Flash Mobs a Threat to Security? 582
RawCode writes "News about a recent report released by the RCMP suggests that flash mobs could pose a future threat to security. 'Some are aimed at celebrities. Tech-savvy teenaged girls in Britain can quickly spread the word on the whereabouts of Prince William, surrounding him with hundreds of screaming fans. Some are political, organizing protests. Text-messaging was instrumental to organizing public demonstrations in the Phillippines that forced President Joseph Estrada from office'."
Two thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
The other thing that occurs to me, unfortunately, is that this will lead us even more down the path of trying to prevent crimes rather than punish them. It sounds like a good idea - I mean, isn't it better to stop the Bad Thing from even happening? The problem with it, of course, is that the only way to prevent crime is to actually curtail the abilities of people to do things that could be criminal. Fundamentally, it's a tradeoff of liberty for security.
I'm not exactly a wild-haired anarchist, and I do believe that some tradeoffs of that nature are necessary given the amount of damage ten dedicated people can inflict (to paraphrase a quote that went something like "the progress of history can be measured by how many people a group of ten dedicated men can kill"...but I don't remember who said it. Help with attribution would be appreciated), but we (by which I mean the so-called first world) keep moving in only one direction: more security, less liberty. It's a cultural decision which is based on events like plane hijackings, car bombs and assasinations, but results in policies like the DMCA and the CBDTPA.
The article certainly comes across as a justification for engaging in yet more crime prevention. At some point, I can only hope that we turn around and realize that we can't prevent Bad Things from happening, so we're better off allowing liberty and punishing criminals than eliminating liberty and making criminals out of everyone.
The quote is..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Margaret Mead
Re:The quote is..... (Score:3, Interesting)
> Margaret Mead
"Originally overheard in a Munich beer hall, 1923, and again at the Wansee Conference, 1942." - A Cynic
And the alternative (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The quote is..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The quote is..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Bin Laden has been clear about this. He has 3 main grievances. (this is unlike the old Ayatollahs of Iran who considered the west "the great satan"). OBL is upset about:
1) Sanctions on Iraq, which he claims killed millions and caused starvation and malnourshment.
2) Near-unequivocal support of Israel and what he sees as oppression of the Palestinian people.
3) Placement of US troops and bases in Saudi Arabia and the US's support for what he says is a corrupt un-Islamic dictatorship.
Osama's a nasty SOB and deserves a shit-storm in hell, but let's not ignore that he has rational reasons for what he did. They were at least rational from his point of view, and his power grew because there were a lot of people who agreed with his issues.
Not liking him, or the fact that he committed heinous crimes, does not invalidate his initial complaints.
Re:The quote is..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Too many people fly into hyperbole and make Osama out as a madman who hates the US because of our freedom. That's simply shortsighted and childish. Unfortunately, too many Americans are happy to believe jingoistic rants.
"They don't love their children like we do."
"They hate us because we have freedom."
"They're incapable of living in a democracy."
"They'll never have peace because they love violence."
It's also blindly naive to go around thinking that our actions and our policies do not have any effect on other people in the world.
Osama's a great orator and he makes arguments that ring true with a lot of people in the region. Arabs are tired of the outside powers pushing their way in the region.
They hate the the way the US suports Israel, no matter how badly they treat the Palestinians.
They hated Saddam and they hated the sanctions. And while Saddam had the power to turn that around, they tend to blame the US for keeping the sanctions in place. Of course, before the invasion, Saddam was wiling to talk. Bush said that it didn't matter what Saddam said or did, we were going to invade. That doesn't win friends and influence people.
They don't like hearing Rumsfeld hinting that Syria and Iran will be next. Doesn't he realize that plays exactly into what Osama predicted the US would try to do?
They do not believe the lie that we went there to save the peopel of Iraq from Saddam. The fact that our first priority was to protect the oil fields rather protect power and water demonstrates that quite effectively.
Our actions in the middle east do have repercutions, and even here at home. The running failure in Iraq has served Osama tremoundously. It proved him right, and will probably provide lots more people and money to commit acts of terrorism.
Osama may be an opportunist and uses current events to push his cause. But is that any different than any other power monger? Look at how 9/11 was used in this country to push massive surveillance systems and the curtailment of liberties.
