×

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!

Boston Tech Vs. the Bomber

samzenpus posted 1 year,1 day | from the working-together dept.

Crime 170

An anonymous reader writes "Amid rumors of an impending arrest in the Boston Marathon bombing, Xconomy has a rundown of local companies working on technologies relevant to the investigation and aftermath. The approaches include Web analytics to identify communication patterns, image and video analysis of the crime scene, surveillance camera hardware and software, and smart prosthetic devices for amputees. A big challenge the authorities face is the sheer volume and different proprietary formats of video from security cameras, mobile devices, and media groups. Ultimately this will be a case study in whether an individual bent on destruction can remain anonymous in an era of digital surveillance, social media, and crowdsourcing."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

170 comments

Good luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478395)

Hell there's already been that fake image floating around on facebook of a "man" blob added in with photoshop on a roof then zoomed in and blocky graphics added to it.

sudoh! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478399)

All this time I've been VIEWING a RUSSIAN MIDGET SODOMIZE a HOUSECAT!

recovery, not prevention. (4, Insightful)

hendrikboom (1001110) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478401)

Well, the emergency response seemed to be on the ball, minimizing the damage. Now we get to see whether the surveillance technologies are up to scratch after the fact.

Prevention is probably impossible.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478459)

Prevention is totally possible. Strip all those pesky rights and liberties, problem solved.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478513)

Prevention is totally possible. Strip all those pesky rights and liberties, problem solved.

It's a little known fact that an investigation of serial murderers has revealed that there isn't a single common motivation amongst them, nor is there a profile. The quintessential serial murderer, Charles Whitman, who climbed a clock tower and sniped dozens below, was at the time cast as the "typical loner". It wasn't released at the time that he had begged his doctors to help him for months beforehand, saying he was developing violent impulses and he didn't know why. He wrote a note just before climbing the tower asking that they do an autopsy after and look at his brain. They did. They found a tumor pressing against a region of the brain responsible for impulse control. The autopsy report at the time (incorrectly) stated that the tumor had no effect on his behavior.

There have been studies done linking lead poisoning to aggression control -- after banning lead in gasoline, the crime rate in every country that did so dropped within a few years by double-digit percentages. I guess what my point here is, is that prevention isn't possible because we don't understand what causes violent behavior. There isn't a single common thread linking them all; There is no profile, and sometimes no violent history. For some reason, perfectly normal people just... break. And it's likely there are many causes. But the takeaway here is that it is not in our nature to be violent to our peers unless threatened. Violent impulses are inherently anti-social, and the human race is a social one. Now, before you argue, note the caveat above: our peers. Our tribe. Our family, etc. Not strangers. In the same way ant colonies will war with each other so do we: But it is not a behavioral norm to attack our peers.

Which is why, in the final analysis, stripping away people's rights and liberties will do exactly dick for prevention. All it will do is lower the quality of life for everyone, while accomplishing a vanishingly small improvement in the safety of the same. We need to understand violence better before we can achieve long-term gains. Imagine if researchers discovered a drug that removes violent impulses. In fact, for schizophrenics, that's more or less exactly what we have today: A common mental condition which, if untreated, leads to violent impulses, but if treated, creates a productive and contributing member of society. Should we lock them up... or give them medical treatment?

Arguments for reductions in our civil rights and freedoms in order to improve safety are fundamentally flawed. The two aren't related -- not statistically, not empirically... there is no association between the two, except in our own worldviews which demand a link be there when one is not. And we do it because we want to feel like we have control. But we don't. We don't even know why... if there even is a why. And that is deeply unsettling to most. That's why people cry out for restrictions... not because they'll do any good, but because they feel a need to do something, anything, to restore their sense of personal power.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478603)

You've confused serial killing and mass killing. And yes, there are motivations for both, though the reasoning may not always be clear. The Columbine mass killing certainly had a cause as well as many other mass killings where a man kills his wife and everybody around him. Outside of the cases of domestic violence mass killing, the common profile of the perpetrators is social isolation. For this reason, I have to wonder if many of these mass killings were not caused by a mental illness, but by the consequences of being ostracized and outcast due to having the mental illness. Perhaps it is the stigmatization of mental illness that is causing these problems. If this is true, then attacking the mentally ill after mass killings and using them as scapegoats might be very counterproductive since it will cause more of them to be socially isolated.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478827)

You've confused serial killing and mass killing.

