Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Using Crowdsourcing To Identify Vancouver Rioters

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the hey-you-two-get-a-mask dept.

Canada 397

Fudge Factor 3000 writes "The Canucks' loss in the last game of the Stanley Cup Finals resulted in complete mayhem in downtown Vancouver. Everything from upturned cars set alight to looting was commonplace. Unfortunately, most of the perpetrators were able to maintain their anonymity by disappearing into the crowds. Fortunately, bystanders took several pictures and videos of the carnage. Now, websites (including both Facebook and Tumblr) have set up pages to use crowdsourcing to identify the hooligans."

cancel ×

397 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow (4, Funny)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469672)

People care about hockey? And enough to riot?

Re:Wow (3, Funny)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469696)

I read "rioters" as "routers" expecting a map of the internets in Vancouver, then read the summary... I guess I'll just have to carry on doing my own wardriving for the time being...

Re:Wow (3, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470292)

There are some editing errors in the OP, which make misunderstanding natural. For instance, it says "(in both Facebook and have been set up to use crowdsourcing to identify the hooligans."

This is Canada. I take that to properly read: (in both Facebook and French) have been set up to use crowdsourcing to identify the hooligans."

Re:Wow (5, Funny)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469716)

People care about hockey? And enough to riot?

Different people, different worries [imgur.com]

Re:Wow (4, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469800)

US: walmart has a $300 sale on widescreen TVs.

Re:Wow (3, Interesting)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470138)

People care about hockey? And enough to riot?

Different people, different worries [imgur.com]

Vancouver is similar to the worst US cities before the housing bust. It costs 11 times the average income to buy the average house. This would put servicing housing debt at 72% of your gross income. There isn't much industry and therefore job prospects aren't the greatest. The average young person is likely to live in debt their entire lives if they stay. I don't see how people can live without drawing equity from their homes to pay daily expenses. Add on top of that foreigners driving up the price of everything.

As someone mentioned about the hooligans trying to start a riot during the Olympics, it didn't work. A riot only happens when you have enough pissed off people in a large group. The end of a losing hockey playoff is just a catalyst that brought a lot of already morally defeated people together in one place.

Saying the hockey game caused the riot is like saying the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand caused World War I.

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470270)

Vancouver housing prices weren't the cause of the riot. Neither were disaffected youth angry about the cost of living.

While the housing market is grossly overinflated, the rental market is sane. Young people simply rent instead of buying, and rent quite nice places too because the main driver of inflating housing costs are foreign investors buying up all the condo stock. Metro Vancouver's unemployment rate (7.6%) is lower than Canada's overall, and has been pretty constant for the last decade. There's no large, pent up reservoir of anger.

The cause of the riots was 1) corralling 100,000 fans downtown to watch the game on outdoor screens, and 2) a large portion of those fans being drunk suburban kids looking to get their riot on. Blame lackluster police presence if you want. It was hooliganism pure and simple. Look at the photos. Look at their expensive shoes. Those Canucks jerseys they're all wearing aren't cheap. They're young, middle-class drunks having fun.

Re:Wow (1)

Dragon_Hilord (941293) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470280)

"As a Canadian..."

Ya, I'll ditch the crap; that's fucking hilarious. Thank you for putting it into perspective. As a Canadian... I'm ashamed. This is just outright stupid.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469730)

People care about hockey? And enough to riot?

No. It's not disgruntled hockey fans. It's idiots that come downtown to cause trouble anytime there are large crowds.

Re:Wow (1)

jon_doh2.0 (2097642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469780)

Though, many of them did seem to be wearing team kit.

Guess they could have looted it, after they scuttled out of the wood work.

Re:Wow (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470012)

Don't know whether you can believe it or not but the cops are claiming a core group of anarchists were the instigators. They're claiming it was the same group who tried to get a riot going for the Winter Olympics last year, though that one fizzled, due no doubt to a lot of positive vibes.

Mind you, the same thing happened in 1994 when the Canucks blew the playoffs, and I don't think you can blame the current group of anarchists for that one. English soccer hooliganism was never attributed to anarchists, but to crazy drunk Englishmen.

