Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters 682
Hugh Pickens writes "The WSJ reports that following three nights of rioting and looting in London, Blackberry's messaging network and social networking sites are being blamed by police, politicians and media organizations for helping rioters in London spread word about the next hot spot . It's an 'encrypted, very secure, safe, fast, cheap, free, easy way for disaffected urban youth to spread messages for the next targets,' says Mike Butcher, editor of TechCrunch Europe and digital advisor to the Mayor of London. But Ian Maude, an analyst at Enders Analysis, said it's unfair to lay the blame on technology. 'Certainly, it's a lot easier for people to communicate with each other in real time via some of these services but that's a fact of life. They're not good or evil in themselves, its the purposes for which people use them.' The Metropolitan Police, known as Scotland Yard, say they are monitoring social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Research In Motion Ltd. (RIMM), the maker of Blackberry smartphones, says it has 'engaged with the authorities to assist in any way we can.'" An anonymous reader points out that the rioters aren't the only ones using technology. London police have begun posting pictures on Flikr of people they'd like to interview following the riots over the last few days.
I call bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Blaming technology for the rioting is bullshit. You have to have people willing to riot and loot in the first place, this just helps them group together....
But more than that, the real bullshit is that in any group that size, there's no way the communication is "secure", in fact it MUST be broadcast (by tweet or whatever) where anyone could see it. Yes that lets rioters group but it also SHOULD give police a heads-up where to be. If technology is to blame for the riots then the police are almost as much to blame for allowed the riots to occur when the targets are handed to them on a digital platter beforehand.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I call bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
Blaming technology for the rioting is bullshit.
You sound like the gun nuts. Of course technology is to blame, and only a crazy person would be opposed to "reasonable" controls on mobile devices, such as registration. We're not talking about banning mobile devices, just common-sense solutions like police monitoring of messages and maybe some small waiting period on messages to keep this sort of thing from happening.
At least RIMM seems reasonable, and has "engaged with the authorities to assist in any way we can." Why can't you be like them?
Mobile computing is a privilege, not a right.
Re: (Score:3)
Police monitoring private messages is common sense?
So it's true, if it's done long enough it becomes ingrained enough for people to accept it. Who would have thought it works so quickly?
Re:I call bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
Well I wouldn't worry, the headline is sensationalist. Whilst many places have said technology was involved most media outlets have been quite measured in talking about it. The BBC ran an article today basically absolving it of blame saying that the likes of The Daily Mail misquoted Twitter users (quite gross misquotes too- blatant, horrendous level of misquoting).
The point has been made by most measured outlets that technology has actually better facilitated voluntary cleanup operations than the riots themselves. It's only the verging on far right wing fringe - the fringe that inherently must be irrational to have the hypocritical viewpoints it does - that support the "technology is bad" idea like The Daily Mail etc.
I don't think there's much popular support for blaming technology nowadays- a recent report said over 33% of adults have smart phones now in the UK, which inevitably means some of those are the older generation. I think even the older "get off my lawn" generation are beginning to realise the benefits of new technology to some extent, so the argument isn't even really popular amongst large swathes of even The Daily Mail's ignorant readerbase now
It's like when music was blamed for violence/drug use, then movies for violence, I think we're finally reaching the point where people are beginning to realise that, well, that ideology is fucking stupid when applied to technology in general too and the only thing to blame for violence, is people.
I'd argue the technology is to blame for x mentality is a lost battle already. I just wish it'd breathe it's last dying breath that little bit quicker, but it's almost there.
Re: (Score:3)
I know that's the popular view but I'm not convinced it's true.
They show all the sentiment of the far right- their sentiment and demands aligns directly with the BNP, but they hate homosexuals etc. to boot. The only difference is they pretend to hate the BNP because to support them isn't cool with the zeitgeist, but ultimately their policies align near perfectly.
The Daily Mail reports that immigrants are to blame for things that they are simply not- Hitler similarly said Jews were to blame for things they w
Re: (Score:3)
"The problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other people's money."
Re: (Score:3)
I expect this is consequence of falsely teaching people for years that someone else was responsible for their well-being.
Actually, since the 1980s they've been taught that Greed Is Good.
Advertising has shown them the things they should aspire to, whilst racial discrimination has denied them the well paying jobs that are needed to afford them.
