View Full Version : Violent Flash Mobs organized through social media
We discussed this yesterday in chat.
http://news.yahoo.com/london-rioters-battle-police-shooting-protest-054921704.html
It seems the riot was fueled by social media, people that had no interest in what happened came in from other areas. Looks like a new trend in mobs and riots caused or worsened by social media.
Greg Bernhardt
Aug9-11, 12:36 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/london-rioters-battle-police-shooting-protest-054921704.html
It seems the riot was fueled by social media, people that had no interest in what happened came in from other areas. Looks like a new trend in mobs and riots caused or worsened by social media.
Just want to make a quick comment that in my city of Milwaukee, we've been having problems with youths organizing violent mobs via social media. At our 4th of July fireworks we had a mob destroy a 7-11 and then proceed to beat up 20-30 firework watchers. Also just last week we had a mob of 200 youths causing mayhem at our state fair which sent 30 to the hospital. It's a huge issue here. Social media is rearing it's ugly head.
Just want to make a quick comment that in my city of Milwaukee, we've been having problems with youths organizing violent mobs via social media. At our 4th of July fireworks we had a mob destroy a 7-11 and then proceed to beat up 20-30 firework watchers. Also just last week we had a mob of 200 hundred youths causing mayhem at our state fair which sent 30 to the hospital. It's a huge issue here. Social media is rearing it's ugly head.
WTF. At least in the '70s there was a reason to protest. What can we do to stop this sort of thing? It's giving the internet a bad name.
Greg Bernhardt
Aug9-11, 12:43 PM
WTF. At least in the '70s there was a reason to protest. What can we do to stop this sort of thing? It's giving the internet a bad name.
It's becoming a widespread problem. Philly now has problems too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14466369
It's becoming a widespread problem. Philly now has problems too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14466369
I saw this on TV this morning here. This bothers me, but if that's what it takes, okay?
There have even been legislative efforts to criminalise flash mobs in recent months.
How can this be unconstitutional if it is criminal?
The Cleveland City Council passed a bill to make it illegal to use social media to organize a violent and disorderly flash mob, though the mayor vetoed the measure after the ACLU of Ohio promised it would be unconstitutional.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/08/09/for_flash_mobsters_crowd_size_a_tempting_cover/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news
Don't we already have laws against inciting violence and organizing criminal activity in general?
How can this be unconstitutional if it is criminal?Tricky question. The right to assemble and associate freely is something that the ACLU will defend all the way to the SC, especially since banning flash mobs carries an assumption of guilt - that the mob will be violent, and there is prior intent of committing violence. As I said, tricky.
I've started a new thread on this disturbing trend.
Good move.
How can this be unconstitutional if it is criminal?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/08/09/for_flash_mobsters_crowd_size_a_tempting_cover/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news
Sounds right to me.
Don't we already have laws against inciting violence and organizing criminal activity in general?Is there something that needs to be changed if social media is concerned?
Tricky question. The right to assemble and associate freely is something that the ACLU will defend all the way to the SC, especially since banning flash mobs carries an assumption of guilt - that the mob will be violent, and there is prior intent of committing violence. As I said, tricky.But as jt stated how can
"laws against inciting violence and organizing criminal activity in general", suddenly be unconstitutional? Is it specifically including the method being used that they oppose? Because if they are tweeting to meet and do illegal activities, that's not protected AFAIK.
I don't quite get what the legal issue is.
Sounds right to me.Don, can you clarify, do you think the ACLU is right or wrong?
Don, can you clarify, do you think the ACLU is right or wrong?
This time I think they are wrong as bodily harm shouldn't be tolerated. But in other times, the ACLU do have some good points. IMO anyway.
But as jt stated how can "laws against inciting violence and organizing criminal activity in general", suddenly be unconstitutional? Is it specifically including the method being used that they oppose? Because if they are tweeting to meet and do illegal activities, that's not protected AFAIK.
I don't quite get what the legal issue is.When a mob of sports nuts hits the streets after a particularly big loss (or win!) there can often be violence. We've seen it happen too many times in the US. The UK is well-known for soccer-related violence, too.
Flash mobs can occur for a number of reasons, including premieres, street performance by artists, etc. It is not cut-and-dried if there was intent for this crowd to turn violent. Here's a link to a multi-event a little over a week ago that turned violent.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8276337
What's the difference between using social media or having a list of phone numbers of people who are into "rioting"?
I take issue with the idea that social media "fuels" the behaviour. It's just a means.
What's the difference between using social media or having a list of phone numbers of people who are into "rioting"?
I take issue with the idea that social media "fuels" the behaviour. It's just a means.
The good thing about it is that everything is documented. :) Easier to get to the perps.
But I'm referring to social media to specifically commit crimes and/or violence, not accidental mobs.
In April, about 20 teenagers entered G-Star Raw, a high-end men's clothing store in the Dupont Circle neighborhood of the District of Columbia, and stole about $20,000 worth of merchandise despite employees' efforts to grab the apparel back, store manager Greg Lennon said. D.C. police have investigated leads but have not made arrests in the case.
Lennon said he later saw Twitter postings, apparently written after the robbery, that referenced the theft, with one person describing having been in the store and making plans to come back.
The National Retail Federation said 10 percent of 106 companies it surveyed reported being targeted in the last year by groups of thieves using flash mob tactics.
"Retailers are raising red flags about criminal flash mobs, which are wreaking havoc on their business, causing concerns about the safety of their customers and employees, and directly impacting their bottom line," the federation said in a report, which advises retailers to monitor social media networks and report planned heists to the police.
That's exactly what Lennon does. He says he checks his store's Facebook page to see who's visiting, and monitors Twitter for any reference to his store and its merchandise.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/08/09/for_flash_mobsters_crowd_size_a_tempting_cover/?page=2
What's the difference between using social media or having a list of phone numbers of people who are into "rioting"?
I take issue with the idea that social media "fuels" the behaviour. It's just a means.It's that they can *instantly* send the message to thousands of people, they can *instantly* control the movement of the entire crowd as the criminal activity occurs in order to elude police. They can *instantly* name specific targets and call for backup. This is making it almost impossible for police to be effective. *That's the difference*.
Mob violence is the fundamental issue here and hence nothing new; the technology component incidental it seems to me. Thus the solution is also traditional.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=1029359724001
... The cops can’t be punching doughnuts out there. They gotta be busting their shoes and the way they do that is give a few wooden shampoos, a few attitudinal readjustments out there where they’re sucking concrete, outside of the mall, outside of the store – and you’ll see how quick that antisocial behavior will stop because that’s the language they universally understand.
That's unfortunate but, when the situation escalates beyond the control of traditional police power, required. Its a simple choice. Either choose uncontrolled mob violence which if unchecked will escalate or choose police controlled violence.
An absent police response, the violence in London should be met with some of the same self defense used in the '92 LA riots.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TsFXJA9YHlE/TTeIfFOIuVI/AAAAAAAAAQI/VqNzxdhlp5s/s1600/58852252.jpg
The thing mheslep, the crowds can form, commit crimes, and be gone before police arrive. That's what makes this sort of thing so hard to control.