I dare say that Osama is not the only one that can be accused of hating our freedom.
Until we (Americans) can figure that we need to learn to see the world through they eyes of the people we impact, we're destined for more attacks at home, and more invasions abroad.
We live in a big neighborhood called the world. And right now, we're that neighbor that nobody likes. We park in front of the neighbor's house, dump our garbage in the lot behind us, and play our music loud until the wee hours of the morning. We're the mayor, so the police don't bother us when they call, and then we get indignant when our neighbors complain to us.
Re:The quote is..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bend your mind a bit and imagine that you're an Saudi citizen that is just barely getting by. You know the royal family is oppressive and corrupt. And it's very buddy-buddy with the US Government. And you know that you can't complain because the mutaween will at least beat you if not kill you.
You hear people like Osama who tell you that your government is corrupt and that the US is behind them. It rings true enough. He tells you that the US wants to keep the corrupt and oppressive government in your country because it guarantees them cheap oil. He says that the US wants to dominate the region and points to examples such as the Iraqi sanctions and the US bases in your own country. And he says that all that money coming from the Americans who buy the cheap oil is being squandered by that family, rather than being spent on social welfare and economic development.
Now from your point of view as a Saudi, you probably don't like the US very much. You'd even feel justified in hating them because you see how they play a role in your misery. Osama says he's fighting the good fight, trying to kick the US hard enough to get them out of the Middle East, and you might even feel justified in sending some money to his cause, or even sending your son to fight in it.
I know it can be hard to make the break and see things through others eyes. So, lets come back to the US. We've been attacked by a bunch of Muslims who seem to hate us. They bombed embassies abroad, attacked a ship, and then toppled the twin towers. "They hate us because we are free", we are told. And we're afraid and angry of what they did to us and by God, we're not going to let it happen again. Our leaders tell us we need to invade Afghanistan to get those terrorists. Then they tell us we need to invade Iraq because there are terrorists there too. And it makes sense. All these attacks have been carried out by Muslims from these Muslim countries. Maybe we're a bit skeptical, but the leaders tell us we're fighing the good fight and that God is on our side. We're convinced enough to spen our money on it, put the ribbons in our windows, and send our sons for the cause.
As an American, I feel that with our wealth and power, we should be an example and help those who are less fortunate. But, I don't think we can bomb and invade other countries into better economies, higher literacy rates, and improved human rights. Sadly, our government is not interested in these things. All it cares about is our energy security and it will work to keep the regimes in place that ensure that cheap flow of oil.
As an American, I'm ashamed of the fact that my government often choses to support tyranical dictators and monarchies for the expedient short-term return in cheap resources and the illusion of security. It is exactly these short-sighted policies that breed a hatred and distrust of my government.
The encouraging thing is that many Americans don't directly support these policies. In many cases we're simply not aware of what is done in our names. The sad part, though, is that too many Americans are content with being ignorant and resist the idea that our government does bad things to other people and countries. We're raised to believe we're the good guys, fighting for the good cause, and doing good works in the world.
The ingorance of the fact that this is often not the case is why so many Americans are surprised that people hate us. Not aware of what's done in our name, it's easy to then believe it when we're told, "they hate us because of our freedom." Clearly their governments (the very ones we support) don't support freedom, so it must be true.
Re:Two thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally can't comprehend how people become so attached to celebrities that they collect things about or belonging to them. Or in the case of a musician (er most likely bad singer) go to an event with the person and scream so much they don't even hear the music-- what are they really there for? I'm calling the entertainment industry sick and perverted, and blaming the audience.
innate, perhaps (Score:5, Interesting)
In one set of experiments, monkeys were willing to sacrifice very large quantities of their favorite beverage in order to simply look at pictures of higher-ranking monkeys in their social group for a period of time.
Sort of puts a new spin on those celeb mags in the supermarket checkout lines, doesn't it?
Re:innate, perhaps (Score:3, Informative)
Re: cite please? (Score:4, Informative)
His lab page is here [duke.edu], but none of the paper titles ring a bell.
