermind is an idiot because he gave the "bomb" to the kid and told them to show it to the shop teacher. Also, since the school at no point reacts in a manner consistent with a suspicion that it was, is, or could possibly be a bomb, it doesn't matter that there could have been a Sooper Sekret Explosive there, because they didn't act in any manner consistent with such a concern.
Of course the kid couldn't manufacture a bomb. He couldn't even manufacture that clock. It was pulled out of an old alarm clock and that is obvious from the pictures. The fact that he clearly didn't manufacture anything DOES suggest to me that the kid was obviously up to something. Since it wasn't for a homework assignment, what exactly was he trying to accomplish?
Is there a reason we don't believe the answer he gave - that he was showing off to his shop teacher? (I think you may be underestimating the average electrical know-how of a junior high kid, by the way.) And that also begs the question - even if he's a complete suck up and show off who didn't do anything noteworthy... since when did that justify what happened to him?
His parents and attorney are distractions at this point. If a cop catches someone with a gun whether real or imitation, he can ask what the kid was planning to do with it without either. He wasn't under arrest until he failed to answer which gave suspicions of illegal intent. It seems that he even now needs prodding to tell the story if you believe Mark Cuban 's story.
No, they're due process at that point. He's at school and he's a minor. If you're going to call cops, you should be calling parents at the same time.
Also, what story do you expect this kid to have? He brought a clock to school, and everyone lost their freaking shit. They asked him what it was. He said "it's a clock". They said "you're lying". What else can this kid say? He's locked in a room, they won't let him call his parents - buttoning up was probably the best possible result for him. Hell, he did better than I would have done at his age.
Well, chicken finger kid got a suspension and sent home for the day. Pop-tart kid got a suspension. Only the Dinosaur Hunter (who interesting, is also the only other teenager on this list) got arrested. And Dinosaur Hunter (in theory) actually *did* talk about guns in school.
So for why, I'd give a couple reasons:
Clock Kid didn't even *do* the thing he's accused of. Which moves us up a rung from "massive over-reaction" to "teachers and cops are just making shit up".
There's some escalating reaction from the community as things just get dumber. Dinosaur Hunter's article even references PopTart. So, every time we hear about this sort of stupidity, you get just a bit *more* angry - which we should, because it gets harder to write it off as "oh, just an isolated incident / overzealous teacher".
To be a bit cynical and flippant for a moment, Dinosaur Guy was doing a creative writing exercise, and no-body cares about liberal arts in America. Meanwhile, Clock Kid may be a case of chasing away a potential STEM graduate (you know, future of the nation, shortage in the country, etc etc).
Also, he's getting a lot of attention from geeks who are watching this and thanking our lucky stars that we didn't grow up in this period. Half the stuff the teachers had us do in school in the 90s would get us arrested these days, I'd think.
Except maybe a bunch of bare electronics in an otherwise empty box.
Perhaps. I'm not saying that this high school kid had what he needed to do this but I am certain that someone who can manufacture C4 could also make said C4 fit inside the lining of an otherwise empty box. And yes, his box did appear to have a liner.
Also, we've now added "manufacture of explosives" to the skill set of this kid, while leaving out "how to write ransom demands" or "being smart enough not to carry an explosive on your person all day". Not to mention that we've now created a scenario where the school can recognize that C4 could be hidden inside this box (meaning IT COULD BE A BOMB!1!), but is either (a) smart enough to see that there *isn't* C4 present (and thus there's no need to evacuate), or (b) is too stupid to live, because they *didn't evacuate the school in the presence of a possible bomb*
Simply put: if we're going to say "oh, there COULD have been a bomb there", then we also need to ask "if they thought there could be a bomb, why didn't they follow procedure and evacuate?"
So what was it's purpose and when did he tell them? What is not true again?
He told the teacher in class, the principal at school, and the cops before they put the cuffs on him to take him away for interrogation. And "interrogation" was the word the police used, no Ahmed.
This is a good time to mention that the kid asked for his parents to be called, and they refused. And then interrogated him, without the presence of either his attorney or his parents. It's not too far a stretch to suggest that being hauled into a room and being denied the opportunity to leave or call anyone is throwing distance to straight up unlawful confinement.