The fact was the city of Vancouver let about 100,000 sports-crazed people into its downtown core, and if that isn't a recipe for a crazy car-burning mob, I don't know what is.

Re:Wow (1)

egoots (557276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470204)

There were both types of people there...

The guys who had ski masks, gas cans, baseball bats, and hammers were clearly prepared to raise hell and break shit up are the ones the police are referring to.

In addition to those, were all the drunk, macho, (proverbial) lemming types who thought it must be a cool thing to do.

Re:Wow (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470082)

People care about hockey? And enough to riot?

No. It's not disgruntled hockey fans. It's idiots that come downtown to cause trouble anytime there are large crowds.

How's that differ from a hockey game?

Re:Wow (4, Informative)

Korveck (1145695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469732)

Keep your ignorance away from here. Ice hockey is the biggest sport in Canada. In Vancouver, the Stanley Cup final game 7 is THE biggest sports event. The anticipation for Canucks to win their first Stanley Cup title is huge.

However, the hockey game is unlikely the true reason behind the riot. The rioters were prepared to riot. They brought the tools with them to set fire before the game even started. Many of the arrested were known rioters, who caused problems before the Winter Olympics in 2010.

Re:Wow (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469854)

I'm guessing that it's a mix. I heard passers comment that they weren't fans, and they wanted to start a riot. There were also plenty of intoxicated fans who were more than ready to riot in defeat and probably would have caused as much destruction with a victory party.

As for the crowd sourcing, they're going to have an easy time identifying people but a terrible time proving guilt. I've seen videos of people posing in front of the mayhem, even though they probably didn't take part in it. When I went to down town Vancouver today, I found hoards of people posing for photos around the crime scenes. Brilliant.

Re:Wow (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469888)

Actually it's the second largest sport depending on the year. It's either hockey or lacrosse.

Anyway, they should have just read the riot act [wikipedia.org] . Waited 30mins, then started arresting anyone who refused to leave. That's what it's there for, and I have no problems with it being used as such. Really slapping a few people who are being the centres of the riot in prison for a few years is good(the max you can get is life aka 25 years). The rest you can give 2yr conditional discharges(aka don't fuck up, and it won't be counted against you).

Re:Wow (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470000)

When was the last time lacrosse was more popular than hockey in Canada? By depending on the year do you mean years and years ago?

Re:Wow (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470054)

Quite often. There's a reason why Canada has 2 national sports.

Re:Wow (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470214)

And those reasons are mostly historical. To say that lacrosse has been more popular than hockey in Canada as a whole within the last thirty years is plain ignorance. According to http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2010/06/07/con-lacrosse-cra.html [www.cbc.ca] the Canadian Lacrosse Association represents 40,000 members. That is insignificant compared to the popularity of hockey.

Lacrosse may have had its ups and downs in terms of popularity, but it has been a long time since it has been more popular than hockey in Canada.

Re:Wow (1)

The Yuckinator (898499) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470028)

Re:Wow (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470110)

Interesting. Because everything I've heard has been contrary to that. Hell we didn't even get any bulletins about it, because reading it would be major news in law enforcement circles here.

Re:Wow (1)

The Yuckinator (898499) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470194)

I thought so too. Here's a blog post [openfile.ca] by a "semi-regular" cbc reporter who was there and says they were broadcasting it over loudspeakers in both English and French.

"The riot police then start blasting a message over a loudspeaker in French and then English. I am watching the cameraperson’s back and realize I am being read the riot act."

Re:Wow (1)

cstdenis (1118589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470036)

They did read the riot act quite early. Thousands of people were still there.

There were a lot of cops, but they were still far outnumbered to arrest everyone.

Re:Wow (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469990)

... The rioters were prepared to riot. They brought the tools with them to set fire before the game even started.

"Tools to set fire..." You mean, matches. Maybe even lighters. Yeah, I think carrying a Bic lighter with you definitely indicates an intent to riot.

Re:Wow (1)

silentbrad (1488951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470202)

Maybe I'm just a poor arsonist, but I assume it's a little difficult to light a police car on fire [www.cbc.ca] with a box of matches or a Bic lighter.

