FBI: Burning Man Testing Ground For Free Speech, Drugs ... and New Spy Gear
189
v3rgEz writes: The 29th annual Burning Man festival kicks off this week in Nevada's Black Rock Desert. Among those paying close attention to the festivities will be the FBI's Special Events Management unit, who have kept files on "burners" since at least 2010. One of the more interesting things in those, files, however, is a lengthy, heavily redacted paragraph detailing that the FBI's Special Events Management Unit gave Las Vegas Police Department some specialized equipment for monitoring the week-long event, as long as LVPD provided follow up reports.
Free speech hundreds of miles out in the desert (Score:2)
I'll bet a lot of people love the fact that all this "free speech" will be taking place hundreds of miles out in the desert, where it's completely disconnected from most of the electorate. Kind of a self-imposed "free speech zone" like the kind we'll enjoy seeing miles from the upcoming (D) and (R) national conventions.
Re:Free speech hundreds of miles out in the desert (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it is funny that anyone is shocked at the fact a "gathering" that involves drug use and pyrotechnics is being watched. The fact that they have never came in and raided the event shows that the FBI really is not going in for busting up free speech.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it is funny that anyone is shocked at the fact a "gathering" that involves drug use and pyrotechnics is being watched.
So you're saying that all 4th of July celebrations are routinely monitored?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Which 4th of July celebrations are you aware of that blatantly advertise their acceptance of illicit drugs? And no, alcohol doesn't count as illicit no matter how much you guys like to compare it to your drug(s) of choice.
Re: (Score:1)
Whoah there, coach just called and he wants you to move the goal posts back to the N zone where you found them.
The claim was that 4th of July involves drugs and pyrotechnics. Nobody said boo about illicit. Alcohol is a drug, doesn't matter if you don't like that fact, but it is.
Re: (Score:1)
Whoah there, coach just called and he wants you to move the goal posts back to the N zone where you found them.
The claim was that 4th of July involves drugs and pyrotechnics. Nobody said boo about illicit. Alcohol is a drug, doesn't matter if you don't like that fact, but it is.
You can play with words and say that aspirin is a drug and so pharmacists are drug dealers, it doesn't alter the everyday meaning of the words.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which 4th of July celebrations are you aware of that blatantly advertise their acceptance of illicit drugs?
My backyard barbecue?
Re: (Score:2)
I do no think I know of a 4th of July celebration without law enforcement present. The larger the gathering the more cops and at a certain point the use of secret police and electronic intelligence. I haven't been to one but I bet that the 4th of July events in HY, LA, Boston, and other major cities are closely watched. ANd in some of the ones I have been to illegal drug use was tolerated if it was low level.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is Burning man held on Federal land? If so that explains the FBI since it would be in their jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I have not been to a public fireworks display without police being there.
Of course it is really silly to compare Burning man with a 4th of July event. I have never been to a 4th of July event were the use of illegal drugs is very public and well known.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
People still of the cat and mouse mindset are hopelessly lost. The FBI 'owns' this event and allows it to proceed as a petri dish and case study for learning how to deal with future criminal activities and subversive movements. 'Busting it' serves no purpose as it will spring up elsewhere or in smaller, less cohesive, and less easily targeted forms. Things like COINTELPRO which occurred decades ago lend credibility to this idea. We live in a giant disneyland now. The surveillance state is upon us. Do not be
Stingray and Extorting Criminals (Score:2)
They are being absurd. It's hard to see anybody at burning man using phones or internet devices for drug purchases and sales. You have 70,000 people in a signal-free desert, with the occasional wifi point. People are walking around in bright colors and costumes and interacting in real life.
Nevada treats the drug use that is there as a chance to extort recreational drug users from out-of-state. Basically (for most drug offenses) they catch a lot of nonviolent out-of-state offenders and offer the choice b
Re:Free speech hundreds of miles out in the desert (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bet a lot of people love the fact that all this "free speech" will be taking place hundreds of miles out in the desert...
You don't know people very well then. As Lord Macaulay observed in his The History of England from the Accession of James the Second,
You see it is not enough for prigs and busybodies that they're not involved in any way in the things you do that give you pleasure; their problem is with you enjoying something they don't enjoy, or perhaps understand.