(Not to mention, I haven't heard a reason *why* the school and cops decided that calling a minor's parents was such a terrible idea.)
They never claimed it was a bomb. They claimed it was a bomb hoax.
Which is an interesting statement, since to date no-one has said that the *kid* was the source of a bomb hoax. He didn't stick it in the washroom. He made no threats. Which makes me wonder - exactly how is someone mistaking a clock for a bomb the fault of the kid?
I mean, what they're trying to tell us is that this kid made a fake bomb, that he didn't tell anyone about, didn't place, and kept on his person the entire time. So... are we supposed to believe that he's a really shy faux suicide bomber?
To dox someone with a phone book I need to know something about them. A phone number, a name, a place. At least one of those. Then I need to get a phone book for their area.
Or you simply call directory assistance and get the number from the operator. Seriously - it's hilariously easy to get help finding a number. I used to do it for university fundraising.
Doxxing on the Net is completely different. It's a person taking someone is is mostly anonymous and presenting that information to millions of people at once via a quick-n-ease form. Then those people can harass the victim in multiple ways, not just by mail and phone, but also on social media, find connections to their peers and harass them too, bother them by e-mail, swap them, etc.
Anyone who thinks looking someone up on a phone book is even remotely similar to doxxing obviously hasn't thought about how different the situation is, even for a second.
The difference is twofold today. One, it's easier to disseminate the info - once one person has done the legwork, it's just a post and everyone has it. Two, people can hide behind *their* anonymity to harass you from a distance, which makes them bolder (and lets more people do it, because they're too lazy to drive over and egg your house).
Doxxing is a problem; it's just not a *new* problem. Like patents, it's the same problem with "on the internet" attached to it.
Another possible solution is to remove the perks of being a cabinet minister. You're supposed to be there serving your country; why do you need a raise? If the money is why you're there, then go back to the private sector.
To be clear, this is separate from the budget needed for the department to do it's job - obviously the PM has some travel requirements that the typical MP doesn't. But I think every MP, regardless of position - government, opposition, leader, minister, backbencher - was hired to be a Member of Parliament, and should be paid the same accordingly.
Well, I'll begrudgingly spot the teachers on calling the cops - I don't expect an English teacher to recognize electronics. (I do wonder where the science teachers were during all this, though.)
But I would expect four police officers, among them, to know enough to recognize a bomb. Or more properly, the absolute lack of one. And I expect those teachers, once informed that the kid is right, it's a clock, there is nothing boom inside it, to have the honesty to admit that the kid did not threaten anyone, and never claimed it was a hoax bomb or any such shit. Yes, you don't know, call someone who does. But don't suddenly decide that it's the kid's fault that you didn't pay attention in science class.
Slightly off-topic, but related - is it possible to buy/make a piece of luggage that is TSA-resistant? (Defined as "they don't have easy access to the necessary tools, so it's easier to ask you to open the bag")
Slashdot Mirror
1) If something is in plain view, it can be evidence used to justify a search. I suppose it's a plausible interpretation that the heat something gives off could be considered in plain view when looking through an infrared camera. However, an x-ray scan is hardly plain view because it's an active scan, relying on backscatter in the case of these vans. Can any evidence collected from these vans, or evidence collected on the basis thereof, be admissible in court?
This is why they don't want to give any records of how and when these are used (and I'll bet you they'll fight the release of anything resembling *details* even harder). Right now, they can zap you with the machine, and then have an officer (possibly even an officer who isn't in on the trick) investigate you for "suspicious activity". When they detain, search, and find whatever the X-ray saw, it'll be recorded as based on the officer's judgement. The X-ray won't be mentioned, meaning the issue will never come up. See "parallel construction".
2) Is this safe?
Probably not. If you could prove that they were doing it to you - which you can't (see 1)
3) The NYPD is refusing to say what these vans are used for. If the NYPD won't say how they're being used, how do people know their privacy isn't being invaded and they're not being exposed to harmful radiation?
You don't know. And you can't complain, because you can't prove that they used it on you - and thus your rights haven't been violated. (see 1). Isn't this fun?