Re:Wow (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470252)

Go set a car on fire with a lighter. I'll wait.

Re:Wow (0, Flamebait)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469744)

Jock sniffers worldwide are stupid and violent, but sports distract them from interfering anywhere else.

Re:Wow (2)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469776)

Way to be close-minded, idiot.

I've played and liked sports since I was little. I'm neither stupid nor violent.

Re:Wow (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469826)

The exception that proves the rule!

Re:Wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469762)

In Canada my friend, hockey is our football (otherwise known as soccer).

There's a pretty hardcore element of anarchists about in Canada... look at some of the problems in places like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. There was about 100,000+ people on the streets watching the game (it was playing on some big-screens that were set up)... and an event like that gives idiots like the anarchists the chance to start up trouble. With the mob mentality on top of it... something bad was bound to happen if the home team lost.

Re:Wow (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469988)

Unfortunately, it didn't matter if they lost - the criminals and anarchists were going to start their crap win or lose (Montreal suffered it in their last Stanley Cup win, Vancouver suffered it and lost). As you said, the large crowd was all they needed - win or lose mattered not one bit.

Re:Wow (2)

RobinH (124750) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470224)

Yes, one guy posing in a picture had a T-Shirt on that said "I'm here for the riot". I don't think he bought that after the riot started.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469796)

If we could only demote your post to a -5.. if only.

Re:Wow (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470096)

Why not? We pound our keyboards over Android vs. iOS.

Re:Wow (1)

Dr Herbert West (1357769) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470294)

This is not flamebait, I was surprised as well. +1 Suprised if you want.

Man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469700)

You can't even riot in peace anymore.

I think you a whole something (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469706)

Now websites (in both Facebook and have been set up to use crowdsourcing to identify the hooligans.

)

Oblig. xkcd (1, Funny)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469746)

859 [xkcd.com]

Re:I think you a whole something (4, Funny)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469758)

Now websites (in both Facebook and have been set up to use crowdsourcing to identify the hooligans.

)

BOTH facebook?? These people mean business!

Re:I think you a whole something (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469770)

My theory is that this is an attempted page widening troll. It goes something like this:

Re:I think you a whole something (2)

Mantorp (142371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470282)

to quote Samuel L Jackson: "English motherfucker, do you speak it?"

Saw this on the news today... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469726)

Absolutely shocking - I thought Canadians were more civilised than this. I hope they catch the bastards involved.

Re:Saw this on the news today... (1)

zanian (1621285) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469772)

Absolutely shocking - I thought Canadians were more civilised than this. I hope they catch the bastards involved.

Well you obviously didn't hear about the riots after Montreal beat Boston in game 7 in 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jU56NA0yf8&feature=related [youtube.com] [youtube.com]. Worse yet, it was only round one.

vandalism (2)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469728)

It's a good idea, but it appears that the photos section on the facebook page has already been vandalized. More than 80% of the photos are multiple copies of photos taken by the media, and another 10-15% are random unrelated photos. I hope they're accepting photos and videos from an email address too.

Yay for Facebook! (5, Insightful)

ZipK (1051658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469738)

Facebook's greatest value to humanity may be as a honeypot to stupid people who post their misdeeds for all the public (and law enforcement agencies) to see.

Re:Yay for Facebook! (2)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469954)

Facebook's greatest value to humanity may be as a honeypot to stupid people who post their misdeeds for all the public (and law enforcement agencies) to see.

I would say RTFA but even the summary says that it's for other people identifying the rioter, not the rioter posting a picture of himself burning that police car.

Re:Yay for Facebook! (4, Insightful)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470080)

The problem is that it's not really the drunks you want to get (despite the fact that they did a lot of the damage), it's the instigators in bandanas who started trouble then melted away into the crowd once they had set things in motion. I'm not saying the stupid people shouldn't be dragged out and shamed, but don't pat yourself on the back if you're catching only the "useful idiots"

Just for rioting? Seriously? (0, Flamebait)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469786)

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather not 'crowdsource' the manhunt for perpetrators of isolated property crimes. I'd bet the vast majority of these people have no criminal record and that almost nobody did anything violent during these riots. It's not worth setting a precedent that we'll all analyze video for the police merely to get justice for a few totaled cars.