Did you read the articles? Did you read mob crime attacks on stores finished in 5 minutes?
The thing mheslep, the crowds can form, commit crimes, and be gone before police arrive. That's what makes this sort of thing so hard to control.
Did you read the articles? Did you read mob crime attacks on stores finished in 5 minutes?Yes I get the point of the word 'flash'. Watch the video especially at 4:20 or so with the psychologist and Sliwa. Not everyone gets away, there are usually a handful that are caught and treated lightly, and despite the large numbers as always there are hard core criminal leaders of the pack. Leadership means it's also possible given the use of technology to preempt the mob with an informer or two.
Looking at this video, I feel like police response can be more harsh.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14456050
Looking at this video, I feel like police response can be more harsh.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14456050Looking at the video, why were the police even there if they were not to do anything except retreat, further encouraging the mob to act out.
Proton Soup
Aug9-11, 03:15 PM
But I'm referring to social media to specifically commit crimes and/or violence, not accidental mobs.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/08/09/for_flash_mobsters_crowd_size_a_tempting_cover/?page=2
criminal activity is already against the law. why do you need a new law to prosecute people breaking existing laws?
criminal activity is already against the law. why do you need a new law to prosecute people breaking existing laws?That's my question, are they needed? And if the messages are clearly inciting crime and violence, how can they be protected by the constitution?
Mob violence is the fundamental issue here and hence nothing new; the technology component incidental it seems to me. Thus the solution is also traditional.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=1029359724001
That's unfortunate but, when the situation escalates beyond the control of traditional police power, required. Its a simple choice. Either choose uncontrolled mob violence which if unchecked will escalate or choose police controlled violence.
An absent police response, the violence in London should be met with some of the same self defense used in the '92 LA riots.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TsFXJA9YHlE/TTeIfFOIuVI/AAAAAAAAAQI/VqNzxdhlp5s/s1600/58852252.jpg
Yep, except that there just aren't many gun owners in London proper.
Astronuc
Aug9-11, 03:26 PM
That's my question, are they needed? And if the messages are clearly inciting crime and violence, how can they be protected by the constitution? Actually, such messages would not be protected by the constitution, and never were. The right of speech and press (writing) only goes as far as expressing opinion or providing information. It does not extend to organizing or facilitating criminal/illegal activity.
That's my question, are they needed? And if the messages are clearly inciting crime and violence, how can they be protected by the constitution?
There aren't any Constitutional protections for parties to a conspiracy to commit a violent act - ask the Mafia.
Actually, such messages would not be protected by the constitution, and never were. The right of speech and press (writing) only goes as far as expressing opinion or providing information. It does not extend to organizing or facilitating criminal/illegal activity.
True, there is no constitutional right to incite a riot. But, will this turn into the governments ability to shut down social media during social unrest? They were already doing this in the middle east, Iran I believe?
True, there is no constitutional right to incite a riot. But, will this turn into the governments ability to shut down social media during social unrest? They were already doing this in the middle east, Iran I believe?
That would of course be the "slippery slope".:wink:
Jack21222
Aug9-11, 03:31 PM
Actually, such messages would not be protected by the constitution, and never were. The right of speech and press (writing) only goes as far as expressing opinion or providing information. It does not extend to organizing or facilitating criminal/illegal activity.
I guess one pitfall is how broadly "organizing or facilitating" is defined. If I post a message on twitter like "there's a flash mob at city hall," am I promoting it? Or merely reporting on it? What if I try to get people to attend a protest that later becomes violent, even if it didn't start that way? Would I get in trouble for spreading the word?
There's actually a huge grey area here.
Astronuc
Aug9-11, 03:37 PM
I guess one pitfall is how broadly "organizing or facilitating" is defined. If I post a message on twitter like "there's a flash mob at city hall," am I promoting it? Or merely reporting on it? What if I try to get people to attend a protest that later becomes violent, even if it didn't start that way? Would I get in trouble for spreading the word?
There's actually a huge grey area here. Yes - it could be a grey area. The statement "There's a flash mob at city hall" is a simple declarative statement or observation, but it's meaning/context depends on is it a view of a witness, or is it a statement of a participant, who is informing other participants.
This wasn't an issue prior to three days ago, but has become an issue with the riots. Now technology is being misused.
Owning guns wouldn't be an issue if they weren't used in criminal activity, e.g., murder, assault, but rather were only used for protection and hunting for food.
Proton Soup
Aug9-11, 03:39 PM
That's my question, are they needed? And if the messages are clearly inciting crime and violence, how can they be protected by the constitution?
no, it's clearly already illegal and doesn't require new law, imo.
I guess one pitfall is how broadly "organizing or facilitating" is defined. If I post a message on twitter like "there's a flash mob at city hall," am I promoting it? Or merely reporting on it? What if I try to get people to attend a protest that later becomes violent, even if it didn't start that way? Would I get in trouble for spreading the word?
There's actually a huge grey area here.
My guess is the person(s) who ORIGINATES the EVENT or anyone who INDICATES VIOLENCE or SPECIFIES WEAPONS would be party to the crime - including the owner of the phone if different than the poster.
I'm quite certain the insurance companies will explore all options when trying to recover claims paid - shouldn't be too difficult to obtain electronic records.
Proton Soup
Aug9-11, 04:01 PM
I'm quite certain the insurance companies will explore all options when trying to recover claims paid - shouldn't be too difficult to obtain electronic records.
yeah... you gotta wonder about some of these folks. the same tools that allowed them to organize so efficiently will be efficiently used to round them up. there was some of this going on in chicago not too long ago, but it seems to have quieted down now (or at least i haven't been reading any news on it).
Yep, except that there just aren't many gun owners in London proper.
Mob violence is the fundamental issue here and hence nothing new; the technology component incidental it seems to me. Thus the solution is also traditional.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=1029359724001
That's unfortunate but, when the situation escalates beyond the control of traditional police power, required. Its a simple choice. Either choose uncontrolled mob violence which if unchecked will escalate or choose police controlled violence.
An absent police response, the violence in London should be met with some of the same self defense used in the '92 LA riots.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TsFXJA9YHlE/TTeIfFOIuVI/AAAAAAAAAQI/VqNzxdhlp5s/s1600/58852252.jpg
Even without firepower, perhaps society just needs more of the elders' sense of community and courage:
ng0QNvHOh-g
Fewer thieves would risk it if they expected the local passerby to be as brave and determined as this old lady to stop them.
This is interesting on many levels, if the violence continues to escalate, and flash mob behavior continues to spread from distressed region/country to distressed region/country for whatever reason, there will be a triggering event that will cause the communications industry in cooperation with state and federal governments to action. When they finally have had enough, they will "pull the plug" on cell phone and internet service, at least for the short term until the flash mob behavior is brought under control. Once down this track, we are on a very slippery slope. I liken removing the ability to communicate as removing the mobsters carrying gas cans to a bonfire.