If you're interested, you should at least be able to reach him at: platt at neuro dot duke dot edu
Flash mobs work for freedom also (Score:5, Insightful)
Say you and your friends are tired of being arrested for possession of marijuana. You feel that if you're not disturbing the peace, it isn't anyone's business. And you feel that the people who do the arresting and prosecuting are just in it for the bribes and kickbacks from lawyers to the police and the judges, or they are making tons of money by investing in corporate prison systems.
So whenever you see or you be in 420 arrests happening, you send a flash bulletin. Many people who agree that this situation must change show up.
They surround the arrest perimeter. They don't leave when ordered. They just aren't reasonable.
A single arrest turns into a hundred arrests (for 'terrorism').
This happens over and over. It's not a one-time thing. Eventually, the authorities begin to get the message through their cement heads that the time has come for the situation to change.
It changes. No more 420 arrests; regardless of the 'law'.
This is not exactly how democracy is supposed to work, but it is the only way that does in corporate dictatorship (like where the people who make big bucks selling prescriptions to Marinol reinvest the money in corporate prisons, which are filled with (black) people serving time for being unable to come up with the money to bribe the judge, ahh... excuse me, for 'using drugs').
Re:Flash mobs work for freedom also (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Flash mobs work for freedom also (Score:4, Insightful)
Not by far now, but maybe by far in 2010.
Learn how civil disobedience works (Score:5, Insightful)
So Ghandi figured out that the British were making a fortune on the salt tax, and had made making sea salt illegal to make more tax money, so he organized lots of people to break that law and make sea salt. The point was not to flout the law, but rather to stop the money.
Now do the similar analysis: According to your statement, the people profiting from the current drug laws are "...making tons of money by investing in corporate prison systems". You are proposing to get a factor of 10 or 100 more people arressted and jailed for each drug bust. So tell me, does that make those coprporate prison investors more money or less money?
You have to actually learn from history to make a difference.
Re:Learn how civil disobedience works (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly the war on drugs has its profiteers and mercenaries, but jails take years to build. It's easy to make money on a sustained growth in the prisoner population; it's hard to make money on a sudden growth in what is essentially petty crime.
There is also the ability to force an unjust government to face uncomfortable political realities. Who wants to first on the boat back to mother England with the news the practitioners of violent uncivil disobedience aren't being prosecuted because judges have 100s of cases of 'possession of salt with intent to season'?
Likewise, how many politicians will run on the 'I let a serial rapist go free to make room for johnny pot-smoker' platform? Not many. You can clog up the courts with petty criminals and force politicians to choose between pot smokers and violent criminals. Witness the current debate in Chicago [suntimes.com]. I don't see legalization around the corner, but I do see more localities coming to the realization pot smokers are not public enemy # 1 and just cost too damn much to prosecute.
To many, the benefit of the war on drugs is money. But for those who have allowed this war to escalate, and have the power to stop it, the benefit is political clout. Force the hand of the police with what is essentially a DoS attack on the court system, and the politicians will have some 'splaining to do.
P.C.ness (Score:4, Insightful)
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
Re:Flash mobs work for freedom also (Score:3, Interesting)
It changes. No more 420 arrests; regardless of the 'law'.
Boy, that cracks me up! Given the current events, what will happen is that The Powers That Be will try to control the situation thru some bonehead restriction of technology.
Are people using cell phone text messages to spread the word? Then expect said service to be restricted under some "security act".
Re:Two thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)
The next question we need to ask is, whose security do large scale protests threaten? It would certainly seem to be a small minority that are threatened by these protests, not the average Joe. I know that I don't think twice when I see protestors. I see it as a sign of democracy, true democracy, in action.
Take the RCMP reports with a grain of salt (Score:3, Insightful)
Emulate the Swiss in crime prevention (Score:3, Interesting)
The Swiss are issued guns as part of their mandatory military service, and required to keep them in the home and be proficient with them. You don't hear much about violent crime being committed in Switzerland.
Arming citizens, giving them the duty and more importantly the *ability* to protect themselves, is a great way t
Re:Emulate the Swiss in crime prevention (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Two thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Two thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
We have all the technology and means available to us right now to end world hunger, and to create a fair justice system. The problem isn't the means but the attitudes and beliefs of the people in power. And even more importantly the apathy of the population in general to actually change the system.
