×

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!

A Chat With Zavilia, a Tool For Identifying Rioters

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the crowd-state-opression dept.

Security 102

HansonMB writes with an interview in Motherboard.tv. From the article: "Social media isn't just great for starting 'social unrest,' it's proving to be quite helpful for quashing it too. Not long after the bricks began to fly in London's latest kerfuffle, locals angry over raging mobs scrambled to assist the police in their attempt to identify street-fighters and free-for-all hooligans ... Now with more than 1,000 people charged over the chaos, a few citizen groups continue to provide web-based rioter identification platforms, in hopes of being good subjects, maintaining the country's pursuit of order, and keeping their neighborhoods safe."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

102 comments

misread (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37139482)

Who else misread that as 'Chavzilla'?

Re:misread (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37140302)

For the Americans: Chav [urbandictionary.com]

Double edged sword (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37139520)

I really wouldn't feel good creating a web based tool which I'd know for sure was going to be used by governments to crack down on legitimate protesters.

Re:Double edged sword (2, Insightful)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#37139554)

That sword is only double-edged if you believe 'the crowd' would be keen on identifying legitimate protesters as much as they are in identifying rioters.

Those who would do so would likely still do so if the police simply put up the same picture on their own website.

This platform is really no different from any other in which individuals are attempted to be identified. Think of the effort to identify the girl who stomped on a kitten, or the guys throwing a dog off of a bridge, etc. It's just on a much larger scale because this time it's rioters - of which there were hundreds.

Something that bothers me, however, is the apparent aim at monetization. Quoth the article:

Q. What other users do you envision for this kind of technology?

A. We do envisage much greater uses for Zavilia. However, as these are currently copyright pending, we cannot disclose any further details.

Re:Double edged sword (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37139650)

That sword is only double-edged if you believe 'the crowd' would be keen on identifying legitimate protesters as much as they are in identifying rioters.

Yes, moreso than the government. In America, anyone who aligns themselves with a D would absolutely lie to destroy the life of someone who chose the letter R. It's gotten that bad, and it's asinine and with no common sense about it.

People are angry and want to do nothing but cause pain.

Re:Double edged sword (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37139856)

It's kinda asinine to claim all Democrats are lying malevolents.

Re:Double edged sword (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37140032)

I meant to imply it goes both ways, and that to an outside observer there's no difference between tweedledee or tweedledum, but your reactionary post proved my point for me.

ARRRRRRRR ThoOoOSSSSseee GUYSysysssS are TheREeeeAL TErrRoRiSTS!!!!11!!

meh

America deserves the poverty, and to eat itself alive with hate and fear. And the cancer. You all deserve that too, because you have the governmnent you deserve.

Re:Double edged sword (2)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 2 years ago | (#37139932)

It is the openly stated goal of professional troll and attention whore Andrew Brietbart to do exactly what you have described... to Democrats. He has done exactly this to an innocent woman [wikipedia.org] and an entire organization [wikipedia.org] .

That being said, if you actually think that some random person off of Main Street, Wall Street or any other street in America would do what you have described, you need to seek the services of a professional psychiatrist.

Re:Double edged sword (0)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140536)

You know what is funny is that Andrew Breitbart's posting of the video that got that "innocent woman"* in trouble was not about that woman. It was about the reaction of her audience to her revelation that her initial reaction to a request for help from a white farmer when she was in a government job was to not help. The point of the video segment that Andrew Breitbat posted was that the NAACP was hypocritical to call for others to condemn racist statements when their own members cheered a clearly racist behavior before she explained that she went ahead and did the right thing even though she was tempted to behave in a racist manner. It was the reaction of others without ever looking into what actually happened that led to the problems for Shirley Sherrod. As for ACORN, what was the lie?

* I use the quotes around innocent woman because of Sherrod's involvement in the Pigford settlement which has elements that suggest impropriety. I have not followed the Pigford settlement story cloesly enough to have a clear opinion on whether or not improprieties actually occurred or whether or not Sherrod was involved in such improprieties.

Re:Double edged sword (2)

nbauman (624611) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140838)

No, you and Breitbart are racist bastards who were attacking the NAACP because it's a black organization. I heard the video and you're mischaracterizing the response of the audience.