It reminds me a little of the "lets all open our windows and see if we can spot the fleeing criminal" scene in Fahrenheit 451. I'm not helping the police find anyone short of a murderer or rapist through video coverage, if even then.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469866)

Your car wasn't totaled in Vancouver, was it?

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469870)

Really? Really?! Did you even see a single picture from the mayhem? There was so much property damage only because the police was too busy saving people from mob beat downs!
Drop your stupid dogmatic devotion to your specific "ism", get your head out of your ass and actually look at the world around you as it is once in a while.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469878)

As someone who lives in Vancouver, I disagree. These people were not rioting for a reason. Many just used it as a reason to break into stores. If people committed crimes, even "isolated property crimes", they should be charged with their crimes. I don't see how using facebook to figure out who these people are is a bad thing.

These people came into Vancouver to cause trouble. I'm all for charging them.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469910)

Those "isolated property crimes" you speak of will cost Vancouver residents and businesses millions of dollars, damages that aren't covered for riots. Not to mention the black eye Vancouver gets now on the world stage.

You must be just willfully blind or just plain stupid not see the violence going on last night.

In short, you are a fucking moron who has tried to inject your naive and childlike political views into a serious, actual issue.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (4, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469912)

Hey guess what. Fuck you. No seriously fuck you. In Canada we generally have a well ordered, and well behaved society. Lets see we got one guy who got the shit beat of him by 15-20 people because he was trying to protect property. And we have idiots who have this idea that public mischief, rioting, and in general being a danger to everyone else is not worthy of your time?

It wasn't a few cars, it wasn't a few businesses, and it sure the fuck wasn't a few people who got stomped in the face because they tried to stop the fuckers from ruining businesses and looting. And if you are a Canadian. Get the fuck out of the country and go somewhere else. Maybe europe, where they let you destroy someone elses property because your "sensibilities" can be offended, because a sports team lost.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (4, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469972)

But a sports team LOST! What is the suffering of a few people in the face of such injustice!

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469996)

Obviously. Then again the people who committed crimes against others when they get caught are in for a rude awakening. Here we have a pretty high tolerance for damages against private property and loss of money. But hurt someone? Even the most liberal judges here will slam you with the highest sentences they can.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (2)

radish (98371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469992)

I agree entirely with your sentiments, except that I'm European, so I really am not sure what you're blathering on about at the end there. You seem to be under some misapprehension than rioting here is tolerated or legal, while it is obviously neither.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470016)

Well I suppose I could have said Greece. I have been there more than a few times, and it's by far more tolerated there than anywhere else in Europe.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (1, Interesting)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470040)

No dude Fuck you! Canada generally well ordered? LOL... I have lived in Canada for 18 years, and now I live in Switzerland. Now that is a country with order and well behaved people. Canada has the impression of being well behaved, but it really ain't. Just google Canadian riots and wow here is a list: http://ca.askmen.com/top_10/entertainment/top-10-canadian-riots.html [askmen.com] Or how about the following list: http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=capress-hkn_stanley_cup_riots_list-7164094 [yahoo.com] Topping the list are HOCKEY riots. You would have figured that MAYBE just MAYBE the police would have been prepared...

So next time do some soul searching before saying that Canada is so good and the rest are bad!

Dumb Ass!

Oh wait... Dumb Ass Eh!

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470072)

That's great, but I've been here for over 30 years. Having lived here for the majority of them, and in other places in the world. But please, feel free to read next time it'll help. As I never said that everywhere else 'are bad'.

Nah the police aren't allowed to be prepared. Actually they're not allowed to take any action at all. I'll let you figure out why since you've obviously been here much longer than I have. And you're not even a born citizen. I'll wait.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (2)

dave420 (699308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470052)

Saying "Europe" makes as much as saying "The Americas" - it is a collection of countries which are far from homogeneous. That's kind of a big flag highlighting that you might not know what you're talking about.

Time for people to stand up! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470188)

Agreed 100%.