Re:The Fountainhead (Score:3, Insightful)
Traffic Light Example: If you aren't an idiot, and can manage to time it right, you can get across the street without a light. I do it all the time. However, the light frees a bit of your brain from thinking about crossing the street, but you lose autonomy.
Re:Two thoughts (Score:3)
"There were a bunch of people from Mississippi standing around in a candy store, and this noob from Chicago showed up - and he whistles at a white woman! No tolerance for that sort of behavior in Mississippi, so immediately someone complains, a mob is convened, witnesses attest to having seen the guy whistle, and he is found guilty and summarily executed! Sure, swift punishment - and no appeals!"
Not so coo
more thoughts... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with extremely "swift justice" is that in a lot of cases it leaves out the "justice" part and concentrates on the "swift" part. And in our society now it all boils down to cash, the more you got, the more you can get away with, and the least likely you may even be charged. The less you got, the more likely it is you WILL esperience capital S swift and not really get any small j justice.
You ever been in a courtroom for something serious where the prosecutor and cop get on the stand and lie to the judge about events they claim transpired, with you as who they want to prosecute, and you know they are lying, and that you are 100% innocent? I have, and I tell you, it is about one of the most depressing and dismal and hopless scenes you can imagine, you just get devastated. It's in my top ten list for being such an anti corrupt government agitator, been there, done that, it HAPPENS to people, either individually, or in the case of big crimes like illegal wars, it happens to everyone. Justice? Where is it, not seeing it much, I see a prison/lawyer/government 3 million laws on the books and climbing racket, but not seeing much in the way of "justice". Isee a system where eventually you won't ever be innocent, because they could find something you are guilty of. I bet it's there now for the bulk of the population.
"Justice" to me is-say, one example-a potential rape victim HASN'T been disarmed in advance by society, and when a rape is attempted, the raper gets popped by the rapee. When joe sixpack has some burglar break into his house, the same, bang, end of story, obvious evidence, burglar on floor in living room. That's "justice". Anything else is a convulted melodrama conducted in a foreign language most people don't speak with the winners usually determined by who has the most cash or the most "power" in the situation. Not in all cases, but in most of them.
What we have now is the criminal justice "system" which is more of a perpetual jobs racket for some folks then anything else. Do we have crime? Sure! There's still a lot of legit crime, theft, murder, etc, but a LOT of what we have now is artificially produced pseudo crime, introduced by the state and legislators who's only job is to write more laws, never to REMOVE laws that have been proven to be a disaster. A lot of the so-called "crimes" on the books are merely a way for the state to seize command and control and to take property. I would say almost all asset forfeiture laws are scams, most drug laws are a waste of time (alcohol prohibition proved that) and so on. The tax codes are criminal in nature from top to bottom, not a dang thing about them is even close to being lawful, either by design or by implementation.
In addition, our society *rewards* extremely high level criminals, calls them CEOs and distinguished politicians, it's really in most cases petty ante crime that gets prosecuted. Joe haliburton can "lose" a million here or there and not much happens, joe six pack can "lose" a few thousand on taxes and get his life devastated. The big cases make headlines, but that's only
Sure it is a threat. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure it is a threat. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm thinking more of a biohazard.
You are mistaken, "mob" can be "lookouts" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sure it is a threat. (Score:3, Interesting)
This kind of stuff is scary. A friend described a group of people doing some sort of flash mob stuff
Technology (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Protecting those in power from the evil truth. (Score:5, Insightful)
Afterall isn't that why we are "protecting" our President from those horrible demonstrators? They might actually show him that there is a percentage of the population that doesn't agree with him?
Re:Protecting those in power from the evil truth. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Protecting those in power from the evil truth. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Protecting those in power from the evil truth. (Score:3, Funny)
"The majority of people who come out to wave do so in a friendly fashion, although there is of course the occasional unfriendly wave."
-- George W. Bush
Re:Protecting those in power from the evil truth. (Score:4, Interesting)
All of that chaos would make it difficult for the secret service to protect [that person] from the nut looking to do damage.
Of course they are a threat (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Of course they are a threat (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps the catalysts don't matter since the world seems to be increasingly bent on raising walls rather then lowering them.
So much for the global village!
as always, our leaders look out for the elite (Score:5, Interesting)
If it is lives they want to save, how about all the millions of working class people who die obesity, cancer, heart disease, etc? Instead we pay to make sure some elite figurehead won't have his hair rumpled by teenaged girls.