Who knows, maybe HAM radio operators will have a new place in society in the near future to provide emergency communication services in the event something like this happens. I listened to a talk radio host talk about how we are in a pre-revolutionary period today. I was shocked and taken aback by the comments, but seeing these events play themselves out, am beginning to wonder myself. This talk show host is not a far left or far right loon and comments honestly as he sees things. He is good at predicting the future and is usually weeks to months ahead of others in predicting political actions in our state. That is why I continue to listen.
Rhody... :frown:
Even without firepower, perhaps society just needs more of the elders' sense of community and courage:
ng0QNvHOh-g
Fewer thieves would risk it if they expected the local passerby to be as brave and determined as this old lady to stop them.
I agree! I love seeing an old lady beating away rioters! LOL
This is interesting on many levels, if the violence continues to escalate, and flash mob behavior continues to spread from distressed region/country to distressed region/country for whatever reason, there will be a triggering event that will cause the communications industry in cooperation with state and federal governments to action. When they finally have had enough, they will "pull the plug" on cell phone and internet service, at least for the short term until the flash mob behavior is brought under control. Once down this track, we are on a very slippery slope. I liken removing the ability to communicate as removing the mobsters carrying gas cans to a bonfire.
I highly doubt they would pull cellphone and Internet service all over flash mobs, would have to be some major flash mobs occurring, and even then, it is questionable. Plus you'd completely hamstring businesses and the overall economy by doing such a thing, and it would make people crazy, as they are too used to the Internet now.
I think it's clever that undercover cops have started getting themselves "friended" and been able to stop riots from happening thanks to them getting the "tweet".
I think it's clever that undercover cops have started getting themselves "friended" and been able to stop riots from happening thanks to them getting the "tweet".
Yeah, that is clever Evo. The news is reporting that a lot of flash organizing behavior is done using Blackberry's. They texts apparently can't be traced.
Rhody...
P.S. This is an interesting aside. A young lady was caring for someone away from home and in a city/residence she was not familiar with. There was a medical emergency, no land line available, and her cell call to emergency services was frustrated because she could not give an exact address. Had they had a land phone line, the EMT's would have shown the address immediately. Something to think about, although an unusual case.
Astronuc
Aug9-11, 05:46 PM
I think it's clever that undercover cops have started getting themselves "friended" and been able to stop riots from happening thanks to them getting the "tweet". I would imagine that hot jobs in the near term are private eye, security guard, and bounty hunter - and using the internet and social media to catch miscreants and n'er-do-well folk.
FeDeX_LaTeX
Aug9-11, 06:00 PM
Logged on to my friend's Facebook account (he gave me the password to look at 'statuses'); here are some of the messages people posted (the bad-looking ones).
"so bored. mite go for some looting tomoz lol"
"why dont the rioters set schools on fire????????"
"Camden's so quiet it's wierd. gonna go down there tomorrow, see if I can steal some stuff xD"
"I Need Some New Crep, Lets Break Into Footlocker"
"is it kicking off in holloway ??? Where is it kicking off??? someone organise something"
"I need to get to these Riots."
"Getting Livly In Camden..looks fun LOL"
"Thinkin of merkin greggs..whos got a motive for me and my dawgyss"
"i would love to **** up some police."
"Ok is their rioting in Camden? anyone going?"
"whos on protest tomorrow ?"
"MANDEM COME KENTISH. LIIIVE."
"the riot's at Camden yh?"
Just a sample of some of what people have posted...
Logged on to my friend's Facebook account (he gave me the password to look at 'statuses'); here are some of the messages people posted (the bad-looking ones).
"so bored. mite go for some looting tomoz lol"
"why dont the rioters set schools on fire????????"
"Camden's so quiet it's wierd. gonna go down there tomorrow, see if I can steal some stuff xD"
"I Need Some New Crep, Lets Break Into Footlocker"
"is it kicking off in holloway ??? Where is it kicking off??? someone organise something"
"I need to get to these Riots."
"Getting Livly In Camden..looks fun LOL"
"Thinkin of merkin greggs..whos got a motive for me and my dawgyss"
"i would love to **** up some police."
"Ok is their rioting in Camden? anyone going?"
"whos on protest tomorrow ?"
"MANDEM COME KENTISH. LIIIVE."
"the riot's at Camden yh?"
Just a sample of some of what people have posted...
Wow, like it's a local carnival. "so bored. mite go for some looting tomoz lol".
FeDeX_LaTeX
Aug9-11, 06:05 PM
That being said the majority of the people posting statuses are against looting, I just put these together to give people a sample of what some of the 'organisation' looks like. Not to be mis-interpreted as a majority
That being said the majority of the people posting statuses are against looting, I just put these together to give people a sample of what some of the 'organisation' looks like. Not to be mis-interpreted as a majority
Fedex,
Do these people have enough brain cells to realize that law enforcement can use them to connect the dots ? Sometimes a big lie to look bad a.. could come back to bite them in a big way.
Rhody...
skippy1729
Aug9-11, 06:29 PM
I can hardly wait until some of our less civilized political movements latch onto this behavior.
I keep hoping that a definitive causal link can be found between wireless traffic and Colony Collapse Disorder. The world would be a better place without cell phones. I know I must sound like a knuckle dragging reactionary but I was there, BCP (before cell phones), and it was a better place.
Skippy
FeDeX_LaTeX
Aug9-11, 06:31 PM
Some of the people who said these things I thought knew better than to join in the chaos; a bit shocked that some of my 'friends' are choosing to contribute to the injuring of policemen, burning of shops, and mugging of people.
Some of the people who said these things I thought knew better than to join in the chaos; a bit shocked that some of my 'friends' are choosing to contribute to the injuring of policemen, burning of shops, and mugging of people.
Might have to take a second look at who your 'friends' are my friend.
This is interesting on many levels, if the violence continues to escalate, and flash mob behavior continues to spread from distressed region/country to distressed region/country for whatever reason, there will be a triggering event that will cause the communications industry in cooperation with state and federal governments to action. When they finally have had enough, they will "pull the plug" on cell phone and internet service, at least for the short term until the flash mob behavior is brought under control. Once down this track, we are on a very slippery slope. I liken removing the ability to communicate as removing the mobsters carrying gas cans to a bonfire.
The police could always send a message of their own - maybe tell everyone to meet at a large parking lot > where they'll all be arrested.
The police could always send a message of their own - maybe tell everyone to meet at a large parking lot > where they'll all be arrested.
Hehe, or better yet, flash all the trouble makers cell's so they no longer can communicate with a warning to knock it off or go to jail and face hefty fines before the phones go dead. That would get their attention for sure.
Rhody... :devil:
Does anyone know if cell phone privileges can be stripped (for a set time or indefinitely) the way a land line can - if too many abusive calls are documented?
Greg Bernhardt
Aug9-11, 07:03 PM
Just got a fb status report from a friend that some rioting has begun in Birkenhead and Liverpool.
Does anyone know if cell phone privileges can be stripped (for a set time or indefinitely) the way a land line can - if too many abusive calls are documented?Physically, yes, but it runs into legal issues.
Physically, yes, but it runs into legal issues.