4) Because these vans are being paid for with tax dollars, don't people have a right to know how they're being used? How do the people know this is a necessary expense and the taxpayers aren't being ripped off?
Because the police told you it was a necessary expense to fight terrorism. We'd explain why, but the three-letter-agencies told it was a national security issue and we signed some paperwork agreeing we wouldn't discuss it with anyone.
5) At what point is it no longer acceptable to justify any and every form of surveillance under the excuse of terrorism? This is a tired refrain that has already been used to justify far too many abuses. Terrorism is the new communism, and I hope one day we'll be able to ridicule many of the things we've done just as we find McCarthyism and the red scare laughably absurd.
This will end when a politicians uses the terrorist card and the public openly mocks him for doing it. But given that "Soft On Crime" is still a working strategy, I think you're no-where near that point.
I used to buy the seasons from iTunes to watch with my daughter (because science!), until Discovery Canada started being insanely stupid with their release dates. OK, here's ep 1, next week 2, next week.. nothing? Oh, three weeks later is ep 3. (But we're already on episode 6? WTF?). The final straw was when the rest of the season dropped in one batch... after the *next* season had already completed airing!)
So, I may go back and get the seasons I'm missing to watch with the munchkin.
Also, the true star of that show is, was, and always will be Jamie. Sure, the other four are all fun and bouncy and screwing around. But Hyneman is the guy I'd pick to follow around for a day and buy a beer afterwards.
For being the brother who lost the coin toss, and thus had to stay home and be a NASA lab monkey to compare against his famous brother.
Women generally don't want to code. That's why every SWJ brings up Grace Hopper as THE icon. Yeah, I know about the pic of the woman that coded the lunar landing and the code that's stacked taller than see is. So that's two.
Look people, most women don't want to code. It's ok. Nothing wrong with that. Stop forcing things because you think a 50/50 split is the only "fair" way.
Oh, and asking someone to pay afterwards only if she gets a job is a FANTASTIC economic plan.
And no-one has asked *why* they "don't want to code"? It's in the sweet spot of well-paying without being construction/trades manual labor - you'd think a decent proportion of office clerk / admin ass't / secretary workers would love to move into that space.
And asking to pay afterwards is a great move - that's signalling that they're confident enough that women programmers will find jobs that they're willing to bet their own money on that market existing.
Sorry. A guy in Florida was fined $48000 by the FCC for operating a cell phone jammer in his car to prevent others near him from using their phones.
Which makes that guy terribly dumb - he was running it non-stop for almost two years, driving the same routine every day. (Yes, they used "sophisticated techniques" to find him - or, you sit with a cell phone and a video camera on the overpass for a week, and see which cars always show up when your signal drops. Not to mention that he wasn't bright enough to turn it *off* when the cops pulled him over.
Stupid crooks, ruining it for the rest of us...
That's not a problem with flat management - no matter what the org chart says, there's the people who get listened to because they know what they're talking about, or because they golf with the boss. I've seen cases where someone could order around folks who were several layers higher on the official org chart (and in a different department to boot) because they had the phone number of the president on speed dial. It's why you're polite to the receptionist and the payroll clerk - they can easily make your life miserable without being remotely in a "position of authority".
That, coupled with their tenuous release schedule (to put it mildly), makes Valve a perfect argument against this sort of structure.
And yet, Valve is by all accounts still making money (or at least enough money to keep the owners happy). So it's hard to argue that it's a failure, if it's making the people who pay the bills happy.
Exactly. My boss is great. She handles all the muckitymucks so all I have to do is sit in my box and code. I'm happy.
Of course, great managers have the same problem as great IT - the best evidence that they're doing their jobs really well is, a lack of evidence that anything is going wrong. But unfortunately the managers who get promoted are the ones who are running around putting out fires.
So I am not entirely sure that those were just "honest mistakes".
We can be a bit charitable and say that once they got the results they wanted/expected, they weren't as rigorous at checking the numbers as they should have been. (By contrast, I would expect that if the mistake had disproven their theory, they *would* have found that spreadsheet error.)
I do kind of feel for those guys - that's got to be embarassing to find out that you've made your bones on a typo.