Crime happens more in countries where the Gini coefficient is highest. The Gini coefficient being the gap between the richest and the poorest. Thats direct proof that your assertion of socialism being at fault being the very opposite than the truth. That and the fact that your example of
Re: (Score:3)
Then I guess the question should be why they think it's fun to riot. Somehow, I wouldn't consider it fun.
You're asking the right questions, the deeper questions that come closer to a full understanding of how and why these things happen.
Unfortunately it is common to encounter resistance from people who are either small-minded and don't consider a fuller understanding to be possible, or are so preoccupied with their "shit hitting the fan" mentality that they are annoyed you don't share their sense of urgency. I suppose there's not much difference.
The real question is, why are so many young people so unha
The thin veneer of civilisation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The thin veneer of civilisation (Score:4, Informative)
It isn't Aung San Suu Kyi we're dealing with here. It's these clueless bitches: http://audioboo.fm/boos/434411-leana-hosea-speaks-to-croydon-looters-on-bbcworldservice [audioboo.fm]
Who is suggesting terminating connections? I'm happy with tapping.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The thin veneer of civilisation (Score:5, Interesting)
All I know is that it's good when kids use it to fight the power in countries whose governments we don't like. But it's bad when kids use it to fight the power in countries whose governments we do like. And it's downright fucking criminal if any thug punks *dare* to do it in *OUR* country!!!
Kind of reminds me of the old Reagan days--when labor unions were awful in the U.S., but wonderful in Poland.
Re:The thin veneer of civilisation (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting but how is smashing windows and grabbing TV sets, burning down a bank after you fail to get the money out of ATMs, and burning peoples cars fighting the power and not just plain looting?
Are these kids fighting for the right to vote? I guess the funniest or saddest thing I saw was on the BBC this young woman that was wearing somewhat expensive cloths was standing in while people where looting a store and telling the reporter it was about "respect". She said, "If you want us to respect you than you must respect us first.".
This is a looting spree. Even the shooting looks like the person shot had a gun. At first they said it was just a replica but if and adult pulls what looks like a gun on an officer and points it at them do you wait to see if a bullet comes out of it? Now the BBC says it was a real gun. I don't know but could this be a case of the Police where right and people are jumping to conclusions and then bands of criminals are exploiting the situation?
Really you need to get a clue. This is criminal violence going down in a democracy it is not a peaceful protest. Also notice that the police are not shooting people on site and are trying to decrease the violence with a minimum of force. It is a shame that people can not see the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Not all protests are peaceful. The triggering incident in this case was the shooting of an unarmed man, and the beating of a teenage girl by the police. These protestors want the police and the government to respect them, and they are showing that by disrespecting the laws they have been forced to live under.
From a sociological perspective, any group of people who are disadvantaged enough will eventually revolt. In that light there is no difference between the London riots and the Egyptian revolution. T
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you been following the London riots at all? I suggest looking at some of the links marked #londonriots on Twitter. You don't need an account. These kids are not fighting the power. They are smashing up and looting locally owned stores in their community and setting fire to buildings with people asleep upstairs in them and then actively preventing fire fighters from putting out the fires.
I'm not sure what that has to do with labor union demos?
Re: (Score:3)
The most likely explanation is that the police can't handle these riots, they don't have a large enough force to stop them from happening. So they are trying to stop people at the source, keep them from getting organized. Which actually they can't do either, but they are hoping that by making a big no
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A few months ago the western world wailed loudly when some arab countries terminated internet and mobile phone connections because it was thought to be assisting their local rioters.
No the western world wailed because they were shutting down networks to suppress freedom of speech. Much of the Arab spring started out as peaceful protests demanding democratic reform. The governments responded with massive censorship which included shutting down social networks. Most of this censorship was in place well before the violence started.
What is happening in London has nothing to do with free speech or political/social reform. It's just mass vandalism.
It's the difference between shouting
Re: (Score:3)
The girlfriend of the guy shot by the police said that these riots have nothing to do with the shooting. She said people are just using it as an excuse. She defended her boyfriend, said he'd never have been carrying a gun, but she also said the riots have nothing to do with that shooting. It is just people looting, and she was upset by it.
Re: (Score:3)
If a group of rioters were to break into my house with the goal of causing physical harm to those that can't effectively fight back, stealing whatever portable things they could find then torching the place, I'd probably want the police to start shooting too. Since you can't really own non-antique firearms in england so you couldn't exactly shoot them yourself.