Someone posted early in the thread about a problem in Cleveland, OH. while I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but some of the larger counties in OH have provided thousands of cell phones to welfare recipients. A lot of the phones were provided for parents to communicate with kids. At a minimum, this group should face consequences of losing phones if involved in criminal activities.
Tosh5457
Aug9-11, 07:20 PM
Wow, like it's a local carnival. "so bored. mite go for some looting tomoz lol".
Lol that's funny. It's total anarchy I guess.
Someone posted early in the thread about a problem in Cleveland, OH. while I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but some of the larger counties in OH have provided thousands of cell phones to welfare recipients. A lot of the phones were provided for parents to communicate with kids. At a minimum, this group should face consequences of losing phones if involved in criminal activities.Thing is criminals currently buy those disposable "pay as you go" phones. You can pay cash for them and they're untraceable. People have been trying to pass laws to require registration, but there is push back against it. Just read about it this morning.
That's what I have Evo, though not with criminal intent. Go to WalMart and buy a TrakFone with a minutes card, load the minutes and wait for the phone to update with a phone number. Done. I don't use a phone that much, but it's nice to have in my pocket for emergencies when I'm away from home.
Thing is criminals currently buy those disposable "pay as you go" phones. You can pay cash for them and they're untraceable. People have been trying to pass laws to require registration, but there is push back against it. Just read about it this morning.
Hard to imagine how to control that - the phones in OH I referred to are paid for with tax dollars - there should be ZERO tolerance on those devices - IMO.
Hard to imagine how to control that - the phones in OH I referred to are paid for with tax dollars - there should be ZERO tolerance on those devices - IMO.
I agree, but I wonder if they even kept track of them? I wouldn't be surprised if half of those people either sold them or had them stolen.
I agree, but I wonder if they even kept track of them? I wouldn't be surprised if half of those people either sold them or had them stolen.
I just thought of something else - we have tracking on our phones. I wonder if the police could request the carriers to activate tracking on all enabled devices - take a snapshot in time?
Astronuc
Aug9-11, 07:50 PM
I just thought of something else - we have tracking on our phones. I wonder if the police could request the carriers to activate tracking on all enabled devices - take a snapshot in time? Many or most phones have GPS, or they are tracked by cellphone, so the phone's location can be determined. I'm not sure about timestamps, origin and desitination, but it's possible those exist in a database. Whomever activated (paid the minutes/plan) is likely recorded. However, if those phones are stolen and used, then it becomes problematic.
I just thought of something else - we have tracking on our phones. I wonder if the police could request the carriers to activate tracking on all enabled devices - take a snapshot in time?If you buy a pay-as-you-go cheapie and don't give your personal information to the vendor, the cops wouldn't have a clue whose location they just got that way.
I don't know if TracFone cheapies have GPS, or if that feature is enabled. If not, then all the cops would get is an anonymous phone on a nearby tower.
I just thought of something else - we have tracking on our phones. I wonder if the police could request the carriers to activate tracking on all enabled devices - take a snapshot in time?
Many or most phones have GPS, or they are tracked by cellphone, so the phone's location can be determined. I'm not sure about timestamps, origin and desitination, but it's possible those exist in a database. Whomever activated (paid the minutes/plan) is likely recorded. However, if those phones are stolen and used, then it becomes problematic.It only works if the cellphone holder manually activates GPS tracking on their phone. I have the GPS on my phone deactivated. So, GPS tracking only works that way on tv.
On "pay as you go" phones there is no way to know who bought the phone if they use cash, or a stolen credit card or check. Activation requires no verification.
If you buy a pay-as-you-go cheapie and don't give your personal information to the vendor, the cops wouldn't have a clue whose location they just got that way.
I don't know if TracFone cheapies have GPS, or if that feature is enabled. If not, then all the cops would get is an anonymous phone on a nearby tower.
When we first allowed the kids to have phones I went pre-paid - told them they were training wheels - see if they could control their minutes. We tried several types and a few did require us to register. I think you're correct about tracfone though.
When we first allowed the kids to have phones I went pre-paid - told them they were training wheels - see if they could control their minutes. We tried several types and a few did require us to register. I think you're correct about tracfone though.I bought a "pay as you go" from T-Mobile years ago, I had to go online and "register" and I used bogus information, they had no idea, they don't verify the information, they don't require a human checking a driver's license.
Even if they started requiring checks on these phones, there have always been alternatives. I can go right around the corner and get someone's stolen phone.
That's why I liked my old cell phone. I enabled an option to type in a four digit number to unlock it, which has to be done whenever I flip it open or turn it on. I think I'll check my current one to see if it has that feature.
England riots: Government mulls social media controls
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14493497
It's bit funny how social media was embraced during the Iran unrest.
I highly doubt they would pull cellphone and Internet service all over flash mobs, would have to be some major flash mobs occurring, and even then, it is questionable. Plus you'd completely hamstring businesses and the overall economy by doing such a thing, and it would make people crazy, as they are too used to the Internet now.
England riots: Government mulls social media controls
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14493497
It's bit funny how social media was embraced during the Iran unrest.
CAC,
Doubt no more... rootX beat me to this. I was just about to post it. The British Prime Minister, David Carmeron has publically repeatedly displayed his disgust with the situation, no surprise that he is considering this option.
Rhody...
Oh yeah, for some of these idiots who who GPS tracking enabled on their phones, can you say DUH... loud enough...
Jack21222
Aug12-11, 11:08 PM
Looks like San Francisco is putting some of this to the test:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/08/201181221139693608.html
A rail transit provider in the United States disabled mobile phone services to prevent a planned protest on Thursday, attracting criticism and unflattering comparisons to crackdowns on dissent in the Middle East.
Demonstrators in northern California's Bay Area had planned a protest to condemn the shooting death of Charles Hill, who was killed on July 3 after Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officers responded to complaints about a drunk man at a station in the city of San Francisco.
On Thursday, BART police Lieutenant Andy Alkire told the local Bay City News agency that while it was unusual to block mobile services, it was "a great tool to utilise for this specific purpose".
Linton Johnson, BART's spokesman, told the local KTVU television channel that BART "didn’t try to shut down the protest. They simply turned off the cell service so it couldn't become viral.
DoggerDan
Aug13-11, 04:50 AM
Tricky question. The right to assemble and associate freely is something that the ACLU will defend all the way to the SC, especially since banning flash mobs carries an assumption of guilt - that the mob will be violent, and there is prior intent of committing violence. As I said, tricky.
I believe the right as explained in the Constitution (1st Amendment) is the right to peaceably assemble. Outlawing non-peaceful assemblies is Constitutional. I don't think outlawing assemblies in general is Constitutional, though I think SCOTUS has upheld a municipality's right to require permits. When the authorities have points of contact who're organizing the event, there's less liklihood the event will result in illegal and riotous acts.
Looks like San Francisco is putting some of this to the test:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/08/201181221139693608.html
I'm SHOCKED that al jazeera would run a story comparing unrest in the US to unrest in Egypt.:rolleyes:
Jack21222
Aug13-11, 01:36 PM
I'm SHOCKED that al jazeera would run a story comparing unrest in the US to unrest in Egypt.:rolleyes:
The article was not about such a comparison. There you go again, taking a minor tangential issue and trying to steer the whole thread into discussing it.