Typical of the human critter....
Re:as always, our leaders look out for the elite (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe it would be better to cordon off the areas of the cities where the main terrorist targets are living or working: the business district, famous celebrities, politicians, influential business leaders etc and make sure they are well defended and secure.
The main terrorist suspects could live outside this cordoned off area and maybe be given passes to get into to work as cleaners, shop assistants etc if they conform to sufficiently secure personality profiles.
Terrorism is clearly the biggest and most dangerous threat the world has ever known and it's only by protecting those in power who do there best to protect us all that we can defeat it, that and lot's of bombs - laser guided bombs.
Well as for America... (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to peacefully gather and parade or demonstrate to make one's views known or to support or oppose a public policy is based upon the twin guarantees of the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble.
Practicing your right to assemble is NOT a security risk.
please report to the nearest Free Speech Zone (Score:5, Insightful)
Please mod INSIGHTFUL not FUNNY (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:please report to the nearest Free Speech Zone (Score:5, Insightful)
The fringies hated Clinton for Ruby Ridge and Waco, but much of what Bush has enacted scares the hell out of normal people that think about it. The fact that there is a large section of the Republican party that seems downright excited by the prospect of the apocalypse and authoritarian religious government is another thing that tends to make moderate Americans a little nervous.
Yeah I'm not exactly excited about the Dems myself, power seekers are often parasites who love control as far as I am concerned, but the Republicans make me a lot more nervous than the Democrats at this point.
GOP "more creepy" than Dems' prison-like FSZs? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a cultural assumption on the political scene that the Democrats are all compassionate progressives (so their actions are ipso facto less evil), and the Republicans are all hateful religious zealots (so their actions are ipso facto more evil). It seems the Republicans are far more creepy to you simply because they are Republicans,
Re:Well as for America... (Score:4, Interesting)
No very large group protesting has ever been 100% peaceful. and No response from the government has ever been to protect those citizen's rights.
If you believe that the Constitution or the Bill of Rights applies to everyone equally in the United States, you either just got here, or have lived under a rock for the past 200 years.
It's the one ideal waved in everyone's faces that is the biggest hyprocacy on this planet.
As a US citizen, that fact makes me sick.
Re:Well as for America... (Score:5, Insightful)
Incorrect. It's not illegal, but it may very well may be a security risk.
Put yourself in the shoes of a police officer or security agent -- if 200 people show up in your area out of the blue, you're going to be suspicious, and you're going to watch them closely. Maybe there's one bad egg in that crowd. Maybe they're all bad. Maybe there's no bad eggs, but while you're focused on watching them somebody else takes advantage of your guard being down and gets away with something.
Re:Well as for America... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that your right is constitutionally protected doesn't mean it's not a security risk. It just means that the right is so important that the government is (supposedly) not allowed to deal with the risk by prohibiting peaceful assembly.
Everything you do in a free society is a security risk. I don't have a government camera in my apartment, so as far as the government knows I could be making bombs in there. That's a security risk. But some risks are worth taking! We have to find a balance between security risks from terrorists and risks from oppressive government. Risk-free life is not possible. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be convinced that if something carries risk then it should automatically be banned.
Re:Well as for America... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you that the right to assembly is essential. Unfortunately, those rights have often been ignored in the past and are currently being violated with little objection from society at large.
Certainly you've seen some coverage of IMF/WTO protests in the last few years: protesters getting beaten by batons, hundreds or thousands of people getting arrested. Now, some of those people are arrested for vandalism or because they attack police officers without cause, and certainly they should be arreste
Ehm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ehm.. (Score:5, Funny)
Hell, yes! We're
Someone think of the celebrities! (Score:5, Insightful)
Flash Mobs? (Score:5, Funny)
Tinfoil Hat Government. (Score:4, Interesting)
When the British police confiscate cell phones as they are apparently "empowered to do so" are they allowed to go though the phones call list and stored numbers or would that require a warrant? The ol' "guilt by association" thing...
Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
As for flash mobs, what exactly can you do about them? The minute you start trying to use force to prevent flash mobs from forming (read: before they turn violent...IF they even do) you're going to have everyone yelling about how oppressed they are.