And no, I do not feel the need to spend $1500 on a new machine just so advertisers can serve me up more ads faster.
Or you could uninstall Flash and Java. That would be free.
Why uninstall software they might need? Much simpler and more effective to simply refuse the ads.
Of course, what I would really like is an ad-blocker that still "hits" the page (so the owner gets credit), but simply blackholes the image/video instead of displaying it. (I'm firmly in the camp of "my browser does what I tell it to do, not what you tell it to do")
If what I say is untrue or grounds for harassment there are already laws in place to deal with that (as the GP suggested, that's what libel laws are for), but you would (as far as I understand such things) have to sue me for making the untrue statement and not my web host for enabling me to distribute it.
There may be grounds if the "web host" is putting ads on the site and therefore profiting from it.
After all, that's the real play they're making here - it's not Yelp, it's an extortionist version of Facebook or LinkedIn, where you'll need to regularly log in (and look at their ads and such) in order to make sure your next employment interview doesn't bring up some puppy-drowning incident you've never heard of before that moment.
You know, I had a friend in Canada who swore blind he saw 1960s episodes broadcast that are now missing but when this was mentioned to the upper echelons of Dr.Who fandom, we were told it wasn't true, his memory was faulty, or that he was wrong. The man is sure he was right, but to those of Fandom Royalty, it seemed to be much effort to check the basis of this story. It was much easier to label it as "rumour" or "wrong."
And it's entirely possible that he's right - a lot of the lost episodes are being found in the archives of foreign television stations. So it's not impossible that the network *did* air it, and then did whatever you do with old shows you didn't care about pre-reruns.
No. . Being a minor is not enough. The cops can and have questioned kids before. No Miranda does not say anything about it until the boy was under arrest. Being questioned - even if detained - does not equal under arrest. You are never under arrest when getting a speeding ticket but you are detained and often questioned.
Of course, you're also not required to answer questions unless you're under arrest. (See the classic "Don't Talk To Police"). And the child was obviously not free to go. So something is still wrong here. And it still doesn't answer why they didn't allow him to call his parents.
As for fake bomb. The first teacher he showed it to told him not to take it around school because it looked like it could be a bomb. My guess is that it actually looked like a bomb until you examined it closely.
Which is still on you, not him. And it begs the question of "where was he supposed to put it"? Is anyone going to claim that this would have went better if it was found in his locker?
But all this still misses the key problem - no one has shown any hint that this kid, at any time, intended this clock to be interpreted as a bomb. We can dissect the relative merits of a teenager's mechanical aptitude, judge his family life, and cast doubt on his character - but that doesn't change the fact that faking a bomb threat does, by definition, require claiming, hinting, or otherwise acting in a manner consistent with the idea that you have a bomb.
Now what evidence do you have to refute the fact that the kid is a fraud?
The fact that he's fourteen, and people seem to be forgetting that in junior high, being able to disassemble and (correctly) reassemble a COTS device is actually a bit ahead of the curve in most schools? It's junior high - most kids have never seen the inside of their Xbox, much less know how to do anything with it.
I'm not saying let's give the kid a Nobel. Hell, let's go one step further and take your idea - the kid is a total fraud who patched together something to brown nose a teacher. Last I checked, that wasn't cause for suspension and arrest. So *at worst*, he's the equal of every parent who does their child's science fair project so Little Timmy looks awesome.
Putting it that way, maybe we should be making more arrests...
I've looked and looked. I cannot find anything saying due process required parents outside of tv shows.
He's a minor. And if that's not enough, then Miranda says he should get a lawyer. But what you have is a combination of the police questioning him and the school not permitting him to leave (or call anyone). And I'm sure when the inevitable lawsuits come, the story will be that the school wasn't questioning him, and the cops weren't preventing him from leaving - while dismissing the reality that you've now confined someone without due process. And that still ignores the question of "why isn't the school calling the parents". Isn't this a disciplinary issue?
And you should investigate this a lot better. No-one started freaking out when he brought it to school. He showed two separate teacher- one of which said not to carry it around because it looks like a bomb. It wasn't until several classes latter that it went off in a class disrupting it while he opened the case and turned the alarm off. This is when he was asked why he still had it with him. The principal remembered suspending his sister for uttering a bomb threat and called the law reporting a fake bomb. The cops asked him why he had it and he refused to say anything so they arrested him.