One would think that when groups of thugs forcibly enter and try to destroy your home you would be entitled to... take measures
Logic and reason (Score:2)
But Ian Maude, an analyst at Enders Analysis, said it's unfair to lay the blame on technology. 'Certainly, it's a lot easier for people to communicate with each other in real time via some of these services but that's a fact of life. They're not good or evil in themselves, its the purposes for which people use them.'
How dare he bring logic and reason into the argument! Who does this guy think he is?!?
err. (Score:3)
20 years ago the same area erupted in rioting.. Those rioters used social networking rather than social media, they knocked on doors, chatted in groups, and then went off to find trouble. None of them had mobiles then.. didn't stop the riots. Political action and talking did that.
Really? (Score:2)
"Disaffected urban youth" in England are toting around Blackberries? Thatâ(TM)s not very hip and edgy.
Re: (Score:3)
"Disaffected urban youth" in England are toting around Blackberries? Thatâ(TM)s not very hip and edgy.
It is if you're youth here. Smartphone brand choice [ofcom.org.uk] (released a few days ago). 37% of smartphone-owning 13-15 and 37% of 16-24s have a BlackBerry.
(My theory is they're either cast-offs from mum/dad, probably from business, or stolen. BlackBerry Messenger is popular, although I don't understand why, when things like MSN were popular before and work on all phones.)
Idiots Blaming Objects Operated By People (Score:5, Insightful)
Bombs blamed for helping suicide bomber blow up.
Planes blamed for helping people crash planes.
Fire blamed for helping people start fires.
Phones blamed for helping people coordinate bad things.
Internet blamed for child pornography proliferation.
How about this?
Sensationalist media blamed for making everything a scandal or a controversy!
People wanting to ignore and pass off responsibility just fire the blame cannon everywhere. Why are they rioting? Why is there so much civil unrest in England? Are the English that repressed that this is a cry-out for help? Or is this all being blown out of proportion, and the riots are really just a couple of small groups causing trouble. Personally, I think the PoliceState in that country has spiraled out of control, and now there is a growing underground movement with there backs to the wall, so we are seeing the rebellion swell as more and more dissenters act out the only way they personally feel they can. How about looking at the fundamental causes for societal unrest, lets analyze the sociology of the The Land of the Panopticon Complex.
Of course, it has nothing to do... (Score:4, Interesting)
With a weakened social safety net, rampant unemployment, eastern-european migrants taking over the few remaining jobs and the super-rich from abroad (mostly the middle east) causing housing prices to skyrocket...
It also has nothing to do with the looting of the public done by the banksters and their enablers, the politicians.
Finally, the Met police are trusted and can't be blamed for the vandals and looter's complete despise for the actions of the law enforcement... it's not the fault of the police that they are unaccountable.
Re: (Score:2)
it's not the fault of the police that they are unaccountable.
That made me laugh. It's like "The police are not accountable for their unaccountability."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't riot for 3 days unless there's fuel for that spark to burn. Saying it's those damn young'ns is disingenuous.
Not long ago they were rioting over changes to education. What's the difference between people that just want to "smash shit up" and people being tired of their government, the rich getting richer and the lack of accountability of civil servants (including police)?
Re:Of course, it has nothing to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who has observed pointless, causeless, riots, or attempts to get riots started at so many large public gatherings and events over the last decade, from the Seattle WTO meetings, the Toronto G8 summit, the Genoa G8 Summit, the Vancouver Stanley Cup finals, a failed attempt at the Vancouver Olympics, football hooliganism across Europe, etc. in most of these cases, there was really no social cause, just an opportunity to behave badly and anonymously in a crowd. Most of the participants, were simply partying violently and could not even articulate what social injustice they were upset about.
No one loves their government, there is always unrest, and always the "disaffected" and "disenfranchised". Sometimes there is a cause, but it has to be recognized that every large public gathering provides an opportunity for the darker side of human "crowd mentality" to come out.
Rot Starts At The Top (Score:5, Insightful)
And THAT is exactly the point. That is the key to the rioting and looting this time around. I've posted this in two place now, but here's goes again: The London riots cannot be divorced from the recent political and financial scandals in the UK and beyond.
In the last few years, the general public has been made privy to the monumental failure of ethics and responsibility in institutions both public and private. Bankers and financiers have been seen publicly seen to profit enormously from feckless and irresponsible behaviour. Politicians and civil servants have been shown to be inept at best, and in collusion at worst. And--in particular in the UK--the media and police force have been found to be involved in the most scandalous, unscrupulous and unethical behaviour of recent times.
We are living in an age of irresponsibility.