This video was deceptive and irresponsible to the point of lying. If Shirley Sherrod wasn't a public figure, it would be libel, and it may be libel anyway.

This was a classic case of quoting someone out of context to make it look as if they were saying the opposite of what they were actually saying.

Professional news organizations, if they're doing what they claim to do, contact the subject of personal attacks before they publish it.

Breitbart irresponsibly published this deceptive excerpt without contacting the victim of his attack. That's why he's irresponsible.

The Obama administration didn't behave responsibly on this either. The people who made the decision to fire Shirley Sherrod should have been fired themselves.

* I use the quotes around innocent woman because of Sherrod's involvement in the Pigford settlement which has elements that suggest impropriety. I have not followed the Pigford settlement story cloesly enough to have a clear opinion on whether or not improprieties actually occurred or whether or not Sherrod was involved in such improprieties.

Well that's the issue, isn't it? Why don't you look it up on Wikipedia before you repeat Breitbart's racist attacks.

As for ACORN, it was a lie because most or all of the people caught on the video realized that somebody was scamming them, and they responded in different ways, including playing along. Some of the ACORN offices reported it to the police. Others correctly concluded that the story was so absurd that it wasn't real. Others were caught off guard and didn't know how to respond -- this isn't the kind of situation they're trained for and expecting. O'Keefe selectively and deceptively picked out the worst ones. You can look that up on Wikipedia too.

And nothing on that video represents the overall policies and actions of ACORN.

The Democrats didn't respond too well to this one either.

Re:Double edged sword (0)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#37141668)

That's right, blacks can't be racists, so those who point out racist behaviors by them must be racist.

Re:Double edged sword (1)

nbauman (624611) | more than 2 years ago | (#37141920)

Yes, blacks can be racists, and it's right to point it out when they are.

However, Shirley Sherrod wasn't a racist, and the NAACP audience wasn't racist.

Breitbart distorted her words by taking them out of context, and distributed them on the Internet to promote a false charge that she and the NAACP are racist -- as you're doing right now. That's racist.

It's racist to do it for the purpose of destroying a black organization.

It's also racist to repeat racist charges without knowing enough about them to know whether they're true or false -- as you're doing now.

You're not "point[ing] out racist behaviors." You're repeating lies.

Re:Double edged sword (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#37142096)

I'm sorry, the audience cheered when she said that she thought about doing nothing for the white farmer because he was white. That is racist. It doesn't matter that she continued to say that she realized that such behavior was wrong. Breitbart did not include that video in order to demonstrate that Shirley Sherrod was racist, but to illustrate that the audience was, which even when you watch the entire video still comes through.
As for the ACORN videos, there were enough videos of enough ACORN offices providing advice for how someone importing underage illegal immigrants in order to have them work as prostitutes could get around laws to demonstrate that it was not against ACORN policy to do so. Especially when combined with the number of accounts from all over the country of ACORN fraudently registering voters.

Re:Double edged sword (1)

Vidar Leathershod (41663) | more than 2 years ago | (#37141966)

Of course, it's all a dirty trick by racists! Because everyone knows that Republicans are all racists! (they also hate old people and want to put them out on the street)

That's one way to try to win an ideological argument. Throw around terms like bigot, racist, anti-semite, sexist, etc.

Do you think that every single ACORN member should have had to respond poorly? Should he have had to publish the video showing people who *didn't* do anything wrong? After all, those "professional" news organizations don't show Tea Party advocates who appear normal. In fact, they point out the craziest of the bunch, and paint the rest with the same broad brush.

They also don't contact the subjects of personal attacks if it happens to be GW Bush before claiming his National Guard service was tainted (found to be based on forgeries).

There are bad people in the world. People who lack the desire to adhere to moral standards. Many of these call out others for their sins, bigotry, or what have you to cover for their own sins (lots of famous preachers on this one) or racism. These accusers of racism often hide behind social programs that purport to help the oppressed race, but which actually demean that group. Great examples include affirmative action, which states that minorities can't make it without direct assistance from the Government, and endless welfare, which prevents people from working or maintaining a normal family if they want to have the help they may temporarily need.

Meanwhile, successful black people who challenge these notions are torn down, labeled as servants of "the Man", and their exhortations towards community self-improvement are dismissed.