Our society gets its order and gets its freedoms NOT from police and laws. It gets its order and its freedoms because THE PEOPLE demand it.

It is time for all people that live in and near Vancouver to find and turn these assholes in. We don't need new laws. We don't need special police powers. We just need the will of the people to say "WE will not stand for this, eh!".

ALL these people need to be turned in and they need to pay up all the costs and penalties of the damage they have done. Period.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (5, Interesting)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469924)

Before you comment, perhaps you'd like to do some research and educate yourself. Here: http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=369127 [tsn.ca]

Coles Notes: 150 people injured, some quite seriously. Millions of dollars in damage, which tax payers and insurance payers (translation: the populace - you know, the people who are working together now to help find the criminals) will have to pay for. Perpetrated not by a crowd going insane over the angst of a lost hockey game but by anarchists and professional criminals taking advantage of a large crowd of people which could provide cover for their activities while blame was placed on the hockey fans rather than the criminals perpetrating the crimes.

Forgive me if I disagree with you, strongly, and am very happy to see initiatives like this to catch the criminals and happier still to know that the hockey fans often stepped in to try to hold back the criminals from their desired goals.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (-1, Flamebait)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470010)

I have read stories, and some of them were quite specific about the nature of the injuries suffered. According to what I've read exactly one person is in critical condition, there were three stabbings, and one officer received 14 stitches for a brick to the face.

Serious wounds and serious crimes, but hardly the utter chaos one is lead to believe by the phrase "150 injured". Forgive me if I don't think that theft, vandalism, and a half-dozen major injuries warrant an all-out digital dragnet. Frankly, I'd be more frightened of meeting any of the angry vigilante-sounding people who've responded to my post in a dark alley than of meeting the most dangerous of the rioters. At least rioters are just violent pricks and adrenaline-fueled idiots; you guys sound like the sort of vengeful, soulless libertarians who would shoot a man rather than let him walk away with your TV; the kind of people who want all crimes prosecuted to the 'fullest extent of the law', who cares the methods and damn the financial, social, or philosophical cost.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (5, Insightful)

stoanhart (876182) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470086)

Wow, how do you mange to sound more like a dick with each word you write?

You realize this isn't some vigilante man hunt, right? It's just people looking at pics of crimes in progress and seeing if they recognize anyone. If they do, they report them to the police and let justice take its course.

As to this:

"At least rioters are just violent pricks and adrenaline-fueled idiots; you guys sound like the sort of vengeful, soulless libertarians who would shoot a man rather than let him walk away with your TV"

I don't even know what to say. People smashing property for no reason are worse than people trying to defend their own property. Go fuck yourself.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470168)

...you guys sound like the sort of vengeful, soulless libertarians who would shoot a man rather than let him walk away with your TV; the kind of people who want all crimes prosecuted to the 'fullest extent of the law', who cares the methods and damn the financial, social, or philosophical cost.

Sorry, but what part of my reply was anything along the lines of what you accuse me of?

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (2)

Annirak (181684) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469932)

It's just you, and they're not. They've crowdsourced evidence gathering, but this is no different from working with crimestoppers to hunt vandals. Instead of calling in tips, they're asking the public to submit video evidence, not to analyze it. The facebook pages are not police initiatives.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469938)

No one has the right to destroy someone elses property just because they think they can get away with it. these are not people trying to make a point or protesting some injustice these are just hooligans that are obviously more then willing to make someones elses life worse if they can get away with it and I do not understand why anyone would want them to get away with it.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469940)

It's not worth setting a precedent that we'll all analyze video for the police merely to get justice for a few totaled cars.

What would be next... going after perpetrators ourselves, arresting them, incarcerating them somewhere in our homes and feed them for years? (we're already paying for all of these in taxes... are they saying/admitting we are paying them for nothing?)

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (1)

wfolta (603698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469980)

Insightful? Seriously? I think if your store were looted and trashed, you might be singing a different tune. Or if you lived across the street from a car that was set on fire. Or if one of your family needed emergency medical service and ambulances were held off because of the rioting.