Are you doubting the facts presented in the article, or is your only problem just one line in one paragraph?
The article was not about such a comparison. There you go again, taking a minor tangential issue and trying to steer the whole thread into discussing it.
Are you doubting the facts presented in the article, or is your only problem just one line in one paragraph?
You made a point to post it. How does my commenting on YOUR post pull the thread off topic?
Your post-my bold
"A rail transit provider in the United States disabled mobile phone services to prevent a planned protest on Thursday, attracting criticism and unflattering comparisons to crackdowns on dissent in the Middle East."
Jack21222
Aug13-11, 02:01 PM
So you didn't bother to read the article. I was just providing snippets to show what the article was about.
Anyway, would you like to comment on the actions of BART, or continue with the "hurr durr Al Jazeera derp derp derping?"
So you didn't bother to read the article. I was just providing snippets to show what the article was about.
Anyway, would you like to comment on the actions of BART, or continue with the "hurr durr Al Jazeera derp derp derping?"
I like the idea of (first) flashing a message (to everyone with a cell in an area targeted for attack) that vandalism and violence will be prosecuted. Then if activity continues - a temporary block with an additional message explaining why - temporary meaning perhaps an hour to cool down the growth of the mob. I think the 911 capability should be maintained on all phones in spite of the block.
As for ""hurr durr Al Jazeera derp derp derping?"" - no comment?
SteveL27
Aug13-11, 08:19 PM
I believe the right as explained in the Constitution (1st Amendment) is the right to peaceably assemble. Outlawing non-peaceful assemblies is Constitutional.
How would you know ahead of time? Isn't this a bit like arresting you for a crime the government thinks you are going to commit in the future? As in the movie Minority Report.
How would you know ahead of time? Isn't this a bit like arresting you for a crime the government thinks you are going to commit in the future? As in the movie Minority Report.That's the tack that the ACLU will take in court, and they will win, IMO. The sad thing is that large crowds can be unpredictable, and violence and vandalism can erupt even though the organizer(s) had no such intent. Prior restraint is a very slippery slope.
ThomasT
Aug14-11, 02:37 PM
The drift of the thread seems to be that not much can be done to stop or at least minimize this sort of thing. Some things that might be done are to change laws (provide tougher penalties), and actually uniformly enforce and prosecute them, so that the consequences for getting caught are more or less certain and pretty severe. But that's not likely to happen for a number of reasons.
So it seems that this trend in electronically facilitated 'wilding' and thuggery isn't just here to stay for the foreseeable future, but will increasingly be a fact of life in urban areas, since the police really can't protect against it and law abiding citizens are forbidden by law to use the sort of force that would be sufficient to stop it.
Proton Soup
Aug14-11, 03:06 PM
The drift of the thread seems to be that not much can be done to stop or at least minimize this sort of thing. Some things that might be done are to change laws (provide tougher penalties), and actually uniformly enforce and prosecute them, so that the consequences for getting caught are more or less certain and pretty severe. But that's not likely to happen for a number of reasons.
So it seems that this trend in electronically facilitated 'wilding' and thuggery isn't just here to stay for the foreseeable future, but will increasingly be a fact of life in urban areas, since the police really can't protect against it and law abiding citizens are forbidden by law to use the sort of force that would be sufficient to stop it.
oh, that last part would only go on for so long before citizens get fed up and oust all the politicians who support it. in fact, letting the public get a black eye by sitting back and not policing is just the sort of manipulation you'd want to exert to get approval for applying more draconian measures.
You really can't expect to have it both ways. If the police have to wait until a crime has taken place - then make sure they don't violate the rights of protestors when making an arrest - damage will occur, people will be injured, and some (if not most) of the criminals will exade capture and prosecution - won't they?
Proton Soup
Aug14-11, 03:30 PM
You really can't expect to have it both ways. If the police have to wait until a crime has taken place - then make sure they don't violate the rights of protestors when making an arrest - damage will occur, people will be injured, and some (if not most) of the criminals will exade capture and prosecution - won't they?
if the G8 were to visit London for a summit right now, cops would be busting heads of protestors left and right. same would go here at a democrat or republican national committee meeting.
SteveL27
Aug14-11, 05:13 PM
You really can't expect to have it both ways. If the police have to wait until a crime has taken place - then make sure they don't violate the rights of protestors when making an arrest - damage will occur, people will be injured, and some (if not most) of the criminals will exade capture and prosecution - won't they?
Hypotheticals:
1) Suppose a newspaper plans to publish the location of a demonstration in which there is some nonzero probability of violence. May the government order the newspaper to not publish that information?
2) May the government forcibly shut down the operation of a newspaper that publishes information displeasing to the government?
CAC1001
Aug14-11, 06:24 PM
CAC,
Doubt no more... rootX beat me to this. I was just about to post it. The British Prime Minister, David Carmeron has publically repeatedly displayed his disgust with the situation, no surprise that he is considering this option.
Well I was wrong there!
I hope they don't actually take that step though. However, in the UK, I may be wrong, but isn't there technically no right to freedom of speech there?
Galteeth
Aug14-11, 07:36 PM
How can this be unconstitutional if it is criminal?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/08/09/for_flash_mobsters_crowd_size_a_tempting_cover/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news
If you explicitly organize a group with the intention of causing violence, it's surely criminal. The thing is, that's already a crime.
http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2011/08/04/mayor-jackson-vetoes-clevelands-flash-mob-law
http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2011/07/26/clevelands-flash-mob-law-fuzzy-maybe-illegal
The law, as it's written, adds penalties for not only actions, but how the person found out about the event.
To understand why this is a constitutional issue: Many cities already have laws on the books about "illegal assemblies" that wouldn't past a constitutional review. Same thing with "failure to disperse" ordinances.
Imagine a legitimate political protest where people are arrested for various reasons. Even if the original reason they were arrested turned out to be invalid, they are now facing a second charge they have to defend based on the way they heard about the protest. Furthermore, this is essentially penalizing people not for the action, but for participation in free speech. For example, if someone was arrested at a protest, and they had had heard about it through a flyer, they would be facing lesser charges then if they heard about it over the internet.
These arguments may sound subtle to you, but they are an extremely important topic right now. Since more and more political organizing and communication is done over the internet, the potential chilling of that vehicle is very important to people who are concerned about civil liberties.
Let me give you a practical example. A group is planning an anti-war protest, and they distribute information over the internet. Members might be inclined to say, I am hesitant to go because if an arrest does occur, I will now be facing greater repercussions then before. This is a legal disincentive to use the internet as a means of communication.
It also establishes a bad precedent, targeting methods of speech instead of criminal actions themselves.
EDIT: Furthermore in order to be enforceable (which it probably wouldn't be) the police would have to be able to search all of a persons' communications to have proof they received knowledge of the event electronically, and possibly their friends communications.
I am not trying to argue the validity of these positions, I know you and I have a very different take on such issues, i am just answering your question from the point of view of civil libertarians.