I really just don't get it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Has free-thinkers and weirdos ever caused an actual revolution? Changed the course of government that they were able to rid it of corruption and incompetence?
So why put all this effort in monitoring them?
It can't make them feel better. It seems to only make those in authority more paranoid than before. It makes them jump at their own shadow to think that someone, somewhere that might be different from them is plotting against some abstract institution.
Why exercise this kind of authority over people that are
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Why exercise this kind of authority over people that aren't doing anything disruptive of their lives?"
Because, fear.
Re:I really just don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
>> Has free-thinkers and weirdos ever caused an actual revolution? Changed the course of government that they were able to rid it of corruption and incompetence?
In 1776, yes.
Re: (Score:3)
Both the Romans and the Athenians abolished their kings. Though in the Roman case it came back after a drawn out period of civil war.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the French Revolution shortly after. They got rid of the corruption too: everyone in power had their head lopped off.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>> Oh, rly?? They rid the government of corruption and incompetence, did they?
Most of it, yes. They replaced a remote bureaucracy that sucked out more than it provided with a local government with less overhead. Furthermore, the local government was highly competent to the point where they colonized the rest of the continent, fought off several aggressors (including the British again in 1812) and were regarded as an international force to be reckoned within "just" 120 years.
Re:I really just don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
fought off several aggressors (including the British again in 1812)
When England was in the middle of squashing Napoleon, the USA decided it was time to invade Canada. And you classify the British as the aggressors ?
Re: (Score:1)
You apparently are unfamiliar with the Chesapeake Affair, the Leander Affair, or the providing of arms to "Indian nations" that were in conflict with American settlers to territories that Britain ceded to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Go do some research. Plenty of the actions of the British Government were bad for the common man of the colonies in the 18th century, they were pissed also.
Re: (Score:3)
Go do some research. Plenty of the actions of the British Government were bad for the common man of the colonies in the 18th century, they were pissed also.
Go do some research. Native Americans on British soil were considered full citizens of the British Empire, with all rights thereto. This was unacceptable to the colonists, they wanted ethnic cleansing.
Re: (Score:2)
Fran. Please stop posting nonsense on Slashdot. You are not welcome here.
Re:I really just don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
>> 1776 was a bunch of rich people convincing the poor to fight for them
That wasn't the question. It was whether "free-thinkers and weirdos ever caused an actual revolution?" Whatever class theory you hold, you can't deny there was something strange about our founding fathers - a little too obsessed with freemasonry or whatever, but they definitely all had a screw loose to think they could take on the greatest empire the world had ever known (the British) for the greatest prize ever known (half the world) and completely redefine government as we know it at the same time. And yet these "free-thinkers" (hello democracy) and "weirdos" (Greece was awesome, amiright?) pulled it off, and the world is better for their success.
Re:I really just don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't really think of any other of the founding fathers as being weird, tho.
Re:I really just don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
>> I can't really think of any other of the founding fathers as being weird, tho.
That's the strange thing about modern times. Guys who risked their lives, their families and everything they had on an idea are now considered stodgy and mainstream, whereas some random dude with tattoos, dreads and an iPhone working a zero-risk job at Taco John's is considered to be a "free thinker."
Read up 'em - you might be surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
>> I can't really think of any other of the founding fathers as being weird, tho.
That's the strange thing about modern times. Guys who risked their lives, their families and everything they had on an idea are now considered stodgy and mainstream, whereas some random dude with tattoos, dreads and an iPhone working a zero-risk job at Taco John's is considered to be a "free thinker."
Read up 'em - you might be surprised.
Brilliant! Absolutely Brilliant!
Re: (Score:1)
That wasn't the question. It was whether "free-thinkers and weirdos ever caused an actual revolution?" Whatever class theory you hold, you can't deny there was something strange about our founding fathers
Oh yes you can. The Age of Enlightenment has been going on in the West for decades before Independence. The Protestant Reformation*, which was both a political as well as religious transformation, also has happened earlier.