Re:Double edged sword (1)

nbauman (624611) | more than 2 years ago | (#37143440)

There are bad people in the world.

Unfortunately they've taken over the Republican Party and a good part of the Democratic party.

No. (0)

ThisIsSaei (2397758) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140716)

Reading the 'context' for Ms. Sherrod hardly changed the content; it just added spin. Referring to her as 'innocent' is a mistake in my book - the racial bias shows itself even in her explaining of the context of the original comments. Attention to racist comments when they don't originate from the white/male demographic are largely ignored.

(e.g. Al Sharpton [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org], Ray Nagin [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org], Joseph Lowery [clipsandcomment.com] [clipsandcomment.com])

This is just another one of those cases. It's not racist because a white man didn't say it.

Re:Double edged sword (1)

guanxi (216397) | more than 2 years ago | (#37141382)

That sword is only double-edged if you believe 'the crowd' would be keen on identifying legitimate protesters as much as they are in identifying rioters. ...

This platform is really no different from any other in which individuals are attempted to be identified. Think of the effort to identify the girl who stomped on a kitten, or the guys throwing a dog off of a bridge, etc. It's just on a much larger scale because this time it's rioters - of which there were hundreds.

The online mob will go after anyone who is unpopular, just like a real lynch mob. They aren't making a good judgement about innocence or guilt. Like the looters, they may not care -- it may just be exciting for them to destroy someone else.

I've seen it on a small scale, where the owner of a community website dedicated to a sports team published the contact information of a 14-year-old poster that he disliked, and his readers responded like a wolf pack and harassed the boy. IIRC it's happened on a large scale in S. Korea and China (and probably elsewhere), where online lynch mobs have hounded people they disliked and ruined their lives.

What happens when someone decides to go after a politically unpopular group. How about when they use the tool to identify people at a gay nightclub, or go after Muslims or others?

... Those who would do so would likely still do so if the police simply put up the same picture on their own website.. ..

Based on that reasoning, there is no need for this Zavilla tool; people could just use online photos. But it's not true -- if you build a tool that makes it much easier to do something, then people will do it much more often. You could share video before YouTube, but very few people did it. You could build you own personal social website before Facebook (create a webpage, use RSS, etc.), but almost nobody did it.

There's nothing about this technology that restricts its application to good purposes, and certainly we know humanity well enough to know they will do bad things.

Re:Double edged sword (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#37141482)

That sword is only double-edged if you believe 'the crowd' would be keen on identifying legitimate protesters as much as they are in identifying rioters.

What about 'the crowd' identifying people who weren't there at all but happened to knock up somebody's sister a few years back?

Triple edged (1)

biodata (1981610) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140004)

My guess is that these tools would also be useful for personal army requests, calling in the cops in the middle of the night to wake up someone you are annoyed with. If they really actually work as tools for bringing perpetrators to justice, then they would also work very effectively as tools of harassment and wasting of police time.

The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37139530)

Ok, if this riot was truly a bunch of hooligans wrecking the place with no real reason, then yes, prosecute them. Use facial recognition on all those fancy cams Briton has installed and see who you can track down. If they have stolen goods in their house, and such, then law enforcement can figure stuff out.

What scares me though is: Lets say they've prosecuted the obvious rioters, then they start moving down the chain and start getting people who talked about the riot: "Dude, people are smashing stuff out here. I bet anyone could steal from the stores near where I live." Is this just a casual observation, or are they insigting more rioting? I mean it is a definite grey area, but if the powers at be want to crack down on people, stuff lighter shades of grey can be prosecuted even!

And lets go a step further... What if you're talking about stuff that might happen in the future? You could say stuff like,"Well they got most of the rioters, but all the ones wearing pillow cases with eyes cut out didn't get caught by facial recognition. Why won't rioters in the future take this simple precaution?" Isn't it possible you're guilty of encouraging rioting through this speech. Depending how far they want to go with prosecuting people, things could get messy.