Your comparison to Farenheit 451 is ridiculous. The book had people looking for someone whose "crime" was to read, not for someone who stole and vandalized property.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470154)

No fucking shit. Parent is a pure lawlessness apologist. The cops are asking the public to help them identify potential perpetrators or witnesses. Whether it's Facebook, Youtube, a neighborhood watch or people who saw a criminal act by pure fucking accident, it's all the same thing.

It's a citizen's duty to help out the authorities when crimes are committed. Taxpayers are insurance policy holders are ultimately going to pay for this riot, and I don't think it's any kind of tyranny or thought control for the police to ask citizen's who may have evidence of crimes to provide them with evidence.

I suspect the parent has a few philosophical views aligned with the anarchists, and has at least some sense of common cause.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470022)

In addition to what everyone else here has said, what message does it send out to just let it slide. Riots after every game? "Yeah, we can break open windows and steal stuff from stores and set cop cars on fire and they don't care!"

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (1, Interesting)

Mia'cova (691309) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470048)

As a vancouver citizen, I'd just like to say that anyone who gets into international news for burning a police car, shoplifting, stabbing, etc deserves to be identified. These people are being misrepresented as genuine vancouver canucks fans, rather than criminals who planned crimes in advance, eg bringing gas with them downtown. Since when has asking the public for help in identifying the the people responsible for a crime (in this case many crimes!) been a bad thing? After an amazing Olympics, how do you think we feel having our city shown in this spotlight? I don't know a single friend of mine who wasn't thoroughly disgusted by what they experienced in vancouver last night. If you try to convince anyone from vancouver that this was in any way, shape, or form okay, expect to get a very strong response from those of us in vancouver who love our city.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470060)

This isn't the "turn in your neighbor" of 1984, which would be bad. (person -> police -> person ... where is the crime? = waste of police resources)

It's really no different than the police taking pictures around and asking, "Hey, do you know this guy?" or "Hey, have you seen this guy?" except on a larger scale. (video evidence of crime -> police -> person).

We're after specific people for specific verifiable acts, which is a good allocation of resources.
The only thing to make it better would be "Turn yourself in and agree to pay for the stuff you broke, and we'll offer you a deal where you won't get put in jail." (For property damage only; if you assaulted or injured somebody, all deals are off.)

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470070)

I agree. The solution to rioters breaking into your business or setting your car on fire is not taking their pictures and posting them on facebook, it's a shotgun loaded with bird shot.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (2)

wrook (134116) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470092)

Would you like to live in a world where society sets the standards and cooperates with one another to ensure that everyone follows that standard, or would you like to live in a world where the government sets the standards and they are enforced by the police in opposition of society? Because your statement makes me think that you *prefer* a police state. For me, ideally police aren't necessary. People are respectful of each other and peer pressure is enough to dissuade people from stepping over the line (even if they are excited about something). Where you see people ratting on their peers, I see people taking a stand on what they will accept in their society. If you don't want to help the police, maybe you need *more* community involvement, not less.

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470122)

The fuck are you calling it "isolated" for? The rioting took place over a good stretch of downtown, they trashed several storefronts, looted London Drugs and Sears, tried to start a fire at one point in Sears, set multiple cars on fire, and injured 150 people, some quite seriously, most very innocent. Some of them even looked prepared for this, with face masks to keep the cameras from imaging them as they destroyed property.

This isn't just people standing around refusing to move. This is people causing chaos and injury in a usually civilized nation. You haven't presented any argument for shielding them from the law other than an implicit "I don't like the police".

Re:Just for rioting? Seriously? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470200)

Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Some people scrape together everything to get their car. Just because it's property, doesn't mean it belongs to "the man" or that the guy owning it has insurance to cover the damage.

I was in a crowd plenty of times and when things turned ugly, I just went the other way. And not just looting. Once standing for tickets to something, the counter opened, and the line didn't maintain, some idiots rushed it and then everyone rushed and some woman got trampled and taken to the hospital.

What's the old saying: "No single raindrop thinks its responsible for the flood?" or something like that?

So yeah, I would love to see an obstacle put up that make people in a crowd stop and think: "Hey, just because I'm in a crowd doesn't mean I absolve my personal responsibility for my own actions."