These so-called "security threats" come with the right to be able to leave your house whenever you want...
Re:Ugh (Score:3, Funny)
My first thought to that was "well I suppose if you use a catapult. .
Sorry, bad joke
Mobs of flashing girls? (Score:5, Funny)
now THAT's a power to be reckoned with!
Security, Security (Score:3, Interesting)
RCMP = Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RCMP = Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Score:5, Informative)
RCMP == FBI
CSIS == CIA
CSE == NSA
Roughly speaking of course -- the exact details are framed in their separate charters and, of course, the constitution differs between our two countries.
Re:RCMP = Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Score:5, Informative)
In provinces where there is no provincial police, it also enforces provincial laws and statutes, usually as a police force under contract with the provincial government.
Some cities and towns also contract the RCMP for municipal police services as well.
From their website: We provide a total federal policing service to all Canadians and policing services under contract to the three territories, eight provinces (except Ontario and Quebec), approximately 198 municipalities and, under 172 individual agreements, to 192 First Nations communities.
Also for those who don't know, "First Nations" refers to Native Americans.
Re:RCMP = Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Score:3, Informative)
- Similar, if not equal to the CIA
RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police
- Federal Police
- Similar, if not equal to FBI Duties
OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) Example
- Provincial Police
- Similar, if not equal to State Police
Municipal Police
- Obvious
Flash mobs? (Score:5, Funny)
(Yeah yeah, and tell them they can have their joke back too)
That's hardly surprising... (Score:3, Insightful)
For those who haven't read it, try "The Permanent Floating Riot Club" by Larry Niven. I can't remember which anthologies it is in, but a worthwhile read. At the end you won't be surprised by this phenom, except maybe that it isn't worse...
Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Dene Moore, you get a cookie. I can't wait to read your next exposé, "Bullets Fired From New, Hi-Tech Guns May Be Deadly"...
Most are not political, just silly. (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone who reads this should go to this guy's blog [fatality.co.uk] and post a comment about how you are looking for someone named Betty.
Brush up your Niven.... (Score:5, Informative)
"The Last Days of the Permanent Floating Riot Club", 1974; collected in "A Hole in Space".
Unfortunately, the solution is going to have to be different. The stories make a starting point for thinking about the problem.
The same threat as cellular phones. (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, the entire case was eventually dismissed.
Flash Mobs = Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
The only manner this could fall under the 'terrorism' moniker is for the flash mob to be directed to do something illegal. Kinda like 'Gather at xxxx street and bring bombs and guns to eliminate yyyy official/people'.
As pointed out before and proven here, labeling something as a potential terrorist threat is the new way freedom is subverted - and this must stop.
How to Get Away with Murder: (Score:3, Insightful)
Flash Coffee and Ice Cream (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I'm that old. This was around 1986 or so.
Anyway, one night there was a food run declared for midnight at the Lyons restaurant in Capitola. One hundred and ten students descended all at once on the otherwise empty restaurant, and all ordered coffee, some ice cream, and at the end asked for separate checks, each of which ranged from maybe one to five dollars.
There were only a couple employees on staff when we arrived. It took a long time to get served because they had to call off-duty employees on the phone, waking them out of bed to come work for the hour or two we were there.
As we prepared to depart, the restaurant manager sternly said "Don't ever do that again".
perhaps the reverse could be made true ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Could the Internet, phones, etc. be used equally well to detect, prepare for, disrupt and otherwise mess with Flash-mobbers?
Of course that would require a sufficiently large and motivated group of people with lots of time on their hands who are interested in preventing mayhem ... ;)
Hmm... (Score:3, Funny)
Project Mayhem (Score:3, Funny)
The first rule of project mayhem is you do not ask questions.
Seems to me (Score:5, Interesting)
And since it's changing the world it isn't surprising to me that there are those who would like to see this form of communication restricted.
Signal to noise.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Just put this article in the paper, and wait for other teenage boys to get the idea of throwing a few posts on the web about how the "prince" (or whatever target you want) will be at a certain location.
Then just sit back and wait as all the girls run around frantically, desperately trying to find someone that isn't there.
More noise == problem solved.