And don't forget this could start looking like the draconian censorship of evil dictators, but only a softer gentler kind: You won't be censored, but you'll be selectively remembered. Don't talk about certain things because the police will arrest you. We won't censor you, but we'll listen in. And when we're listening in, we'll archive all the semi-bad comments we can on you. In case you become a threat to the political climate, they'll just arrest you, and give sound bytes to the media saying your most radical thing so the public is brainwashed into thinking you're an evil person that deserves punishment.

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37139610)

The recent "riots" were not political protests, just a load of smashing into shops and stealing goods. Hundreds of thousands of pounds worth - white goods, food, alchohol, clothing, electronics. And the crime-spree was not limited to robbery, sadly: 3 men were murdered defending their property, police were deliberately run over, people's appartments were torched. Cars, busses and entire shops were burned out. No protest here, no message, no placard waving, just people acting like animals and grabbing whatever they could.

It's Britain not Briton btw.

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37139982)

Well, I can see a message in it. "I feel screwed by society, so I won't play by its rules".

Be honest, given the choice, would you go looting?

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (2)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140266)

Well, I can see a message in it. "I feel screwed by society, so I won't play by its rules".

Strange... What I read, looked like:

i'm a chav!!! i'm a CHAAAAV!
suck my diiiiick!! I'M A CHAV!!

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140836)

Strange... What I read, looked like:

i'm a chav!!! i'm a CHAAAAV!
suck my diiiiick!! I'M A CHAV!!

LOL nice way to put it...same here.

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

mike2R (721965) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140512)

I'd loot food if I was hungry.

I wouldn't thieve shoes from fucking Footlocker because I'm not a shit.

Would you?

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

LordNacho (1909280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140630)

You do know that various fast food chains actually hand out food for free in the evenings, don't you?

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37141814)

Which ones? In the UK?

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

LordNacho (1909280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37142066)

Yeah, after hours. Makes good sense, too. Why throw out food just because you aren't gonna sell it?

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37142128)

Yes, ok, I know it makes good sense, and I know lots of people who would appreciate it.

So, which ones?

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

LordNacho (1909280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37142822)

Moved from there now, but IIRC Pret do this. They have loads of shops, but I don't know if it's an official policy. Possibly a number of the Pret lookalikes (eg Eat). Not sure about the supermarket chains. But if you ask a homeless guy, they can probably tell you.

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37160706)

Actually, stealing food might even be not illegal according to the law here (it depends highly on the circumstances and what you steal). I guess the idea was to keep bums from filling the prisons for stealing a slice of bread. But I digress.

I wouldn't go looting. Because my liberty is more valuable than having a new pair of shoes. Which I'd simply buy if I need them. Also, I generally support our legal system and I consider it fair and just.

I guess they don't.

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

queBurro (1499731) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140546)

No, I wouldn't go looting. I think these rioters/looters are ignorant and irresponsible. They've given the government a really good reason to further crack down on the British people. What was funny was some kid coming out of a shop with a bike he'd stolen and then having it taken/'stolen'? from him by some other looter, it was as if he wanted 'some' of the rules to still apply

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37160668)

Exactly. You wouldn't. You have a job (I assume), you have a home and you have a computer you use to type this. I also assume you're in general pleased with the way your life is going, at least pleased enough to consider going out and risking your freedom and/or life to gain some possessions not an option.

Now ponder what would have to happen to a person to consider it an option.

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140700)

If society has collapsed and there will be no more ANYTHING, looting would be a necessity.

But to just be looting because I can get away with it, hell no. I look at people like that as animals that need gunned down in the streets. If it's political rioting, that is another issue. But just to be rioting for greed, crime and being a punk, again, hell no. Shooting looters should be a policy, it should be a mandate.

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140094)

The events started as a peaceful protest that was ignored then they escalated with the destruction of 2 police cars. The police shot someone dead and made it look like an execution. This was after they killed 2 other innocent people. Protests were entirely justified but looting wasn't.

The thing is peacueful protests are ignored, the government don't even acknowledge them. So what's left for the people who are really angry about police and government abuses? Some form of civil disabedience is the only option and when that happens looters and bad types turn on.

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37140178)

On the second and third day there wasn't any protesting at all, only looting.

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37140164)

It's Britain not Briton btw.