So no, the Founders weren't weirdos. Their ideas have been brewing for a long time and not so obscure that I would call them weirdos for having them.
but they definitely all had a screw loose to think they could take on the greatest empire the world had ever known
That too is not weird. Almost every native population that resisted the British (or Europeans in general) thought that. The Brits didn't bec
Re: (Score:2)
>> 1776 was a bunch of rich people convincing the poor to fight for them
That wasn't the question. It was whether "free-thinkers and weirdos ever caused an actual revolution?" Whatever class theory you hold, you can't deny there was something strange about our founding fathers - a little too obsessed with freemasonry or whatever, but they definitely all had a screw loose to think they could take on the greatest empire the world had ever known (the British) for the greatest prize ever known (half the world) and completely redefine government as we know it at the same time. And yet these "free-thinkers" (hello democracy) and "weirdos" (Greece was awesome, amiright?) pulled it off, and the world is better for their success.
Is your comment about Bush and Halliburton, and the invasion of Iraq?
Re: (Score:2)
Can you link to any supporting documentation? I've never heard anyone making such broad claims about the Revolutionary war, but then my own knowledge is limited to a couple semesters of college American history.
Re: (Score:3)
You also forget, Washington, et al, was a politician *after* he was a general. A number of politicians today have served in the military in their past too, though not as many once did. That's not unique to the US, however, that's just the times.
Re: (Score:1)
Another way to think about the fact that they were rich:
They had a lot to lose. This wasn't a revolution by a bunch of starving peasants. It was about principles, and those principles were radical at the time. Now they're considered basic human rights all over the world (the right to free speech, the right to due process, the right to redress grievances, etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
It was about principles, and those principles were radical at the time.
wiping out the native americans was always considered a pretty radical step
Now they're considered basic human rights all over the world
exactly, look how the israelis are treating the native palestinians
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Washington voluntarily giving up power was nothing short of a miracle and an amazing precedent for this country.
God bless him!
Re: (Score:2)
Has free-thinkers and weirdos ever caused an actual revolution? Changed the course of government that they were able to rid it of corruption and incompetence?
I think it happened in the 1770s in some English colonies, but I'm not a history buff, so I may have it wrong.
Is this even legal? (Score:3)
So have we come full circle where the FBI just keeps files on everybody?
This sounds awfully creepy, and smacks of an organization obsessed with tracking everybody they can.
Re: (Score:3)
America is quickly resembling East Germany.
Re: (Score:3)
We have our Konsumer based economy with our toys, phones and fast food.
And we will be allowed to continue having access to those as long as we don't rock the boat...
Re: (Score:3)
To resemble East Germany, you don't simply need surveillance, you need a huge number of informants (something like 2-3% of the whole population) placed everywhere who are paid and willing to rat you out to the state.
The US isn't going to be approaching that ratio of informants to citizens any time soon, and until then, the US will not approach East Germany in the manner you suggest.
The US government can run wiretaps, and drones and directional mics all it wants, but we're not talking about even close to the
Re:Is this even legal? (Score:4, Informative)
With blanket-surveillance of the Internet, informants have lost their critical role.
Re: (Score:2)
you need a huge number of informants (something like 2-3% of the whole population) placed everywhere who are paid and willing to rat you out to the state.
They don't need informants, they have automated surveillance now. They didn't have the internet, cellphones, NSAKEY backdoors, Stingray interceptors, etc. back in the 40s-70s. Having a typewriter in East Germany was a big deal.
Someone having some data on what might be you isn't the same thing as a guy in your workplace who knows you and who knows when it
Re: (Score:2)
They done it since they were founded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very likely. And "creepy" is not the right word. Having files on everybody and laws that allow you to get everybody (and the US certainly has both) is necessary to establish and firm up a police-state and eventually full fascism.
As the average US citizen just does not seem to care, I guess it is time for the US to get its own hands-on taste of national fascism. Unfortunately, the rest of the world will not be able to bust them out, so it will be of the slow-decline form that takes a century or so to total e
Re: (Score:2)
Enough to know they don't give a shit about "legal".
That doesn't make it right.
So, business as usual for the FBI. (Score:2)
I mean, that's always what it is, right?
"Drugs" is that magical code word for "the dangerous evil of non-conformity of decent hard-working American values, like having no problem with g-men goons watching every move you make? Fuck the FBI and its gang of morally-bankrupt thugs.