Galteeth
Aug14-11, 07:38 PM
Hypotheticals:
1) Suppose a newspaper plans to publish the location of a demonstration in which there is some nonzero probability of violence. May the government order the newspaper to not publish that information?
2) May the government forcibly shut down the operation of a newspaper that publishes information displeasing to the government?
To be fair the law in question as I understand it was not suggesting outlawing the communication of such information (would would hands down be unconstitutional) but rather adding penalties if someone were arrested for the means in which they communicated beforehand.
Galteeth
Aug14-11, 07:43 PM
Looks like San Francisco is putting some of this to the test:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/08/201181221139693608.html
Yes, that is pretty shocking. I don't see how BART has the authority to do that. Also, the shutdown certainly impacted more then just the alleged protestors.
SteveL27
Aug14-11, 08:00 PM
To be fair the law in question as I understand it was not suggesting outlawing the communication of such information (would would hands down be unconstitutional) but rather adding penalties if someone were arrested for the means in which they communicated beforehand.
I must confess I'm thinking only about the recent incident where SF's BART shut down cell communications in advance of a protest, which ended up not happening. A lot of people seem to think that prior restraint and punishing people for what they MIGHT do is perfectly ok. This was the first time in the U.S. that a government agency shut down cell communications in advance of a lawful assembly of protesters.
Personally I'm troubled by this incident. It's a precedent that indicates worse things to come. That's why I asked how far the government can go in shutting down communications before anything unlawful occurs. Most people would agree the government can't shut down a newspaper ... but apparently they can shut down cell service. At least today. Tomorrow? Stay tuned.
Galteeth
Aug14-11, 08:18 PM
I must confess I'm thinking only about the recent incident where SF's BART shut down cell communications in advance of a protest, which ended up not happening. A lot of people seem to think that prior restraint and punishing people for what they MIGHT do is perfectly ok. This was the first time in the U.S. that a government agency shut down cell communications in advance of a lawful assembly of protesters.
Personally I'm troubled by this incident. It's a precedent that indicates worse things to come. That's why I asked how far the government can go in shutting down communications before anything unlawful occurs. Most people would agree the government can't shut down a newspaper ... but apparently they can shut down cell service. At least today. Tomorrow? Stay tuned.
Well, BART is apparently expecting another protest Monday. Anonymous started hacking them.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20092221-93/anonymous-defaces-bart-site-leaks-user-data/
I must confess I'm thinking only about the recent incident where SF's BART shut down cell communications in advance of a protest, which ended up not happening. A lot of people seem to think that prior restraint and punishing people for what they MIGHT do is perfectly ok. This was the first time in the U.S. that a government agency shut down cell communications in advance of a lawful assembly of protesters. They had a permit? You can't just protest anywhere, anytime, you need a permit.
SteveL27
Aug14-11, 08:40 PM
They had a permit? You can't just protest anywhere, anytime, you need a permit.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It doesn't say anything about a permit there. Do you think the citizens of Egypt should have gotten a permit from Mubarak before protesting his brutal rule?
Can you see how in general, requiring people to get a permit from the government, in order to protest against that government, would prevent any population from ever protesting against an evil government?
Are people really under the impression that you need a permit (from the government!) to protest against the government in this country?
But that said; you are not addressing the fundamental point of whether the government can shut down cell service to prevent people from protesting. I am willing to stipulate that a flash mob on a crowded subway platform is a hell of a bad idea. I'm not defending criminal vandalism. But in this particular case, there was no protest; only prior restraint of free speech rights.
In the future, should government agencies in the U.S. be allowed to shut down cellphones, shut down Internet service, shut down newspapers and television stations, to prevent the possibility that someone might break the law?
That's what's at issue. When foreign dictators do the exact same thing, we have no trouble condemning their actions. But recently Cameron's remarks in England, and BART's actions in San Francisco this past Thursday, have brought the issue home.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Did they have a permit? You do know that you have to have a permit for protests in public places?
Seriously, take some time to understand the law before you make posts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_permit
Proton Soup
Aug14-11, 09:05 PM
Did they have a permit? You do know that you have to have a permit for protests in public places?
Seriously, take some time to understand the law before you make posts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_permit
it's clear that he understands. and the wiki is making a pretty good argument that those laws are used to deny people of their rights.
it's clear that he understands. and the wiki is making a pretty good argument that those laws are used to deny people of their rights.It's clear from his posts that he was unaware of the law. I really wish people would invest some time in researching the facts before they post. A lot of members do take the time, so it's unfair that some people don't.
The wiki is whiney, IMO. If you want to peacefully gather in a significant number, precautions must be taken for the benefit of the protestors. Police are sent to protect the protestors and manage the crowds, traffic, etc... It's called common sense, something that seems to be in short supply lately, IMO.
Proton Soup
Aug14-11, 09:36 PM
I don't think he does understand based on his posts.
The wiki is whiney, IMO. If you want to peacefully gather in a significant number, precautions must be taken for the benefit of the protestors. Police are sent to protect the protestors and manage the crowds, traffic, etc... It's called common sense, something that seems to be in short supply lately, IMO.
well, i see the social media thing as neither here nor there. it's just a tool, and a few hooligans have learned how to use it. writing a new law won't help. if you come down hard on people for using this tool, they'll just choose another one. word of mouth, a pair of sneakers hanging over a power line, chalk on a sidewalk.
heck, the punitive nature of our system is likely part of what is stoking some of these events in the US, anyway. it's a kind of revenge.
Would MLK have been granted permits for people to gather in southern cities and march in support of civil rights? I don't think so. The use of police dogs, water-cannons, and truncheons, etc against peaceful marchers argues strongly against prior restraint (requiring permits from the authorities lest all the marchers be considered rioters and be dealt with accordingly.)
I lived through that time, and remember thinking "what have these people done to get treated this way?" It's easy to pose such questions as if they were dichotomies, but that is rarely useful or even marginally honest, IMO.
well, i see the social media thing as neither here nor there. it's just a tool, and a few hooligans have learned how to use it. writing a new law won't help. if you come down hard on people for using this tool, they'll just choose another one. word of mouth, a pair of sneakers hanging over a power line, chalk on a sidewalk.That's why I was so surprised in the London thread that everyone was so for pre-emptive and total police control, without question, and unreasonably harsh prison sentences, IMO.
ThomasT
Aug14-11, 10:59 PM
well, i see the social media thing as neither here nor there. it's just a tool, and a few hooligans have learned how to use it.I think that the more or less instantaneous and untraceable electronic communication capability isn't "just a tool". It's a very effective tool that seems to enable the hooligans to stay ahead of efforts to stop them, as the OP and other posters have pointed out.
... writing a new law won't help.I'm not sure about that. If penalties for the sorts of organized criminal activities that we're talking about were increased, and then uniformly enforced and prosecuted, then I think it would make a big difference. But I also think that none of that is likely to happen.
... if you come down hard on people for using this tool, they'll just choose another one. word of mouth, a pair of sneakers hanging over a power line, chalk on a sidewalk.But those means are much less effective and probably wouldn't enable the hooligans to stay ahead of police.