It's interesting to see that many of the rioters are expressing no political, social, or ideological motivations. They are either engaged in arson or larceny. It is simple opportunism. But this behaviour not a random incident; it is an inevitable consequence of our times. I would hold that these rioters across the UK, discontented from the effects of austerity and unemployment, and cynicised by the endless stream of unresolved scandals, have simply decided to have their own slice of the rotten pie.
If bankers can loot the nation without consequence, if the media can destroy lives with impunity, and politicians lie without consequence, then why should a young unemployed man with few prospects turn up what may be his only opportunity to own a big flatscreen TV, or some designer clothes, or to vent his rage at the state? Because it would be "wrong"? Because it is "immoral", "unethical"? But for his entire life this young man has been shown by example that crime pays, that ruthlessness and wrongdoing pays, that rage and emotion pay.
I don't wish to sound like a religious reactionary, bemoaning the loss of public morality. But what kind of ethics have these young men learned from their leaders and public and private institutions? In the UK and beyond. Where are the ethical pillars of our society who lead by example? In politics? In the church? In the media? In private industry? I see none such. And moreover, I see those in such influential positions profiting from their poor examples.
Remember to these young people, the state over the last 10 years is all they have ever known. A state that has lied and warred. A media that has colluded and harassed. Public institutions who have lost all sense of civic duty. Industries that have profited from the most wanton recklessness and greed. And everywhere, none have been held to account.
There are other underlying causes such as deprivation, unemployment, and hooliganism. But such things have always existed in the UK and elsewhere, but I see this spontaneous outbreak of criminal opportunism first and foremost as a sign of our times. These opportunist rioters have been lead by example by our corrupted ruling classes. As the saying goes, "As above, so below".
Re: (Score:2)
eastern-european migrants taking over the few remaining jobs.
I have to argue with that point, with an official unemployment rate of 7.7% [google.com.au], it's not like the Thatcher era. Unemployment rates are relatively low, so you can't argue that unemployment is a factor here without ignoring the facts.
Re: (Score:3)
People like to riot if they can get away with it. Sports riots have happened for decades. Don't blame the economy for thugs.
The way to stop that sort of "recreational riot" is overwhelming force ruthlessly applied. Destroy the enemy. They deserve the sort of beatdown they'll remember in the future.
Twitter - also being used 'for good'. (Score:5, Informative)
Today has been a rather different story - Twitter has been used to organise a community-driven clean-up process, with large numbers of people gathering in the damaged areas of London to help fix things and tidy up. #riotcleanup [twitter.com] is still trending worldwide, and has been for most of the day, #riotwombles [twitter.com] (a wonderful tag) has been used for organising people on the streets, and @riotcleanup [twitter.com] has picked up over 70,000 followers today. There's also a sort of website [riotcleanup.co.uk] running now.
Social media, the Internet and technology in general are just tools - it's how people use them that matters; and today we've definitely seen them being used for good.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course! Why didn't I think of that! (Score:2)
It's totally not your ineptitude at being police, or the social wrongs that are driving people to riot, it's clearly their ability to communicate with each other which is to blame! Also, people don't kill people, bullets do, and car accidents are always 100% the vehicle's fault.
Gun/Phone control? (Score:2)
How long before "democratic countries" start talking about phones like they talk about guns? Will we have to listen to chants like, "Phones don't kill people. People kill people." and "Phones don't piss people off enough to kill people. People piss off people enough to kill people."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the predicted "bloodbath" argument has NEVER EVER held true and yet people still decry that as a reason for banning firearms.
I think international travel should also be banned because the Earth is flat and we are likely to fall off of it. I realize that historical evidence to the contrary exists, but I'm going to keep believing what I believe because it's right... right?
Re:Here's a novel idea (Score:4, Funny)
Cool, so the chavs will shoot back. Problem solved!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Here's a novel idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Technology "blamed"? (Score:5, Informative)
I've followed the BBC feed on the riots, and I can't say I've heard anyone, including the police, "blame" the technology, as much as simply acknowledging that the rioters use it to organize. That's it. Nobody is screaming "remove technology from the premises".
Re: (Score:2)
Check the comments from the various MPs. They'll discuss the impact of technology on the riots and what can be done about it in their next sessions.
Videogames (Score:2)
How did they miss the chance?
Re: (Score:2)
You're a bit late: http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/08/08/london-riots-blame-grand-theft-auto/ [thesixthaxis.com]
How about blaming... (Score:2, Flamebait)
How about blaming themselves for their ham-fisted police action for sparking the riots in the first place?