Re: (Score:1)
The biggest for me is losing my darn phone. About 50 percent of the time I take my phone from home, I either lose it or nearly lose it.
And I 'HATE' having my phone ring when I am on my bicycle or in the bus. Let the darn thing ring at home and then take the message.
Yes. I am old fashioned. 62 Years old, but enjoying it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What a good little bootlicking authoritarian you are.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The laws they're breaking are themselves morally bankrupt, and therefore moral to break.
Should get a "Burner" phone (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Should get a "Burner" phone (Score:5, Insightful)
>Or better yet, just don't turn your phone on and avoid the whole mess.
If you're at Burning Man, but need your phone to stay in touch with the office or whatever, you've already missed the point of Burning Man.
Re: (Score:3)
or you are working undercover :)
Re: (Score:2)
*You know Bob, that jerk in marketing - and when I say borrow, I mean lift it when he's not looking & replace it with a phone that looks the same but doesn't work - on Monday you can swap it back if he hasn't replaced it already. Bonus points if you rent a room in his name/address & leave something embarrassing behind. Stupid Bob
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can probably still track the phone if the battery is in. There may even be a way for them to turn it on remotely to listen to you, but its unclear if that ability really exists or if it is quite what people believe it to be. I can totally believe that they could certainly track you while it is "off", but turning on your phone to listen to you seems like something that doesn't come built in, they probably need to get special software on the phone to do that.
Of course, the question is, "what does the O
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Someone should make them look like the losers that they are. Didn't get invited to any of the cool parties eh?
They're just the sniveling little snot nosed bastards who used to rat out the class when the teacher left the room.
Someone should build a medical die (like the die packs used for bank robbers) trap and use their monitoring of private communications to lure them in and die them purple for a few weeks. YouTube stream it live for extra yuks.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's call it "Burning Phone" !
At the end of the event, everyone piles up their disposable cell phones and sets the lot afire! :D
good touch, bad touch, irrelevant touch (Score:1)
From the article linked in the summary:
In addition to the FBI files, requests were made for arrest reports and fines. Either surprisingly or unsurprisingly, there's not a lot in them - but if you were wondering just what it is you'd have to do to get arrested at Burning Man, the answer is physically assaulting a police officer.
While I have no problem believing that some paranoid drugged-up neo-hippie might conceivably attack an FBI agent, I also have no problem believing that a dipshit FBI agent would choose to interpret a touch on the arm from a overaffectionate drugged-up neo-hippie as "assault". If there hasn't been a riot, murder spree, or terrorist attack in previous years, the FBI has no legitimate excuse to be involved. Let local law enforcement handle it, unless and until they feel
Since the Late Sixties... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Any counterculture gathering that doesn't attract FBI watchers just isn't trying hard enough. I used to think it was insidious. Now, I think the feds just want a cushy week or two watching the scantily clad.
...and that the guys from the Reno office always wanted to have a MDMA fueled spooning session in their custom turn-key camp at BM.
Re: (Score:2)
Likely, cause burning man was about being a independent, self run city.
But when a self run city still needs to enforce drone regs [burningman.org] via FAA guidelines... I think burning man has jumped the shark on the independent city idea.
Really, there's pyro, drugs, guns, illegal activities there, BUT drones there are still regulated based on FAA and perceived privacy needs. Oh the irony.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the day of the city-state is come and gone. There's still a couple of examples or so, Monaco and somewhere else, but that's about it.
How open is drug use at Burning Man? (Score:2)
I would expect pot use to be pretty open, but perhaps officially frowned upon by organizers owing to its illegal status in Nevada and Federally.
Re: (Score:2)
REMEMBER, BURNING MAN IS THE MOST DANGEROUS PLACE TO DO OR SHARE DRUGS IN THE USA.
They also have under-aged plants, looking for people giving alcohol to kids.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the feds had agreed to respect state medical marijuana laws now? I know California and Nevada now have a reciprocal MMJ policy, so that a doctors recommendation in one state is valid in the other as well.