Anyway, you can't come down hard on people simply for using electronic media. What might work is increasing sentences for those caught and convicted of crimes and having those tougher laws consistently enforced and prosecuted. But part of the problem is that all components of the criminal justice system (including enforcement, prosecution, and incarcaration) are incapable of handling the sort of increases that that would entail.
... heck, the punitive nature of our system is likely part of what is stoking some of these events in the US, anyway. it's a kind of revenge.I have to disagree with this. Our system doesn't seem inordinately punitive to me. I feel very free, very fortunate, and very thankful as a citizen of the US for the sort of system that we have.
These 'wilding' organized criminal actions are the actions of kids who've grown up in cultures of violence and contempt for authority. This antisocial behavior isn't about anything important. It isn't revenge against abuse or insurrection. It's primarily just lots of very unwise young people doing what they can get away with. They're devoid of any sense of societal responsibility and respect for the rights of others.
If their actions are minimally punished or just excused for one reason or another, then they will not only continue but increase. And that's what I predict will be the case.
Jack21222
Aug14-11, 11:00 PM
If you want to peacefully gather in a significant number, precautions must be taken for the benefit of the protestors. Police are sent to protect the protestors ...
I have a hard time believing that anybody believes this.
Never once have I ever seen police protecting protesters. MANY times have I seen or heard of police beating, arresting, and even KILLING protesters.
Here's a video of police "protecting" a protester by shooting her in the head with rubber bullets for holding a sign, and then laughing afterward
AnEjzYCHidw
A KKK member seeks a black police officer to protect him in a rally in 1983.
So you think your job sucks sometimes? Consider this Austin, Texas policeman charged with protecting this fine upstanding member of the community during a KKK rally as protestors were closing in on them in 1983. To protect and serve. You don't necessarily get to pick who you have to protect sometimes.
This is picture story only, it conveys a whole lot of message. The image speaks for itself, wonder what the KKK guy felt after this about the Cop. Good Samaritan story revisited.
Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/116775#ixzz1V4EkfPez
Jack21222
Aug14-11, 11:14 PM
A KKK member seeks a black police officer to protect him in a rally in 1983.
So you think your job sucks sometimes? Consider this Austin, Texas policeman charged with protecting this fine upstanding member of the community during a KKK rally as protestors were closing in on them in 1983. To protect and serve. You don't necessarily get to pick who you have to protect sometimes.
This is picture story only, it conveys a whole lot of message. The image speaks for itself, wonder what the KKK guy felt after this about the Cop. Good Samaritan story revisited.
Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/116775#ixzz1V4EkfPez
You had to dig back 30 years to find an example? When I said I've never seen it happen, I should point out that I was under 1 year old when this particular instance occurred. This was before police adopted the tactic of firing rubber bullets at head-level to disperse crowds.
SteveL27
Aug14-11, 11:19 PM
It's clear from his posts that he was unaware of the law.
I'm painfully aware of the modern development of "free speech zones" and the like. You seem to believe that civil liberties are obtained by asking the government's permission. This is not the time or the place for a lengthy history lesson; but the absurdity of asking a repressive government's permission to protest that government's policies speaks for itself. If people waited for government permission, blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus, gays would be in jail, and for that matter, we'd still be a British colony.
I really wish people would invest some time in researching the facts before they post. A lot of members do take the time, so it's unfair that some people don't.
A totally unwarranted personal attack. It seems to me you're drinking a lot of government Kool-Aid. The U.S. Constitution gives people the right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances. Permits and free speech zones are the latest attempt to prevent people from asserting their rights.
In any event, you continue to focus on the protesters. I've already said that I'll stipulate that a flash mob on a subway platform at rush hour is not a good idea. The question at hand is not whether this particular group of protesters are expressing themselves in an appropriate manner; the question is whether BART is within its rights, legally and morally, to shut down cell service in advance of a protest, before any crime has been committed? In fact, before anyone had even shown up?
It's a slippery slope problem. If what BART did is ok this time, what is the limit? That's why I started a few posts ago by asking if people believe that the government has the right to shut down a newspaper for printing things the government doesn't like. WikiLeaks comes to mind. Bradley Manning is in jail and at one point was being subjected to treatment that was illegal and bordered on psychological torture. His "crime?" Revealing some of the corruption and, uh, cattle excrement [LOL I got ***'d] at the heart of our recent foreign policy misadventures.
So ... can the government torture someone -- someone who has not yet been convicted of any crime, mind you -- because the government says so? Or do we still have due process in this country?
Evo my friend, due process and the rule of law are not something you ask the government permission for. Due process and the rule of law are things people fight for every day in the courts and in politics and in every interaction with the government. And throughout history, when the courts and the political system didn't work ... people in this country laid down their lives for due process and the rule of law.
If BART can turn off cell service before anyone even shows up to protest; then what CAN'T the government do, in your opinion?
The wiki is whiney, IMO. If you want to peacefully gather in a significant number, precautions must be taken for the benefit of the protestors. Police are sent to protect the protestors and manage the crowds, traffic, etc... It's called common sense, something that seems to be in short supply lately, IMO.
I'm sure President Mubarak would agree. I just wonder if you've thought through the consequences of your own naive trust in getting government's "permission" to oppose its policies.
State Aid Failed to Stem U.K. Unrest (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904823804576502471452310218.html)
LONDON—After furious race riots broke out in London's Tottenham area 26 years ago, government and local authorities poured millions of pounds into the district and especially Broadwater Farm estate, a notorious housing project that was the epicenter of the 1985 unrest.
and
Meanwhile, gang culture has persisted, fueled, according to community workers, by a negative attitude to police and authority that was one of the legacies of the 1985 riot
I am not sympathsizing with the rioter's in any way. That being said, a hostile relationship between the police and people who are forced to live there is almost a 100% guarantee that history repeats itself. Sadly in this case, it has proven true. It isn't all about the money in the end, it is about lack of respect. Maybe this time, this issue will be addressed in the long term. It will be tough to do, I am sure of that.
Rhody...
You had to dig back 30 years to find an example? When I said I've never seen it happen, I should point out that I was under 1 year old when this particular instance occurred. This was before police adopted the tactic of firing rubber bullets at head-level to disperse crowds.When the protests don't become riots, why on earth would the police protection make the news? "Newsflash - Nothing happened today at a peaceful protest which was protected by local police." Film at 11.
Apparently the police protection works.
Galteeth
Aug15-11, 12:16 PM
When the protests don't become riots, why on earth would the police protection make the news? "Newsflash - Nothing happened today at a peaceful protest which was protected by local police." Film at 11.
Apparently the police protection works.
Police are frequently assigned to protect the WBC people when they protest.
EDIT: In most cases, protestors don't have much to fear from other civilians. Groups like the KKK and Westboro would be exceptions.
"Apparently the police protection works." I'm sure you're not suggesting that police never rough up protestors.
"Apparently the police protection works." I'm sure you're not suggesting that police never rough up protestors.No, I'm saying when they do, it's in the news.