No? Funny that...
It's time to ban education! (Score:2)
These smart people are simply getting out of hand. We need dumb people because they are easier to manage.
It's the lack of Smith & Wesson (Score:3, Interesting)
We are having these problems in Illinois and Wisconsin as well. Illinois has no concealed carry law, and Wisconsin's doesnt take effect until Nov 1.
We are not seeing destructive flash mobs in Houston. It's won't happen there because both the organizers and participants know that lots of Texans walk around armed all the time. So, the concealed carry law it's self PREVENTS violence because these hooligans don't want to try something that will lead to them being shot dead.
So, the UK can watch and spy, and listen all they want and it will have no effect on what is happening.
Re:It's the lack of Smith & Wesson (Score:5, Informative)
Specious Bullshit.
Texas has the highest number of cattle per ranch; clearly that why you don't see destructive flash mobs.
Hey, Texas has a nigher suicide rate then Wisconsin, clearly that's because lots of Texans walk around armed all the time.
Stop pushing your ideological statements and specious reasoning and use facts.
The highest gun death is in the states with the highest gun ownership.
Texas has a lower concealed weapon owner ship then Michigan. Does Michigan have few crimes then Texas? How about Florida?
Do any of these states:
Percent of Adults with a License to Carry in each Shall Issue State
7.45% South Dakota
6.79% Indiana
6.76% Pennsylvania
5.23% Connecticut
5.12% Washington
4.34% Idaho
4.10% Utah
3.86% Oregon
3.45% Tennessee
3.15% Alabama
2.72% Florida
2.71% Kentucky
2.67% Wyoming
2.41% Maine
2.18% Arkansas
2.11% Virginia
1.94% West Virginia
1.76% Arizona
1.75% Oklahoma
1.70% Montana
1.70% Michigan
1.62% Texas
Do you even realize that per capita, there are 32 other states that has more gun ownership then Texas?
More data:
States with the Five HIGHEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates
Louisiana--Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 19.58 per 100,000.
Alabama--Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.99 per 100,000.
Alaska--Rank: 3 (tie); Household Gun Ownership: 60.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.38 per 100,000.
Mississippi--Rank: 3 (tie); Household Gun Ownership: 54.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.38 per 100,000.
Nevada--Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 31.5 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.25 per 100,000.
States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates
Hawaii--Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate: 2.58 per 100,000.
Massachusetts--Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.28 per 100,000.
Rhode Island--Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 13.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.43 per 100,000.
Connecticut--Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 16.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.95 per 100,000.
New York--Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death Rate: 5.20 per 100,000.
Think.
Surveillance cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh the irony.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Check yourselves, Americans (Score:4, Interesting)
"IF these gangs of hoodlums were all packing .45s, then hundreds of innocent people would likely be dead."
Evidence suggest not.
Who cares if CCTV works? The fact is it is a violation on basic freedoms. Treat your populations like they are all criminals, and eventually you moved from the police being a member of the society helping itself, to the police becoming outside of society and creating an US v Them attitude. History is filled withe examples.
I am curious: are the CCTV recording available to everyone?
And no , I don't think the riots ar a result of direct control from the government; however the government has clearly created a situation where a number of youths feel disenfranchised. There are only 2 things that happens when you hve a large enough sect of disenfranchises youths. You send them to war, or the government changes.
And yes, the libertarian drivel spouted on /. is quite annoying.
Re: (Score:3)
And yes, the libertarian drivel spouted on /. is quite annoying.
o.O
Must be that special progressive brand of libertarianism.
Re:Check yourselves, Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Check yourselves, Americans (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Living in London, and seeing the chaos first hand, I find the millions of ignorant teenage American basement dwellers posting here, with their stupid, teenage libertarian logic highly offensive. Britain is a different country, with different traditions, and different laws to the US.
Are you sure you live in Britain? Because that refrain is something we usually here coming from the autocrats in China.
No Shit Sherlock! (Score:3)
Tell me a time when technology in some form has NOT helped Rioters....
Sad thruth about it - (Score:5, Interesting)
When a young man was asked by a reporter, if he thought rioting was the correct way to express disconsent, he answered with
"Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"
The TV reporter from Britain's ITV had no response. So the young man pressed his advantage. "Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you."