No, I have not. Differing definitions do not mean differing underlying psychological conditions. My point was that violence is inherently anti-social. It doesn't matter whether you're anti-social with a lot of dead bodies in a short period of time, or anti-social with a lot of dead bodies over an extended period of time, you've still got a screw loose.

For this reason, I have to wonder if many of these mass killings were not caused by a mental illness, but by the consequences of being ostracized and outcast due to having the mental illness.

Despite reams of scientific studies and a great many books on criminology indicating that being ostracized and outcast is a stereotype, not a fact. You're drawing on a common prejudice that has no empirical basis.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479011)

Serial killing: one after another, over a long period of time. Jeffrey Dahlmer was a serial killer
Mass killing: lots of people at once. Adam Lanza was a mass murderer.

And you are talking out of your ass. Name a non DV inspired mass murderer who wasn't socially isolated. I'm sure you will find someone, but it isn't easy. Lanza, Holmes, Loughner, Cho, Harris & Klebold, etc., were all socially isolated and had a very poor level of integration into society.

Here's a quick questionnaire:
1. Would you try to stop a brother or sister from dating someone who had previously been hospitalized for a suicide attempt?
2. Would you be willing to closely work with a person who was rumored to have bipolar II disorder?
3. If you were hiring a person for a job or renting a house, would it bother you if that person revealed an anxiety disorder? Depression? Schizophrenia? How would their compliance to medication affect your view?
4. If you knew a woman who had a mental illness, would you recommend an abortion if she became pregnant?
5. Do you think a person with a serious mental illness should be able to vote? To drive?
6. Do you think "due process" to contest confinement should be applicable to those who have been diagnosed with a mental illness?

There have been surveys of these exact questions. You might not want to know what people answered. People are bigoted assholes, and to say the mentally ill haven't been outcast is bullshit.

The Survey (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479947)

Would you try to stop a brother or sister from dating someone who had previously been hospitalized for a suicide attempt?

No, why would I?

Would you be willing to closely work with a person who was rumored to have bipolar II disorder?

Of course as long as they could do the work.

If you were hiring a person for a job or renting a house, would it bother you if that person revealed an anxiety disorder? Depression? Schizophrenia? How would their compliance to medication affect your view?

I am in fact a landlord and I don't care about ANY of those things. At all. Again, why on earth would it?

If you knew a woman who had a mental illness, would you recommend an abortion if she became pregnant?

I think I'd let her decide what was right for her instead of forcing and pre-conceived notions I might have on her.

Do you think a person with a serious mental illness should be able to vote? To drive?

Sure if it does not affect the ability to do those things.

Do you think "due process" to contest confinement should be applicable to those who have been diagnosed with a mental illness?

Of course it should.

Your survey, as usual for that kind of things, reveals way more about YOUR perceptions of people than it does about how people actually react to mental illness. Very few people would answer any differently than myself for most of those questions.

Do YOU think that someone diagnosed with a mental illness should be able to buy a gun? I do, because I realize that the term "mental illness" is absurdly broad.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479043)

I don't know who keeps modding this stupid tranny up, but it has no idea what it is talking about. In fact it is a mentally unstable indiivudal itself that should be put down for the betterment of society.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479191)

Dude, that's just mean. Fuck you.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479241)

Dude, that's just mean. Fuck you.

Yeah, it's mean. Doesn't make it wrong. Just sayin' ...

Re:recovery, not prevention. (1, Insightful)

SternisheFan (2529412) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479543)

Yeah, it's mean. Doesn't make it wrong. Just sayin' ...

That's the way the Nazi's thought about the so called 'lesser' mentalities, and yes, it's wrong, mean, and elitist. ''Judge not lest you be judged'' comes to mind. If you aren't just trolling, I suggest you try getting some compassion for your fellow human being into your psychological makeup.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (3, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479447)

I don't know who keeps modding this stupid tranny up, but it has no idea what it is talking about. In fact it is a mentally unstable indiivudal itself that should be put down for the betterment of society.