This is even a greater threat to national security (Score:3, Funny)
Coordinated behavior = power (Score:5, Interesting)
All you need is a sorority girl phone tree (Score:4, Funny)
Arianna H. talks about it [oraculartree.com], too.
How are flash mobs more dangerous than say... (Score:5, Interesting)
A soccer ball is the symbol of real terror!
opposing the president? blasphemy! (Score:3)
Well, of course they're a security threat! We don't want groups of unimportant people forcing politicians from office, now do we?
Only if you are a fascist (Score:5, Interesting)
amphetamines of the people (Score:4, Interesting)
"Flash mobs" are under attack first, because they've got "mobs" in their name, and most Americans have no other idea of what they are, never having the chance to participate. Once they're on the "terrorist" side of the "with us or against us" equation, look for blogs to get lumped in. I'd expect that by the end of 2005, several of the most reliable websites without FCC-controlled components will have been spiked with "true lies". Like the simulated Bush draft-dodging memos that killed CBS as a messenger of their subsequent Iraqmire documentary. The mediacracy prefers potatoes to surfers.
The unfathomable mind of law-enforcement... (Score:5, Funny)
So, just jam them! (Score:3, Funny)
When I first read the headline... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, you have security crawling all around a popular building - big deal. The terrorist, posing as a fan of say, Britney Spears, creates a flash mob two blocks away from the secured building claiming that she was spotted there - and shows up at that spot with a bomb. Voila, several hundred victims appearing of their own free will, close enough to the security site to create absolute chaos.
It didn't even occur to me that the Man considered flash mobs to be a threat in themselves... After all, there are certain Amendment rights to make this train of thought silly. I thought that the government was concerned about the public - not their right to assemble!
Fair article, probaly a fair report too (Score:3, Insightful)
The original Mountie report was quoted to say flash mobs are a "phenomenon to be reckoned with" and they are bloody well right. They are the police. Flash mobs ARE a force. Leddem reckon with it. Thats them jobs.
I mean, Its not like "The Man" recommended to do away with cell phones entirely or anything, that would be preposterous even in the US of A.
And this is Canada speaking.
"/Dread"
In a secret bunker somewhere (Score:3, Funny)
Its banned here.. (Score:3, Interesting)
All this ws co ordinated through SMS(text messaging). But the main organiser was called up by the cops the next day and asked not to hold any more of such mobs or there would be arrests.I don't think any one wants to face the prospect of an arrest just for holding flash mobs.
what the?.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone talks as though they're dangerous out-of-control, pretencious politcal statements thought up by flunked out students.
So far I have been to all but one of the flashmobs here in London and at every single one there has been zero-police presence, but it isn't as though they can't get the information out fast enough or arrange the man-power. Not this minute did I receive an email outlining the next mob in London (a week from now)
Every time there has been a mob it's on the evening news, and not once has the idea of 'terrorist attacks' surfaced, it is always a light-hearted affair (note this is all post 9/11 as well)
I think this just goes to show the highly-overzealous and inanity of current thought towards anyone normal having something remotely near un-regulated fun. Not to mention the seemingly constant specture of 'terrorism' and other assorted panic buzz-words 'biological' 'chemical' 'islam' 'mushroom cloud'...you get the idea.
I'll be going to the mob next week regardless of what all the politcal advisors and sercurity experts say.
New Media is always suspect (Score:3, Interesting)
People of a certain age remember when "Television would rot the minds of the youth of America" and "Rock and Roll was 'dangerous jungle music' that would cause uncontrollable urges in today's youth." These were horrified reactions to new media on the part of the more conservative elements of society.
At the same time, the "conservative" elements of US society applauded when the fax machine in Soviet Russia became a tool for the masses to communicate without government censorship. Yeltsin came to power largely due to mass faxes in Russia (predomanently in Moscow) told the real story of the government coup attempt on Gorbachev. Gorby lost face because he "allowed" it to happen by remaining Communist and a well-informed (via fax) Yeltsen became an instant hero because he stood up to the Red Army generals who wanted Gorby's ouster.
Obviously, the conservative elements in Soviet Russia didn't think so highly of the fax machine.
I note one Russian news service is called "Interfax" and, for a while, was a very independant and trusted news agency.