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/07/7292281-the-sad-truth-behind-london-riot [msn.com]
BBC blamed Twitter last night (Score:3)
BBC news ran a story last night that basically blamed Twitter and Blackberry. When I logged onto Twitter - I would say approximately 95% of the posts that were rioting related were outright condemning the riots - and I could see no signs at all of this "organisation" that the BBC article claimed. It seems to me that journalists are just blaming the technology with no real evidence to back up these claims - apart from the fact that many of the rioters are using mobile phones.
Not being blamed at all. (Score:3)
This is completely untrue. I'm from UK, on holiday from work at the moment and following the news all day on numerous formats.
It is true that technology, particularly social networks and Blackberry messenger are being cited as a reason why pockets are able to spring up and move around quickly (hence being difficult for the police to respond to). It is an explanation - an absolutely valid explanation - but an explanation for a phenomenon is quite different from assigning it blame.
Frankly local MPs and suchlike have come across as surprisingly knowledgeable. I got a schooling on Blackberries from a 50-something female MP from a fairly posh London borough this morning. I'd wager she knew more about these things and why they're popular amongst London youths than RIM's marketing department, she might be deserving of a commission on my next phone.
I find it rather odd that /. posts a link to a tiny article (apologies if my adblock etc is cutting things out) on an American newspaper's site when there is a detailed discussion [bbc.co.uk] on the London-based BBC. I'll note the BBC carefully states "A number of politicians, media commentators and members of the police force have suggested that Twitter and BlackBerry Messenger, in particular, had a role to play." Again, having "a role to play" is quite different to being culpable or responsible, my impression is the BBC is responding to those misunderstanding the frequent references.
Oh yeah and technology is also being mentioned with the likes of "Twitter and Facebook users plan clean-up [bbc.co.uk]" (again, not social media being credited but noted as a tool used for people worthy of praise).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is shot, do you blame the gun or the shooter?
If you're a government? The gun.
Shooters can vote.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:round 'em up (Score:4, Informative)
At this point, regardless of individual beliefs... I'm sure that they would prefer to NOT have rioting than incite more riots.
They are called agent provocateurs. If you have never heard of them and have never read of instances in which they are known to have been used, and why, then no offense but you are ignorant about this subject and should not be stating your "certainties" lest you become the blind leading the blind...
Most people are blissfully unaware of just how devious their governments actually are. Also, "expanding government for the sake of power" is not an "individual belief". It is very much a shared ideal.
Re:round 'em up (Score:4, Informative)
I'm well aware of agent provocateurs... however widespread civil unrest WITHIN YOUR OWN NATION is not generally the aim of agent provocateurs. Their use is normally to destabilise foreign sovereign nations, not your own.
The first thing that came up when I Googled this subject was the FBI's COINTELPRO operation. Guess who it targeted? US citizens. A US law enforcement agency using agent provocateurs to target US citizens. That should qualify as "within your own nation" (even without the caps lock). You talk like this is somehow unheard-of. It is not, not by a long shot.
... well, it sounds like an absurd attempt to save face.
COINTELPRO was intended to disrupt political groups within the US. These include the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panthers, and others.
Oh, and the New York City police were known to use these tactics against the protesters of the 2004 National Republican Convention... in New York City. I'd say both of those are within the USA.
If you are a government official, your own nation is what you should be most concerned about. Whether you want to work towards martial law or whether you want to get rid of pesky opposition groups, this is logically the case once you have power-hungry people who love power for its own sake, whose only concern is whether something will obtain the results they desire.
The purpose of an agent provocateur is to cause someone to break the law. It's the kind of thing that would be called "entrapment" if a police officer openly did it. So they act through proxies. What you're thinking of is something similarly devious but with a different goal. What you're thinking of is more like the way the US used its intelligence agencies to destabilize Iran in the 1950s and overthrow its democratically elected government, replacing it with a dictator. Yes, that is one possible use of this kind of technique, but you limit yourself if you really do not see how it could be applied domestically.
To tell me you are well informed about this subject but had no idea it wasn't limited to only one very specific, narrow use
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And the more riots there are, the more chance for the AP et al. to get nice pictures to license out to the tabloids for tomorrow's front pages. Earlier, apparently, Sky News had a ticker thing listing places that didn't have police protection, until importantish people complained [twitter.com] and it got taken down. But then, that's what comes from having mainstream media more interested in selling newspapers than anything else.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
His family staged a protest but a number of outsiders used it as an excuse to riot. Probably members of his g
Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters (Score:5, Insightful)
What? Nobody is asking why this is possible at all? I mean, let's look at what's going down here: Someone got shot. Someone else spreads the (false or true, who cares?) information that he was the victim of police violence. And suddenly all hell breaks loose and people are rioting.