One name: John Nash [wikipedia.org]. He was mentally unstable: had he been put down, would the society be better?

Re:recovery, not prevention. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43480023)

I don't know who keeps modding this stupid tranny up, but it has no idea what it is talking about. In fact it is a mentally unstable indiivudal itself that should be put down for the betterment of society.

One name: John Nash [wikipedia.org]. He was mentally unstable: had he been put down, would the society be better?

I searched that entire link and couldn't find the reference to John Nash modding stupid trannies up.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (2)

BrokenHalo (565198) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479203)

...violence is inherently anti-social... ... you've still got a screw loose.

Indeed. And I guess we'll find out pretty soon just how understanding everyone is when they catch this person. From TFS, the following stands out:

...the sheer volume and different proprietary formats of video from security cameras, mobile devices, and media groups. Ultimately this will be a case study in whether an individual bent on destruction can remain anonymous in an era of digital surveillance, social media, and crowdsourcing.

...as meaning just one thing. We have a lynch mob here.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (0)

AK Marc (707885) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478633)

You missed the point. If you lock everyone into a prison cell at age 18, you'll reduce crime significantly. If nobody has any freedom, then you do not have the freedom to kill. Whitman couldn't have killed anyone if he was locked away with no human contact.

Arguments for reductions in our civil rights and freedoms in order to improve safety are fundamentally flawed.

So you are asserting that if there was an 8 p.m. curfew with shoot-to-kill orders for the police that nighttime crime would not decrease?

Re:recovery, not prevention. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478687)

lots of crime in prison, prisons in the states are like the universities of crime

Re:recovery, not prevention. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478797)

You missed the point. If you lock everyone into a prison cell at age 18, you'll reduce crime significantly.

No, you'll just move crime into the prison.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (1)

pipedwho (1174327) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478819)

What's to stop the jailers from going on a rampage and killing or otherwise brutalising 'inmates'?

And when the police start attacking anything that moves, that makes them the problem, not the solution. You'd then have to have special police to police the police ... recurse ad infinitum.

I'd rather take the infinitesimal risk of getting killed by a mentally ill serial killer or terrorist than the certainty of having my life ruined by a power hungry jailer/guard/cop taking things too far.

If you have to change the law to make an otherwise criminal act 'legal', just to reduce the 'crime rate' metric, then you've failed. Why not go the other way and remove all laws making nothing a crime? Is anarchy any worse or better than being held in captivity?

Re:recovery, not prevention. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479021)

So you are asserting that if there was an 8 p.m. curfew with shoot-to-kill orders for the police that nighttime crime would not decrease?

I call that tyranny and oppression.

There are always risks. I would rather trade some amount of reasonable security and remain free than to implement ridiculous security and invite tyranny and oppression.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (2)

Kittenman (971447) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478873)

It's a little known fact that an investigation of serial murderers has revealed that there isn't a single common motivation amongst them, nor is there a profile. The quintessential serial murderer, Charles Whitman, who climbed a clock tower and sniped dozens below, was at the time cast as the "typical loner". It wasn't released at the time that he had begged his doctors to help him for months beforehand, saying he was developing violent impulses and he didn't know why. He wrote a note just before climbing the tower asking that they do an autopsy after and look at his brain. They did. They found a tumor pressing against a region of the brain responsible for impulse control. The autopsy report at the time (incorrectly) stated that the tumor had no effect on his behavior.

Fascinating - I didn't know of the case and did some reading (ok, wikipedia...). But why 'incorrectly'? Shooting lots of people seems a very specific reaction to a loss if impulse control. Why didn't he lose bladder control, or some such more obvious reaction to loss of control. The Charles Whitman article states he was predisposed to violence and popped pills. Those seem more prone to be the cause of Whitman's instability. Disclaimer - I am not a Doctor. (IANAD?)

Re:recovery, not prevention. (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479135)

Shooting lots of people seems a very specific reaction to a loss if impulse control. Why didn't he lose bladder control, or some such more obvious reaction to loss of control.