I know , the real story is not as inciting as the popular narrative. But as far as i can tell, That's what happened
No, this still smells like BS. How is it a fake bomb? At any point, did this kid do *anything* to suggest, hint, or otherwise indicate that he wanted people to think he had a bomb? Or is this just another case of a school deciding that pop tarts in the shape of Idaho are a clear and present danger?
Well first of all, someone could have manufactured it for him. People have used little kids to give bombs to soldiers in war zones before - sacrificing the life of the child who didn't even know they were going to die. And secondly the GP was indicating that there was nothing in the box but electronics and therefore could not be a bomb. That's obviously not true.
And now we're adding "the US is a war zone" to the list of assumptions, along with "there's a mastermind and this kid is merely a pawn in his Dark Machinations", except that our mastermind is an idiot because he gave the "bomb" to the kid and told them to show it to the shop teacher. Also, since the school at no point reacts in a manner consistent with a suspicion that it was, is, or could possibly be a bomb, it doesn't matter that there could have been a Sooper Sekret Explosive there, because they didn't act in any manner consistent with such a concern.
Of course the kid couldn't manufacture a bomb. He couldn't even manufacture that clock. It was pulled out of an old alarm clock and that is obvious from the pictures. The fact that he clearly didn't manufacture anything DOES suggest to me that the kid was obviously up to something. Since it wasn't for a homework assignment, what exactly was he trying to accomplish?
Is there a reason we don't believe the answer he gave - that he was showing off to his shop teacher? (I think you may be underestimating the average electrical know-how of a junior high kid, by the way.) And that also begs the question - even if he's a complete suck up and show off who didn't do anything noteworthy... since when did that justify what happened to him?
His parents and attorney are distractions at this point. If a cop catches someone with a gun whether real or imitation, he can ask what the kid was planning to do with it without either. He wasn't under arrest until he failed to answer which gave suspicions of illegal intent. It seems that he even now needs prodding to tell the story if you believe Mark Cuban 's story.
No, they're due process at that point. He's at school and he's a minor. If you're going to call cops, you should be calling parents at the same time.
Also, what story do you expect this kid to have? He brought a clock to school, and everyone lost their freaking shit. They asked him what it was. He said "it's a clock". They said "you're lying". What else can this kid say? He's locked in a room, they won't let him call his parents - buttoning up was probably the best possible result for him. Hell, he did better than I would have done at his age.
You have specific evidence that he was singled out because of his race? Or is that your own bias showing?
If so, why then so much less outrage & support for the kid who pointed a chicken finger at another student, or the pop-tart gun kid, or the kid who wrote a story about shooting a dinosaur? I don't think any of them got invited to the White House.
Well, chicken finger kid got a suspension and sent home for the day. Pop-tart kid got a suspension. Only the Dinosaur Hunter (who interesting, is also the only other teenager on this list) got arrested. And Dinosaur Hunter (in theory) actually *did* talk about guns in school.
So for why, I'd give a couple reasons:
Clock Kid didn't even *do* the thing he's accused of. Which moves us up a rung from "massive over-reaction" to "teachers and cops are just making shit up".
There's some escalating reaction from the community as things just get dumber. Dinosaur Hunter's article even references PopTart. So, every time we hear about this sort of stupidity, you get just a bit *more* angry - which we should, because it gets harder to write it off as "oh, just an isolated incident / overzealous teacher".
To be a bit cynical and flippant for a moment, Dinosaur Guy was doing a creative writing exercise, and no-body cares about liberal arts in America. Meanwhile, Clock Kid may be a case of chasing away a potential STEM graduate (you know, future of the nation, shortage in the country, etc etc).
Also, he's getting a lot of attention from geeks who are watching this and thanking our lucky stars that we didn't grow up in this period. Half the stuff the teachers had us do in school in the 90s would get us arrested these days, I'd think.
Except maybe a bunch of bare electronics in an otherwise empty box.