Las Vegas is no where near the Black Rock Desert (Score:1)
something seems fishy to me. 540 miles away, almost 10 hour drive. Why is LVPD getting spy gear for this event?
this was a "Reno 911" espisode (Score:2)
It was episode 10, airing in September 2003. Oh, and I hope the FBI can find burning man, unlike Lt. Dangle and his crew.
Jurisdiction (Score:2)
FBI must have been watching too much CSI of late. Black Rock Desert is about 500 miles outside LVPD's jurisdiction (and 140 miles outside Reno, for you Reno 911 fans). Plus, it's Federal land, overseen by the BLM. The FBI would actually have more jurisdiction there than LVPD ever would.
What is the LVPD connection... (Score:2)
I am curious how the heck LVPD is involved. Reno is 450 miles from Vegas and Black rock is an additional 125 miles north.
By comparison Albany, NT is 150 miles from NYC. The distance from Cleveland OK to Ny, NY at ~450 miles is about the same.
Salt lake City is alto about the same 450 miles away and the reach of the FBI and IRS from SLC to Nevada is legendary.
One potential connection is cell phone tracking Friends report that BM has cell coverage for the first time in their memory of the event.
It is possibl
Re: (Score:1)
I thought you hippie potheads were supposed to be mellow.
Re: (Score:2)
If you protest, they send the police.
If you riot, they send riot police.
If you revolt, they send the army.
None of the above is theoretical. Read up on Anarchy.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you can't fight the system by being downtrodden and revolting. The system is excellent at overcoming people in that position, because that is how it maintains power day after day.
Real change starts in the places that the system is poorly designed to control, often from within. That's why real change is driven by the middle class and rich people. It does sometimes get out of control, like in the French Revolution. At that point, it becomes whoever can reassert order by force.
The only exception is w
Re: (Score:1)
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” -- Buckminster Fuller
Re: (Score:2)
"Increasingly the FBI is reverting to fascism and keeping files open on everybody just because they can"
They've always done that. America is a constant struggle against fascism.
Re: (Score:2)
They are reverting to (continuing with) their Jedgar Hoover days.
Re: Fascist bastards ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations normally can't use deadly force nor can they incarcerate.
Re: (Score:2)
^^^ summarizes it nicely.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I think that a person who is for free speech has an obligation not to interfere with anyone else's speech. You have miscategorized this issue to imply "Someone allowing a view they don't like to exist is going through extra work to enable someone else's speech" That's not how the internet work
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech applies to everyone, else you don't have it. The First Amendment only (in theory) protects your freedom of speech from government reprisal. However, anytime someone faces consequences for their speech, whether from the government or private parties, it interferes with their freedom of speech, primarily through self-censorship.
Remember, government has never stopped someone from speaking their mind. That's entirely self-censorship. Even regimes which would execute you for your speech relied
Re: (Score:2)
However, anytime someone faces consequences for their speech, whether from the government or private parties, it interferes with their freedom of speech, primarily through self-censorship.
The term "consequences" is too vague to be useful in this context. Every action has consequences in some form or another. Your freedom is not impacted unless those consequences include a change in your legal status, e.g. loss of property, or restrictions on your (non-aggressive) behavior or movement. In particular, your freedom does not extend to how others choose to think of you (reputation) or voluntarily interact with you. The freedom of speech is not infringed simply because someone else does not choose
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fascist bastards ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whao there, isn't NBC one of the companies entrusted with a section of the public airwaves? The same airwaves that the poster you are responding to is prohibited from broadcasting on, such that they may have the privilege of doing so, for commercial benefit, but also to benefit us all, as they are our shared resource?
Seems a government subsidized company would be a valid target for some criticizm for the messages they choose to carry or not on our medium.
Re: (Score:2)
Except what they are paying for is only available to them because the government has decided to license it to them. License, as in, they pay for it, its still not fully theirs, and it can come with terms. Hell already does.
Re: (Score:1)
The people who are traditionally in favor of "law and order" and giving cops too much power are the conservatives; this is probably mainly because conservatives are usually racists, so they adopted this mindset when civil rights laws were passed, because they wanted black people to be kept separate and oppressed.
As for NBC & Univision and Trump, the problem there is that all the media outlets no longer do anything approaching real, unbiased journalism like they at least tried to in the Kronkite days. T
Re: (Score:1)