What bothers me is that laws have been passed to allow the confiscation of cellular phones and other new media devices to prevent the use of these new media for the purpose of organization "against" something or "for" something else. These laws will be selectively enforced to "edit" what kinds of flash mobs will be permitted by governments who wish to use those laws as that kind of tool.
I would predict that this kind of "editing" will amount to unequal enforcement. For example, were Conservative Christians in the US to "Flashmob" a clinic that offers family planning, there would be few arrests under a Bush government. But a monthly "flashmob," also known as Critical Mass [criticalmassrides.info] was broken up by police in New York in late September because the riders supposedly went where police decided they should not go (even though they were obeying all traffic laws).
Critical Mass has become a "reason to arrest" for the NYPD only since their August 28th event just before the Republican National Convention. [cnn.com]
This amounts to unequal enforcement and standing before US law enforcement, as no prior Critical Mass gathering had ever resulted in arrests.
Critical Mass holds the meets in order to promote non-polluting transportation and encourage the construction and maintenence of safe bike lanes. That doesn't sound like terrorism to me
Flash Democracy a Security Threat (Score:3, Insightful)
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
Because it used to, and people couldn't gather and protest the abuse of power. Don't believe the hype.
Not the Man we have to worry about (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised so many Slashdotters are making such a fuss about law enforcement finding the idea of crowds so unpalatable. Hasn't anyone been in a moshpit before (fun)? Or a riot (not so fun)?
A large, unpredictable crowd of people showing up, possibly for no good reason, in a possibly dangerous area, is something to be concerned about. Not that I'd advocate banning the technology, but I definitely see where the RCMP are coming from. Mobs are weird beasts at the best of times, and a charismatic figure can get them to do abominable things that they would never even think about doing as individuals.As other posters have already mentioned, terrorists could lure bloggers to a predetermined point to maximize casualties in the case of an explosive attack. A quickly-organized protest without any expectation of it by authorities might get the point across to onlookers, but the lack of expectation might also lead to all the problems of a large crowd with none of its solutions -- trash everywhere, smashed windows, snarled traffic....and the possibility of an injurious riot breaking out.
Now for a moment, switch away from my comment and browse at -1. Imagine the Slashdot crowd all yelling the contents of their individual post at the top of their lungs -- or carrying signs summarizing it, or both -- in the middle of downtown New York. This is (IMHO) a good analogy because New York, like Slashdot, is high-traffic, and usually there are only two or three distinct positions taken on an issue, which can be compared to shouting slogans. Some, not many, of these people have extreme ideas and are willing to commit violence to get this across. Some of them have pointy sticks.
The reason why this is contained on Slashdot (for the most part) is that everyone's talking at once, but it never cuts off anyone else since you're only reading one at a time. This means that slogans, etc usually aren't required. Even then, an anti-MS post laden with slogans, even faulty info, can be modded up, showing that even this is not perfect.
You are isolated on Slashdot -- or a blog -- as well. In addition, a certain percentage of Slashdotters (the moderators) are assigned to police the others through (meta-)modding -- this works to a pretty decent extent. The assignment is by fiat and people know who's in charge. A crowd has no such thing.
Even the crappiest, most reviled blog has far better signal-to-noise ratio than a crowd, and the worst that someone can do is troll...or attempt a DOS. In real life, crowds are really something to be concerned about.
Re:Yes, they really could be dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Assualt Rifle Ban (Score:5, Insightful)
Banning "dangerous things" is always a bad idea. I have a hammer. It can be used as a weapon. Should it be banned? The distinction between "tool" and "weapon" has nothing to do with the item.
Unfortunately, this position requires that we allow crimes to happen, and forces the police to be reactionary instead of preemptive. It's the only way to allow me, Joe LawAbidingCitizen, to have my freedom.
OT: 'bearded terminal hacker' (Score:3)
Did you just stumble across this phrase or something???
In this thread [slashdot.org] you said and any true bearded terminal hacker would tell you as such. You then used the same phrase twice in the parent post:
All it takes is one bearded terminal hacker gone bad
Can we allow bearded terminal hackers to become judge, jury, and executioner
I don't often notice this sort of thing, but having just left the 'Solaris vs Linux Continues' thread the additional instances of the phrase stood out.
I do not think it means
About ten minutes ago (Score:3, Funny)