Perhaps. I'm not saying that this high school kid had what he needed to do this but I am certain that someone who can manufacture C4 could also make said C4 fit inside the lining of an otherwise empty box. And yes, his box did appear to have a liner.
Also, we've now added "manufacture of explosives" to the skill set of this kid, while leaving out "how to write ransom demands" or "being smart enough not to carry an explosive on your person all day". Not to mention that we've now created a scenario where the school can recognize that C4 could be hidden inside this box (meaning IT COULD BE A BOMB!1!), but is either (a) smart enough to see that there *isn't* C4 present (and thus there's no need to evacuate), or (b) is too stupid to live, because they *didn't evacuate the school in the presence of a possible bomb*
Simply put: if we're going to say "oh, there COULD have been a bomb there", then we also need to ask "if they thought there could be a bomb, why didn't they follow procedure and evacuate?"
He told the teacher in class, the principal at school, and the cops before they put the cuffs on him to take him away for interrogation. And "interrogation" was the word the police used, no Ahmed.
This is a good time to mention that the kid asked for his parents to be called, and they refused. And then interrogated him, without the presence of either his attorney or his parents. It's not too far a stretch to suggest that being hauled into a room and being denied the opportunity to leave or call anyone is throwing distance to straight up unlawful confinement.
(Not to mention, I haven't heard a reason *why* the school and cops decided that calling a minor's parents was such a terrible idea.)
They never claimed it was a bomb. They claimed it was a bomb hoax.
Which is an interesting statement, since to date no-one has said that the *kid* was the source of a bomb hoax. He didn't stick it in the washroom. He made no threats. Which makes me wonder - exactly how is someone mistaking a clock for a bomb the fault of the kid?
I mean, what they're trying to tell us is that this kid made a fake bomb, that he didn't tell anyone about, didn't place, and kept on his person the entire time. So... are we supposed to believe that he's a really shy faux suicide bomber?
To dox someone with a phone book I need to know something about them. A phone number, a name, a place. At least one of those. Then I need to get a phone book for their area.
Or you simply call directory assistance and get the number from the operator. Seriously - it's hilariously easy to get help finding a number. I used to do it for university fundraising.
Doxxing on the Net is completely different. It's a person taking someone is is mostly anonymous and presenting that information to millions of people at once via a quick-n-ease form. Then those people can harass the victim in multiple ways, not just by mail and phone, but also on social media, find connections to their peers and harass them too, bother them by e-mail, swap them, etc.
Anyone who thinks looking someone up on a phone book is even remotely similar to doxxing obviously hasn't thought about how different the situation is, even for a second.
The difference is twofold today. One, it's easier to disseminate the info - once one person has done the legwork, it's just a post and everyone has it. Two, people can hide behind *their* anonymity to harass you from a distance, which makes them bolder (and lets more people do it, because they're too lazy to drive over and egg your house).
Doxxing is a problem; it's just not a *new* problem. Like patents, it's the same problem with "on the internet" attached to it.
Another possible solution is to remove the perks of being a cabinet minister. You're supposed to be there serving your country; why do you need a raise? If the money is why you're there, then go back to the private sector.
To be clear, this is separate from the budget needed for the department to do it's job - obviously the PM has some travel requirements that the typical MP doesn't. But I think every MP, regardless of position - government, opposition, leader, minister, backbencher - was hired to be a Member of Parliament, and should be paid the same accordingly.
To call in the police? Absurd.
Well, I'll begrudgingly spot the teachers on calling the cops - I don't expect an English teacher to recognize electronics. (I do wonder where the science teachers were during all this, though.)
But I would expect four police officers, among them, to know enough to recognize a bomb. Or more properly, the absolute lack of one. And I expect those teachers, once informed that the kid is right, it's a clock, there is nothing boom inside it, to have the honesty to admit that the kid did not threaten anyone, and never claimed it was a hoax bomb or any such shit. Yes, you don't know, call someone who does. But don't suddenly decide that it's the kid's fault that you didn't pay attention in science class.
Slightly off-topic, but related - is it possible to buy/make a piece of luggage that is TSA-resistant? (Defined as "they don't have easy access to the necessary tools, so it's easier to ask you to open the bag")