It wasn't Britain, it was specifically England. Of the countries that make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; only England had riots. There has been a bit of a political strop [newsnetscotland.com] in Scotland because Scotland relies on tourists at this time of the year (Edinburgh Festival, Military Tattoo etc) and there was worry that many would cancel or not come thinking that the riots extended over the border.

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

queBurro (1499731) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140490)

other notables: a girl stole a wedding dress, an OAP's barber's shop was gutted and some bloke fire bombed my local police station.

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140648)

The recent "riots" were not political protests, just a load of smashing into shops and stealing goods. Hundreds of thousands of pounds worth - white goods, food, alchohol, clothing, electronics. And the crime-spree was not limited to robbery, sadly: 3 men were murdered defending their property, police were deliberately run over, people's appartments were torched. Cars, busses and entire shops were burned out. No protest here, no message, no placard waving, just people acting like animals and grabbing whatever they could.

It's Britain not Briton btw.

That kind of insanity wouldn't fly here, they would simply be shot dead long before it got out of hand. Not by police necessarily either, but our citizens. You roll into some neighborhoods thinking you are going to riot there like that, you will probably come out in a body bag. Especially if they are torching things. I can't imagine punks surviving trying to torch things in my little town.

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

iteyoidar (972700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37141718)

Tell that to L.A. [wikipedia.org] or Seattle [wikipedia.org] ! Unless you're expecting some sort of Maoist uprising, I don't think anyone's going to bother trying to "roll into" your small towns.

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#37139638)

You tend to need the accused to have been giving specific details in order to prosecute. Times, places, plans etc. Idle chatter is not incitement. I'm pretty sure there are protections in law against the kind of abuses you talk about.

I agree it's an area of law that will need continuing scrutiny though. Personally I'm glad that the ECHR and various cross-country conventions and declarations of rights all exist in European countries. It doesn't stop them all going wrong at the same time, but it may hold the line where a minority of governments try to get all 1984ish.

Re:The future... Is it utopian or dystopian? (1)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37139656)

Use facial recognition on all those fancy cams Briton has installed and see who you can track down.

Britons live in Britain, not the other way round.

Snitches (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37139540)

Snitches and middle-class do-gooders, doing the job of the police state for them. Who cares if big businesses get smashed up and looted? How about starting up a web platform to identify the snitches who run these sites?

Re:Snitches (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37139562)

Grow up.

Re:Snitches (1)

iB1 (837987) | more than 2 years ago | (#37139570)

Ummm... yeah, The problem being that many local shops and traders who lived in the area also had their shops broken into, stock looted and buildings burnt

Re:Snitches (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37140202)

I agree it is out of order to trash small businesses, mug people, or attack their homes, but this was a tiny percentage of the rioting and looting. Most of it was big chain stores who fully deserve it IMHO, and snitches like Zavilia are acting as their personal Stasi.

In a riot you will always get a few people using it as cover to commit anti-social crime.

Re:Snitches (2)

biodata (1981610) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140030)

You make an interesting point. In East Germany, the power of the Stasi was not that they were everywhere, but that they had enough snitches everywhere. This is usually how dictatorships handle things.

Re:Snitches (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37140840)

Yea, being from Germany one of the first thoughts about TFA was "the Stasi would have loved such a tool". Turning ordinary citizens against each other has a long history.

Re:Snitches (1)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37141972)

When one person throws a brick through another persons shop window, they're already turned against each other.

Re:Snitches (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140790)

And do what to them? Hurt them? Kill them? Threaten them?

How about that isn't a good idea, because besides breaking the law, you just might target the wrong people to fuck with. What if you trigger vigilante retaliation in the form of hunting down looter punks and exterminating them? After enough of these punks get greased mysteriously, they will be whining for that "police state" to protect them. Oh the irony.

Doesn't understand IP (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37139552)

The Zavilla instigator clearly doesn't understand IP law, and more specifically, copyright law. References to copyright protection in the original article were positively cringeworthy. I also struggle to see how this will scale if each photo has to be hand annotated, it needs google-style auto face-detection.

Re:Doesn't understand IP (1)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | more than 2 years ago | (#37139726)

References to copyright protection in the original article were positively cringeworthy.

Or perhaps indicative that "IP law" is simply too complicated for most to understand, or that most people have more important things to think about than "IP law" - chances are that the interviewee was not providing legal advice to the project?