If you had seen the reaction of the Japanese in the aftermath of the Tsunami vs LA residents to Katrina, perhaps you could appreciate my view.

This form of policing needs a proper name (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469808)

I propose "Stasi".

Re:This form of policing needs a proper name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469906)

That name sucks. We're calling it "Fred".

Re:This form of policing needs a proper name (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469984)

Wait. So people who commit criminal acts, and happily post themselves on websites committing such. And the police using such a tool to find the people who've helped commit millions in damages, and contribute to the injury of several hundred people is ... state sanctioned surveillance of everyone?

What the hell is wrong with you?

I thought this sort of crap would stay in Europe (1)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469828)

It's kind of a shame. I thought this sort of crap would stay in Europe. Soccer Game riots are relatively frequent here in Europe, were as sports events in the U.S. and Canada have always seemed notably non-violent and family friendly.
It's one of the few things that actually work way better across the pond than over here. Massive sport event riots is one thing the U.S. and Canada really shouldn't copy from Europe.

Re:I thought this sort of crap would stay in Europ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36469898)

Bostonians tend to riot when our teams WIN. Like, say, now.

Re:I thought this sort of crap would stay in Europ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470114)

Yeah, but Boston is the exception... they're the drunken asshole of American sports towns. And they win so rarely, they really don't know how to handle it.

!CCTV, !privacy invasion, !crowdsourced policework (5, Informative)

Annirak (181684) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469916)

This is not a case of CCTV. Rather, these images have been submitted from mobile devices and cameras.

This is not a case of privacy invasion. People have committed criminal acts out in public, fully knowing that people are filming. They're begging to be identified.

Furthermore, the police did not set up these facebook pages; these are set up by concerned citizens who are appalled by the behaviour seen last night. The police have set up a system for submitting evidence, but they have not started a "crowd-sourced" identification initiative as of yet. So maybe the police is doing crowd-sourced evidence gathering, but certainly not analysis.

I want to point out how the police behaved in this riot. They stood their ground, but did not use an unnecessary force. They rarely engaged directly with the rioters; they just held a line, and occasionally fired tear gas, flashbangs, and pepperspray into the crowd. This is one recent case of police in the news NOT confiscating/breaking everyone's recording devices.

I think the Vancouver police and the RCMP deserve some commendation for how they handled this riot. They did not prevent as much property damage as they could have, but on the otherhand, they took a far more measured approach to interaction with the rioters than has been taken in the past and they are seemingly embracing social media, rather than raging in fear of it.

Re:!CCTV, !privacy invasion, !crowdsourced policew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470240)

I don't know how it's in Canada, but here in Germany, recording someone without previously having his agreement, is still illegal, even when in public.
CCTV, which here is of dubious legality anyway, has to have special warning signs outside the filming area, so you can decide whether to enter that area. And if it's filming private buildings, there have to be special blinding panels installed.

Although I think, if someone does something out in the open, for everyone to see, he did it either because he wants to be seen, or because he's an idiot. As in any case, he can not expect this to be kept a secret. ^^

Vigilante safety patrol (0, Troll)

guanxi (216397) | more than 3 years ago | (#36469942)

This sounds like a really bad idea to me. How about giving the photos to the police?

Who will verify the images are authentic, and not photoshopped to insert other people - enemies, friends (ha ha!), famous people?

Who will make the fine judgements of what the people in the images are doing? Are they committing a crime, merely in the vicinity, or passing through? Or, how close are they to the burning car behind them? -- depth in photos is hard to judge. And what constitutes a crime in Vancouver? If the mob makes the judgement, you can bet that they will leap to wild, sensational conclusions.

What will happen to the people who are 'convicted' by this court? Will they get carefully considered justice, or a senseless angry mob? Will they be endlessly vilified and hounded, people finding their personal address online, ringing their doorbell, calling their employer, their family, etc. ... and for a misdemeanor, or a misunderstanding?

Finally, it sets the precedent that all our public activity is subject to being recorded and publicized. You can argue that we don't have a right right to privacy on a public street, but if we only have privacy in lead-shielded basement, with no communication or anything else passing in or out, we really don't have privacy at all.