Could it be, just COULD, that we're sitting on a powder keg with a damn lot of people SO pissed at government and the whole mess governments have put us in that they will accept ANY reason to vent their anger violently?
That's the only explanation I could see. I mean, think about it, why else should a lot (and we're talking about a LOT) of people go out, become a mob and riot? Because they care for the guy who was shot? At best, it's the spark for the already filled to the brim keg.
The problem isn't technology, and it isn't that someone was shot. They now want to close the lid on the keg to keep it from exploding, because that's all that's needed, not only in London.
A spark.
People are angry. VERY angry. It's like looking at a saturated solution ready to crystalize, and all it needs is a disturbance to set it in motion.
Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters (Score:5, Interesting)
At least that's certainly the impression that the writer of this article [msn.com] gives.
Re: (Score:3)
The rioting started in the borough of Hackney. Hackney closed most of their youth clubs due to central government cuts. Putting lots of kids that used to have things to do out onto the streets. And then you've got the unemployment that the government is responsible for.
I doubt many of these rioting criminals have any idea of politics. But for sure the governments political mistakes are contributing to their behaviour.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone please mod parent up to 11.
The brits are forever preaching to the US about how this type of mob violence, and how it never happens in Britain (ignoring history) and how British police are for the most part unarmed. All the while their country is slipping into a technological dictatorship where taking a picture of a landmark gets your camera seized.
Now the authorities raise the SAME alarm as Mubarac in Egypt, Gaddafi in Lybia, and Assad in Syria. We are probably hours away from the British governme
Re: (Score:3)
Are you seriously comparing a bunch of thieving trash to people who are fighting genuine oppression?
Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters (Score:4, Insightful)
The riots have gone way past the involvement of a "bunch of thieves". Have you even looks at the photos and the size of the crowds?
This rioting is something Britain has not seen in recent years. It is a totally new expression of anger from what sociologists would call the "underclass." That said, there are familiar elements in the build-up to last night's anarchy that might help you understand it a little.
Re: (Score:3)
By the "underclass," I presume you mean 13-17 year old kids from middle class families, since that's apparently the makeup of most of the looters.
It's hard to feel much sympathy for the plight of that underclass.
Re: (Score:3)
By the "underclass," I presume you mean 13-17 year old kids from middle class families, since that's apparently the makeup of most of the looters.
Citation?
Looking at the footage reveals that most of the looters are black. And the middle class is overwhelmingly white. Furthermore the rioting all started in the poor areas of London - Tottenham, Toxteth, Lewisham etc.
Ealing got hit last night - but only because the very poor area of Acton is only a short walk away, and doesn't have shops which are as good as Ealing.
Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters (Score:4, Informative)
By the "underclass," I presume you mean 13-17 year old kids from middle class families, since that's apparently the makeup of most of the looters.
Citation?
Uh, pretty much every single article in the BBC, the Guardian, or the Times today? That's why Tim Godwin was repeatedly quoted and shown on TV Monday night as saying that the most essential thing to control Tuesday night's rioting was for parents to keep their kids at home.
Looking at the footage reveals that most of the looters are black.
Not what I'm seeing on BBC or ITN. Stuff like the two white teenage girls speaking here [youtube.com] is a lot more typical.
Furthermore the rioting all started in the poor areas of London - Tottenham, Toxteth, Lewisham etc.
It started in Tottenham because the Duggan shooting was in Tottenham. Since then it's happened everywhere. Crouch End and Catford, as just two examples, don't exactly strike me as warrens of council housing.
Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the pictures don't look too different. In both people run around, fight the police and light buildings on fire. In both scenarios people get hurt and looting happens. The main difference seems to be that we agree with one and disagree with the other.
Re: (Score:3)
And they needed someone to get shot to do that? Why now, why not last week? I mean, the TV was there, they certainly wanted it back then too, why now?
Why're they doing that at all? Would you? I guess not. Neither would I. So why are there suddenly so many people who very obviously don't give half a shit about the law?
Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are they doing it? That is the question that I'd like to have answered. If it is organized crime, it does not need a focal point like a shooting of someone. Unless you want to tell me that this is the "revenge" of the criminal organization for killing one of their people, but if that was the case, London would have WAY bigger problems to deal with than simple riots. If this was the case, London would be at the mercy of that criminal organization.