Freedom of speech (4, Insightful)

CadentOrange (2429626) | more than 2 years ago | (#37139556)

If you are free to use social media to organise riots, I am just as free to use the same social media to identify the idiots who rampaged through my neighbourhood. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

Re:Freedom of speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37139568)

Sometimes I wonder if /. is nothing more than a web site for anarchists. For a range an entire range of subjects, following the rules is sneered at.

Re:Freedom of speech (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37139592)

You keep using the word anarchist. It does not mean what you think it means (chaos) but literally without-leaders.

Re:Freedom of speech (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37139664)

Just like Communism "really means" an "egalitarian stateless society" and not "what the rest of us think" ("single-party centrally-planned dictatorship").

In the meantime, the rest of us will keep thinking of political ideologies based on their practical manifestations, rather than pie-in-the-sky theories.

Re:Freedom of speech (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37139782)

In the meantime, the rest of us will keep thinking of political ideologies based on their practical manifestations, rather than pie-in-the-sky theories.

You mean like the anarchist Confederacion Nacional del Trabajo of the Spanish Civil War? Their socialist (if not communist) approach surely turned them into a single-party centrally-planned dictatorship in the areas the other factions didn't control. That is, before their Anarchist leanings made them dissolve into pure chaos where people just looted.

Oh, wait... [infoshop.org]

Re:Freedom of speech (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140008)

Why doesn't that apply to capitalism?

Whenever I get to hear people talk about capitalism, it's that pie-in-the-sky variety, with has about as much to do with reality as the communist ideal had with its reality.

Re:Freedom of speech (1)

LordNacho (1909280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140680)

Typically when it comes to capitalism, we are told that America is the example. Not sure why. Well, actually, there's other countries to look at that are doing a better job of it.

Communism, which country is the example? (One worth living in...)

Re:Freedom of speech (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37139930)

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

Then what is it? I'm pretty sure that freedom of speech is nothing more than the ability of someone to say something (some restrictions apply in most cases) without being punished by the government (or something similar).

Re:Freedom of speech (1)

bytesex (112972) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140310)

Then what is it? I'm pretty sure that freedom of speech is nothing more than the ability of someone to say something (some restrictions apply in most cases) without being punished by the government (or something similar).

Hint: the answer lies in the '(or something similar)'.

Re:Freedom of speech (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37148850)

What do you mean? I'm pretty sure that freedom of speech is almost useless if authority figures try to censor you by silencing you because you said something that they didn't like (if the law states that what you said was protected speech).

Re:Freedom of speech (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37142306)

Freedom of speech was given to provide the ability for common man to speak out against authority. To state, in a public forum, that he/she disagrees with the way things are being done.

Literalists have been abusing the rights to just be dipshits, which is why laws against slander and inciting a riot exist. Hate crimes are just as bad, and one good speaker (see 'cults' as an example) can put the tarnish on a civil need to speak freely.

Basically, there's always a few asshats that will spoil the whole bunch "In the name of freedom."

Re:Freedom of speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37145564)

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

Explain to me why United States became independent again?

Copyright Pending (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37139560)

I wonder what they really mean with "We do envisage much greater uses for Zavilia. However, as these are currently copyright pending, we cannot disclose any further details." as there is no such thing as "Copyright Pending".

Useless interview (4, Insightful)

silanea (1241518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37139580)

[...] The copyrights have been made on the Zavilia brand name, principle, and technologies. [...]

[...] Although we cannot comment on exact figures, we can confirm the website peaked at over 100,000 unique visitors. [...]

[...] We have made contact with the authorities regarding several identifications, although we cannot disclose the exact figure due to security reasons. [...]

[...] entire documents detailing why Zavilia is “unethical” and “encourages vigilantism.” These remarks are however unfounded, and no damage has been done. [...]

[...] We do envisage much greater uses for Zavilia. However, as these are currently copyright pending, we cannot disclose any further details. [...]

Is it just me or is this interview nothing but a stream of useless PR crap? Our platform is so super-secret, 'cause it's copyrighted, y'know, and it does mighty good, but canna tell ya, 'cause it's so super-secret. Yeah, right. Colour me unimpressed.