Perhaps because the centers of the brain responsible for bladder control aren't the same parts that handle aggression... otherwise our action movies would consist of burly men gunning down their enemies while wearing Depends.

The Charles Whitman article states he was predisposed to violence and popped pills.

He passed Marine basic training and a full psychological workup. They didn't find anything. He applied to study mechanical and architectural engineering as part of his efforts to become a commissioned officer. Although his college career sputtered, he maintained his reputation as an outstanding Marine, and in one case single-handedly lifted up an overturned Jeep to free fellow soldiers in an accident. There's no history of a predisposition for violence cited in any available professional medical assessments for him. The pills they found on him after he was shot were part of a survival kit that he had assembled beforehand, no doubt part of his military training. He had no history of drug abuse, and the drugs given at the time were available within the military at the time (but not today) as stimulants for long-term deployments.

The article that you read, undoubtedly is sensationalist garbage, an attempt to try to explain irrational impulses. Because if it can be explained, then he can be blamed. We certainly don't want a mass murderer to appear as though his violence was the result of an uncontrollable medical condition -- because that would mean that the violence wasn't preventable. It would mean we were powerless against it. It would mean, most critically for the average person, that a higher moral authority didn't exist and didn't prevent it from happening -- that the universe doesn't reward good behavior and punish bad behavior, but that it doesn't care. That sometimes, bad things just happen. Whatever article you read, is based on emotive reasoning.

In actuality, this was a perfectly normal man who, likely as a result of an emergent medical condition, lost his impulse control through no fault of his own, became violent, and killed a bunch of people before being killed himself. That doesn't at all fit with our need for vengance -- though people usually call it 'justice' instead. But it isn't. The need for vengance is a major motivation for our justice system, just not one anyone wants to discuss because it's taboo.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (1)

Dan93 (222999) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479259)

It's my understanding that they found a tumor that might have (though it wasn't conclusively proved) caused him to loose control and kill all of those people.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (2)

chargersfan420 (1487195) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479507)

In actuality, this was a perfectly normal man who...

It is very difficult for you to make a statement like this with your proof being a few sentences about a person's life. For instance, I could say that Hitler was an artist, who had an accomplished military career, as well as a career in politics (which must mean he was popular, right?)

Now I really hate to go Godwin so quickly on this, but looking through that Wikipedia article makes it fairly clear that his father was abusive, and he joined the military to get away from him. These two facts scream "predisposition to violence" to me, and I think most other rational thinking people.

And before you try to tell me that the Wikipedia article "undoubtedly is sensationalist garbage", I'm afraid I have to point out that the burden of proof lies with you. Wikipedia is crowdsourced, so many people had to agree what they could post about this guy as fact, and disputed facts are typically mentioned in the "talk" section of the page, which makes no mention of any doubt surrounding the basic facts about his father. Your comment, on the other hand, is your own statement of belief. Why should I believe that your side of the story carries more weight than what many knowledgeable people have to say on the matter?

Crowdsourcing means nothing (3, Insightful)

Zynder (2773551) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479865)

Since you did go Godwin, let me say this: There was a time here in America pre 1865, when the majority of (white) men thought that those of African descent and those of the female gender (heaven forbid if you were both female and African!) were inferior folks and no better than property. Just because a majority feels something is right and good does not mean it is. That is why very few pure Democracies have stood the test of time. This is also the whole reason for the existence of the scientific method. You need empirical evidence, true proof if you will, that something is or is not. Emotions fool us all the time. The laws of physics are a cold hearted bitch though.

Also be aware when you say "predispositon to violence" you walk that razor's edge of falling prey to stereotypes. There is still plenty of conjecture and debate regarding Nature vs. Nurture because that happens to be an area where easy math formulae such as E=mc^2 just don't seem manifest. For instance, I grew up poor. I am not poor any longer. In your words, "most other rational thinking people" often throw the stereotype around that if you grew up poor then you will be poor your whole life, that you will end up in jail as a criminal most likely for drugs or gang violence, an so on. A person should not be judged on where they came from, grew up, race, etc. Their own merits speak all on their own. Look at that.