Re:Vigilante safety patrol (5, Insightful)

Mia'cova (691309) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470094)

What are you even talking about? First, these are all videos citizens recorded of crimes happening in front of their eyes in public streets. None of this is coming from the police. If someone is identified, a police expert will evaluate that. If it looks like a match, they'll press charges. If there's enough evidence to convince a judge, they'll be prosecuted. Do you think we run our justice system with some facebook/hot-or-not hybrid? Wow.

Re:Vigilante safety patrol (1)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470186)

This doesn't set any new precedents. If you are being wrongfully accused, you can defend yourself in court like you could in the past.

If there was just one photo of you standing in the background, it probably won't be enough evidence to convict you. If there are multiple pictures from multiple people including video, it can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. This is why the police is using crowdsourcing techniques to gather evidence.

Re:Vigilante safety patrol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470212)

Who will make the fine judgements of what the people in the images are doing? Are they committing a crime, merely in the vicinity, or passing through? Or, how close are they to the burning car behind them? -- depth in photos is hard to judge.

Depth is hard to judge? Maybe, but have you even bothered to look at some of these images/videos? Many show unmasked people IN THE ACT of damaging property, looting, fighting, etc. Others show people trying to protect property, and in at least one case, getting beat by the crowd. How can these images/videos be misjudged???

Charge the NHL (2, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470042)

Charge the NHL with inciting riot and civil disorder, with co-defendents Vancouver and Boston.

Or maybe we should outlaw sports completely, seeing as they seem to cause insanity. :p

Re:Charge the NHL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470176)

You're barking up the wrong tree there sir. The blame clearly lies with the obvious culprit - violent video games. If we had just taken NHL 2K11 off the shelves and boycotted EA, none of this would have happened.

Catch'em while you can, Apple will stop this... (2)

fox171171 (1425329) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470058)

Lots of vandals have been caught in photos, but soon criminals like these will simply use an IR device to to activate new features patented by Apple to disable everyone's cameras.

I am sure justice will be swift... (1)

alexo (9335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470090)

... just as it was in the case of the thugs that were caught on camera beating up Dorian Barton.

You mean muppets like Brock Anton? (3, Interesting)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470130)

Crowdsourcing? Sometimes you don't even need that, sometimes a muppet hands himself in because he LOVES FACEBOOK SO MUCH! Honestly. Read it and weep for humanity. [twitpic.com]

I don't get it. (0)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470146)

Why do the police not move in and beat the shit out of those assholes? Rioting over a god damn hockey game, seriously? The second one of those assholes throws a rock or turns over a car, you beat the piss out of them. Otherwise you're just inviting this idiocy.

We don't want criminals here (4, Insightful)

dala1 (1842368) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470152)

People in Vancouver are standing up and saying this type of behaviour is unacceptable. Last night, they did this by taking pictures, creating forums to share evidence, and guarding businesses. Today they gathered downtown to help with the cleanup. For those of you searching for an Orwellian scenario in all of this, there's nothing to find.

Police quickly dispersed croweds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470198)

Vancouver police managed to clear the crowds after shouting "Free Beer" into bull horns. Smaller riots occured a short time later at local bars when protesters found the free beer claims were false.

Could always check failbook at failblog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36470226)

http://failbook.failblog.org/2011/06/16/funny-facebook-fails-the-vancouver-riots-exhibit-b/

Dude is bragging on his facebook page about his part in the riots, with one of the commentors telling him to take it down because it would be evidence.

The rioting almost made sense this time... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36470284)

I never understood why so many teams' hometowns would go and destroy their own towns after their team won the championship. Perhaps with even greater irony, my alma mater won a championship (twice, actually) when I wan in undergraduate, and some of my fellow students went and trashed our town in celebration.

Really, if you're going to trash something, shouldn't you go to sack and loot your opponents town? Sure, it would have been a long trip from Vancouver to Boston (or the other way if the winner is to sack the loser's town), but it would seem to make more sense.

Hence, if it had been Boston fans in Vancouver, destroying Vancouver after winning the cup, it would have made more sense (though that is extremely relative here) than the citizens destroying their own town.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>