Re:Useless interview (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37139720)

I thought exactly the same thing; was it not just a bunch of pictures with letters over them? Strangely adolescent responses to questions.

Re:Useless interview (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37140046)

I'd say we have a full-fledged copyright delusion.

Let's see how "secret" their stuff is, once they passed a copy on to somebody they can't trust blindly.
Because that's when the delusion starts to fall apart.
Suddenly it will be all over the net, and they won't know how that happened, since they didn't see it getting passed on.
And they can't even stop it without putting a chip in everyone's head to track each and every passing on of "their" stuff. Veeery realistic...

(Of course ignoring that passing it on does not cause any harm to anyone ever.)

Copyright is freeloading and leeching anyway. Since itâ(TM)s the idea of getting more money for their one-time service, without doing any more work, just because the first time they passed it on they didn't get as much as you wanted. That's why they are so quick to call file sharers "freeloaders" and "leeches".

I made a shirt:
Copyright is a crime.
DRM is eugenics for ideas.
Don't play their protection racket!
Copy a file today!

P.S.: More about how their protection racket works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Protection_racket#Additional_good_example_of_a_.E2.80.9Cpopular.E2.80.9D_protection_racket:_Copyright [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Useless interview (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140116)

The only thing missing is "and we want a million from VC investors" and it would fit perfectly into the dot.com hype a decade ago.

Re:Useless interview (1)

Ryanrule (1657199) | more than 2 years ago | (#37141984)

Its proper to shoot for at least 100 million these days. I mean if you are going to fleece investors, fleece hard.

Re:Useless interview (1)

dubsnipe (1822200) | more than 2 years ago | (#37152290)

Copyright pending? Does that term actually exist? I thought you had the copyright over something the moment you create it.

Re:Useless interview (1)

silanea (1241518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37161940)

Maybe he meant "Copyright registration pending". But even that would be strange, since brand names are not per se copyrightable AFAIK, they are protected as trademarks or logos, and business models or methods, as far as they can be protected at all, have to be patented, but there is no copyright on business methods. Most likely the person interviewed has no bloody clue about any of those forms of legal matters and just wanted to sound important.

How does it work? (1)

it0 (567968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37139584)

The thing i don't understand, why somebody on the internet asks you to commit a crime, for some reason people think it's a marvelous idea and go ahead and do it?

Was this a copycat of Egypt, etc where people were bored and didn't need a political statement?
If that is the case then there a far more serious issue regarding ethics and morals then whoever did it, right?

Re:How does it work? (2)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140028)

The effect of the Internet on many people is described in John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

That being said, this did not originate on the Internet. Combine shockingly high unemployment among the poor, the belief that they have no voice in government or the media (recent peaceful protests, apparently, received zero coverage), the ned/chav/yob phenomenon and the reality that lot of lower-class people in Britain are furious that they are being told to bend over and take it because of the austerity measures "needed" to balance the budget while Parliament discusses how much to cut taxes on the rich... and you've got a powder keg. Some douchebag drug dealer getting shot dead was merely the "us vs them" trigger.

What a useless website (3, Interesting)

iB1 (837987) | more than 2 years ago | (#37139600)

So I just went to the zavilla webiste: The main page says "The development of Zavilia: Identify UK Rioters has been temporarily paused due to a substantial decrease in traffic and in user interactions. However, we fully intend to continue development at some point in the near future." In other words, either someone has got to them or there wasn't much of an interest anyway. Also, the old website has what? About 20 photos, most of which seem to have been taken from either Getty or Reuters. I can't exactly see this going anywhere.

Great idea (2)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 2 years ago | (#37139616)

Great, the idea of using social media to identify rioters, dissidents and other criminals has already proved very successful in China, another flourishing democracy. Just don't forgot to sent death threats to the rioters, make sure they loose their jobs, and humiliate them publicly before handing them over to the authorities. In combination with censorship this creates exactly the right amount of fear and respect for authorities that is needed to keep the citizens calm.

Re:Great idea (1)

JustLikeToSay (651328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37139990)

... and a neat complement to the welcome support Cameron got from the Chinese Govt for his proposal to block social networking sites as they could be used to organise riots.