So why are they doing this now? I'm kinda wary of mainstream media reporting about interviews with the rioters, I'm not so sure they'd be correctly represented. After all, the media have an interest in reporting what the public wants to hear, and they certainly prefer to hear "black criminals on the loose" to "black people so fed up with the way they're treated that they go rioting".
Re: (Score:3)
Be it as it may, and be it as it is, what matters is how they perceive it. That's pretty much what motivates people. Not reality. Perception. And if they feel they're treated unfairly, and feel strongly enough to toss aside the fear of prison and everything commonly held up as decent behaviour, they will act accordingly.
Reality or not.
Re: (Score:3)
These reatards don't know what real discrimination (South Africa pre 1994, USA in the 50s) is. I bet they can't spell it.
Retards is spelled with only one a.
Re: (Score:3)
The original rioters were. Yesterday the age average increased considerably.
But it makes sense. Youths were the ones who got hit the hardest with the recent cuts in social services, and youth unemployment is through the roof.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right. Because I'm sure all of the baboons putting people's lives and livelihoods in jeopardy would have been playing table tennis and sipping lemonade while telling some boring old hippy their troubles - if the opportunity had been there.
And I'm sure their actions will do wonders for the local economy, which will in turn enable a huge increase in fundi
Re: (Score:3)
The whole thing is growing tiresome, so we should at least agree that violent protesting is a vicious, stupid thing to do.
These people aren't protesting. There's no banners, no chants, no spokesmen telling the media what their problem is.
These are just looters. The logical conclusion of having a consumer society, preaching greed is good, but discriminating against a group such that they don't see honest work as a way to get the products that are advertised to them.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, you could do that. Or realize that all this is a waste of time anyway and start rioting. Not that this would change anything either, mind you.
Why youth unemployment is so high? Because there are not enough jobs. Duh. Add now that our education system has been cut to resemble a weak joke and we hence have kids that get out of high school without even knowing how to add two-digit numbers and you might have an idea why.
When you look around lower class youths you will notice that they get very early and ve
Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters (Score:4, Interesting)
Citation needed please: where does it say he was a violent drug dealer?
This portrait suggests he was [guardian.co.uk] affiliated with a gang suspected of murdering 3 people, was suspected by police of dealing drugs and guns and was a person of sufficient interest that an anti-firearms team decided to stop him. At which point he pulls a gun and gets shot for his troubles. Does that mean he's a violent drug dealer? That strongly suggests he was to me.
Re: (Score:3)
You're the only one claiming that he pulled a gun. The police aren't. And for sure if he did, they'd be saying it.
Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters (Score:5, Insightful)
The disturbing part is that the police and more importantly the politicians are focusing on the tactics being used rather than the underlying causes of social unrest. How about figuring out why you have disaffected youth rather than how they are effective at being disruptive.
Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters (Score:5, Insightful)
How about figuring out why you have disaffected youth rather than how they are effective at being disruptive.
The job of the police isn't to determine why, it's to stop it from happening. The police are doing their job. The 'why' is only for politicians to work out and try to address.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trouble is, nobody really knows why these kids have been raised so badly and why the schools have taught them so badly and why their culture hasn't encouraged them to aspire to working hard and why there aren't enough job opportunities that suit their level of ability. It is tragic for them.
Um, the left have spent decades pushing policies which created a feral underclass who believe that they can go out and smash stuff up and burn buildings down and won't be punished for it. If 'nobody' is smart enough to figure that out, then Britain really is doomed.
The real question is what do you do with millions of people who are violent and unemployable who have been told all their lives that they have a right to free stuff paid for by the remainder who are productive and law-abiding? And that's an abyss
Re:Technology Blamed For Helping UK Rioters (Score:4, Interesting)
Um, the left have spent decades pushing policies which created a feral underclass who believe that they can go out and smash stuff up and burn buildings down and won't be punished for it.
Well you'd probably believe that if you read the Daily Mail. In the real world however, under Labour the prison population rose to it's highest ever level, a higher level than anywhere else in Europe. This was against a background of crime decreasing ever year under the British Crime survey. Labour were certainly not soft on crime.
This problem has happened under the Tory coalition. In Tottenham where it started, the Tories have caused more than half the youth clubs to be closed. A week before the riots started, there were predictions that putting these kids onto the streets with nothing to do would lead to riots. Right wingers are so short sighted - they don't see beyond the end of their noses. Penny-wise, pound foolish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)