Proton Soup
Aug15-11, 11:24 PM
That's why I was so surprised in the London thread that everyone was so for pre-emptive and total police control, without question, and unreasonably harsh prison sentences, IMO.
well, the prison sentence for stealing water was harsh, but i think part of that is that we can identify with an electrical engineering student as someone like us. but the assaults, and especially the arsons, could be worth that.
it still seems to me, though, that once you start seeing mayhem, you really need to establish a large police presence. even the presence will calm most of the joy-rioters without having to go to total control.
i just hate the idea of using some crazy law to outlaw most all forms of protest or political activism. speech in government-approved speech zones and predetermined times isn't really free speech.
Proton Soup
Aug15-11, 11:31 PM
I have to disagree with this. Our system doesn't seem inordinately punitive to me. I feel very free, very fortunate, and very thankful as a citizen of the US for the sort of system that we have.
These 'wilding' organized criminal actions are the actions of kids who've grown up in cultures of violence and contempt for authority. This antisocial behavior isn't about anything important. It isn't revenge against abuse or insurrection. It's primarily just lots of very unwise young people doing what they can get away with. They're devoid of any sense of societal responsibility and respect for the rights of others.
If their actions are minimally punished or just excused for one reason or another, then they will not only continue but increase. And that's what I predict will be the case.
i'm still in awe of Norway. how do they do it? what about them instills a sense of social responsibility that makes keeping a large percentage of their population in jail unnecessary?
ThomasT
Aug16-11, 08:21 AM
i'm still in awe of Norway. how do they do it? what about them instills a sense of social responsibility that makes keeping a large percentage of their population in jail unnecessary?Good question. It might have something to do with Norway's degree of racial, ethnic and cultural homogeneity. Among highly developed countries, the other Scandinavian countries, and Japan, and European countries in general, have much lower (about a tenth) incarceration rates than the US, which has by far the highest incarceration rate and also is probably the most racially, ethnically and culturally inhomogeneous country.
But maybe that's not a key factor wrt the flash mobs that this thread is about.
Rioters (in relatively recent memory) and flash mobbers tend to be predominantly young and African American (and whatever the British equivalent are called) -- but not immigrants. This is also the case with the prison population in the US (not sure about England).
It seems clear enough to me that this has a lot to do with the urban (sub)culture of criminality, violence and contempt for the rights of others that these kids grow up in. They've just taken the youthful 'rebel without a cause' thing to another level that nobody really knows how to deal with. And this is all magnified and exacerbated by modern refinements in communications technologies.
It seems clear enough to me that this has a lot to do with the urban (sub)culture of criminality, violence and contempt for the rights of others that these kids grow up in. They've just taken the youthful 'rebel without a cause' thing to another level that nobody really knows how to deal with. And this is all magnified and exacerbated by modern refinements in communications technologies.
But that subculture emerges from a lack of positive social structure and that is the real problem behind violent youth. When we see a black teenager involved in gang crime or a white middle-class kid that shoots up his school, we tend to treat these as completely separate issues because of ethnic differences but the common thread is in how youth have lost faith in taking constructive paths and instead turned to destructive influences for easy answers.
Personally, I think there has been a breakdown of the balanced family structure as that would supply stability. We dwell too much on the sexual preference of couples instead of focusing on the balancing of breadwinner and homemaker roles. I fully support women being free to achieve financial success and empowerment but in order to keep the balance then perhaps we need more men to transition into providing progressive leadership on the home front. If kids are getting bullied, then where are the parents to police the situation... if kids are out on the streets late at night, then where are the elders to drag them by their ears back home? There's a lot of talk about unemployment numbers nationwide but the most important jobs in our communities seem to be vacant.
AlephZero
Aug16-11, 08:28 PM
Anyway, these two won't be doing any more organizing using social media for a while...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14551582
ThomasT
Aug16-11, 08:53 PM
Anyway, these two won't be doing any more organizing using social media for a while...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14551582They got light sentences (4 years, which they probably won't do all of) for serious deliberate crimes that carry a maximum penalty of 10 years. This is what I don't understand. The authorities in England say that the sentences send the message that this sort of behavior won't be tolerated. But it seems to me that they're sending the message that if you're caught and convicted, then you can expect to get a light sentence relative to what the law allows. 'Gangstas' and their minions of wannabes expect to go to prison for a few years for things like armed robbery, murder, assault, drug dealing, rape, etc.
The light sentencing tendency is part of the problem.
Galteeth
Aug16-11, 10:25 PM
Hey guys, let's have some perspective here. The violent crime rates were much higher in the 70's and 80's. I think the whole "moral fabric of society collapsing" is tread out by every generation. There always will be and always has been crime. What's different, in regards to "flash mobs" which let's keep in mind mostly aren't violent or criminal, is the way in which they are organized.
Couldn't you picture headlines in the 1890's: Violent gangsters now using telephone machine to conduct crime! Before, criminals needed to actually meet in person to plan or commit crimes. Now they can conspire from the secrecy of their homes! Civilization is finished!
ThomasT
Aug17-11, 01:58 AM
Hey guys, let's have some perspective here. The violent crime rates were much higher in the 70's and 80's. I think the whole "moral fabric of society collapsing" is tread out by every generation. There always will be and always has been crime. What's different, in regards to "flash mobs" which let's keep in mind mostly aren't violent or criminal, is the way in which they are organized.
Couldn't you picture headlines in the 1890's: Violent gangsters now using telephone machine to conduct crime! Before, criminals needed to actually meet in person to plan or commit crimes. Now they can conspire from the secrecy of their homes! Civilization is finished!I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure what your point is. What are you recommending? Just think of violent flash mobs and riots as no big deal, relax and embrace the status quo? After all we've always had mobs and riots and gangsters and criminals. Is there no point in discussing ways of possibly improving things?
Proton Soup
Aug17-11, 09:23 AM
Hey guys, let's have some perspective here. The violent crime rates were much higher in the 70's and 80's. I think the whole "moral fabric of society collapsing" is tread out by every generation. There always will be and always has been crime. What's different, in regards to "flash mobs" which let's keep in mind mostly aren't violent or criminal, is the way in which they are organized.
Couldn't you picture headlines in the 1890's: Violent gangsters now using telephone machine to conduct crime! Before, criminals needed to actually meet in person to plan or commit crimes. Now they can conspire from the secrecy of their homes! Civilization is finished!
yes, our crime rates were higher in the 70s and 80s. and then we started building larger prisons and keeping people incarcerated indefinitely and crime rates went down. so, we've been addressing the problem on the back end. what we haven't quite addressed yet is the problem on the front end, that pesky social fabric problem. if it were to come down to something so base as the previously-mentioned inhomogeneity stats, then we may be perpetually screwed. but if it is perhaps also related to something else, like say financial inequities, then perhaps we need to consider addressing the relative costs of that versus maintaining a huge crime and punishment industry.
Now, Maryland imitators... Ack...
'Flash mob' robs Maryland 7-Eleven in less than a minute, police say (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-16/justice/maryland.flash.mob_1_flash-mob-police-patrols-social-networking-sites?_s=PM:CRIME)
Rhody... :yuck:
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.