Re:Great idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37140014)

Just remember that you don't live in the land of the free anymore.
I live in both China and the UK on and off, and neither has the civil liberty, human dignity degrading security circus, with invasive searches and fingerprinting.
Nobody has ever touched my laptop at a Chinese border.

Re:Great idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37141862)

Do you want riots or calm citizens?
You have to choose the one or the other in a multicultural society.

Re:Great idea (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37142108)

Why must everything be "authorities vs. citizens"?

How about "innocents vs violent thugs"? Am I obliged NOT to ID someone who assaults me, steals my stuff, or burns my or my neighbors business because you think it's oppressive?

Piss off. It's also perfectly reasonable for employers to fire criminals. If someone cannot be trusted not to loot and burn, why should anyone be obliged to retain them in any position of trust?

Why should what you DO in public not BE public?

British people are citizens, not subjects. (1)

radio4fan (304271) | more than 2 years ago | (#37140112)

... in hopes of being good subjects...

Subjects? Can't imagine there are many rioter-identifying subjects [homeoffice.gov.uk] ; it's a corner-case of British nationality law.

I expect they mean citizens [homeoffice.gov.uk] , which is something else entirely.

If you're eligible for a British passport you're a British citizen. British passports say: "Nationality: British Citizen".

Re:British people are citizens, not subjects. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37141174)

You're just pointing out definitions made up by the UK government. That doesn't make it a valid definition though. The term "newspeak" comes to mind ...

Re:British people are citizens, not subjects. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37141396)

So are you going to explain what your 'valid' definitions of citizen and subject are?

You had a chat with software? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37140720)

kdawson, is that you?

Zavilia is missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37140912)

What is needed is a website to identify and arrest banksters and recover their loot.
(With that money you could rebuild all the damage from rioting)
A fine nazi brownshirt website you've setup.
Oh well, monetary collapse isn't far away now.
You'll be getting fucked soon enough.

It Worked In My Area (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#37142624)

After a state fair in my area some teenagers organized a flash mob.

Dozens of them showed up to shop lift food at a local convenience store. None of them had the brains to put a cloth over the cameras in the store.

The local police chief put the video footage from the store's security cameras up on the web.

He went on the local TV news to report that by doing so about half of the mob had been identified by neighbors within only a few days.

Talk about working smarter and not harder...

Re:It Worked In My Area (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 2 years ago | (#37143650)

None of this is new. Its called the neighborhood watch or "eyes on the street". Jane Jacobs identified it in 1961.

Re:It Worked In My Area (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#37144348)

I disagree. It ( the technology ) is new. A neighborhood watch didn't identify those kids, a video put on the *internet* did. Take the internet out of it and those neighbors wouldn't have seen those kids in the flash mob ( created with the aide of the internet ) to identify them.

Another new technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37142682)

I've heard about yet another new technology out there. Well I suppose technically not really new, but now inexpensive enough for routine consumer use, that could have significant impact along the lines being discussed here. I understand it's called a video camera; small enough to fit in your hand, it takes instant digital movies, which can then be shared, posted, spread around.

Pundits have already speculated that it can be used on both sides of any dispute. Some suggest that it will be used to capture wrong-doers in the act, others suggest that it will invade the privacy of innocent bystanders, some even suggest that it might be used to monitor the authorities themselves
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Rodney_King].

Causing Unrest (1)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37143054)

Man: I've bleedin' got one, look! What's that then?
Postal Clerk: This is a dog license with the word 'dog' crossed out and 'cat' written in in crayon.
Man: Man didn't have the right form.
Postal Clerk: What man?
Man: The man from the cat detector van.
Postal Clerk: The loony detector van, you mean.
Man: Look, it's people like you what cause unrest.

net snitches (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37143188)

At least they will know who to give the stitches to when they get out.

Scumbook.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37143570)

This is similar to www.scumbook.com but they are using a mixture of web reporting and facial recognition software.

already done in Bahrain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37146818)

Facebook has already been used quite successfully to hunt down dissidents in Bahrain. Images have been posted online to crowd-source the identification of opposition supporters. Visitors were told "write the traitor's name and work place" and leave it to the government to do the rest.

Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/8681230/Facebook-used-to-hunt-down-Bahrain-dissidents.html

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...