I have not researched this particular killer in any detail. This is actually the first time I have heard of him. However, his military career was evidently impeccable, all previous evaluations of him seemed normal, there were no issues with law enforcement at any time previous to the shooting then up to that point, "most rational people" would have called him an upstanding citizen and hero. But he knew something was wrong, he knew he was fucked up, and when he did the rational thing and sought medical help, he got turned away. That tumor continued unabated and we have known for ages that tumors can cause you to go crazy, lose motor functions, sieze, etc. Well look what the evidence shows us: a man that wasn't crazy, who goes crazy, and upon autopsy find a tumor in his brain in an area that we now know today controls your aggressive behaviors. That's a walking, quacking duck right there. So let's call it a duck ummkay?

I can tell why you seem so incensed and defensive in your response. You feel that by girlintraining's & my stance that we will be soft on criminals, that we will excuse thier behavior, and by being this way "justice" won't be served (check out her paragraph on bad things just happening and revenge). You may even believe that if we can't blame the bad man for being bad then we may blame you as in "society failed him." Speaking for myself, I can say that the act itself should not be excused. He killed alot of people and that is a heinous thing. However, those family's that lost people that day, still grieve today even though justice was served by his death. The best way to honor them, and make them feel that thier sacrifices were not in vain, would be to prevent this from happening again but as girl pointed out you simply can't effectively do that until you understand the problem.

So to answer your final question, why should we believe her over consensus? We shouldn't. We should give them equal consideration with the facts that we know. I know science and I know how mob rule works and mob rule is the last thing one should defer to.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (1)

jhol13 (1087781) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479115)

"But it is not a behavioral norm to attack our peers."

That is trivial to circumvent. Zimbardo, Millgram, The Third Wave, ...

Re:recovery, not prevention. (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479273)

That is trivial to circumvent. Zimbardo, Millgram, The Third Wave, ...

All three of the examples you state are a ringing endorsement of what I said: In each case, it was a peer giving the orders, or gaining obedience. In none of those cases, did people fall on each other like a pack of wolves. But even if that wasn't the case, your examples still don't touch my original assertion: Human beings aren't innately violent towards their peers. They can be coaxed into doing so, but it isn't something that comes naturally to them.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479867)

Those cases are not a peer giving orders. In each case, the orders are from an authority figure within the social group.
- In the Standford prison study, the group that was given authority turned nasty.
- In Milgram, it was an authority figure giving the orders.
- The Third Wave involved creating an authoritarian regime, and the students enforcing a disciplinary structure.

It seems to me that the common theme isn't attacking outsiders, so much as it is submission to authority, even when that authority abuses its position.

Which is why, in the final analysis, stripping away people's rights and liberties will do exactly dick for prevention. All it will do is lower the quality of life for everyone, while accomplishing a vanishingly small improvement in the safety of the same.

Regarding this quote from your earlier post while I basically agree, I would go further and argue that establishing an authoritarian regime will increase violence and decrease safety.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (0)

ebno-10db (1459097) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479297)

Arguments for reductions in our civil rights and freedoms in order to improve safety are fundamentally flawed.

Hear, hear!

For all this whiz-bang Orwellian tech, I've yet to hear of it doing any good. And please don't give me the "maybe they haven't divulged ..." line. TPTB have never been shy about tooting their horn for foiling some plot, and crediting something that they spent a bazillion dollars on. I wouldn't be surprised if much of this spy stuff is counterproductive, because people waste time playing KGB wannabee and "data mining" instead of engaging in some good old-fashioned investigative work. Never forget that 9/11 could have been prevented with a little old-fashioned police work, but that would have required FBI headquarters to listen to what their field offices were trying to tell them.

Furthermore, claims that the Bill of Rights necessarily impedes security are nonsense. In some cases it's precisely because of the Bill of Rights that our law enforcement is better. There is a widespread misconception that totalitarian countries like the USSR at least had good security and low crime. Nope. Good figures can't be obtained because they were never kept, but reports from people that lived there say crime was actually quite high. Part of the reason is that without rights and real trials, the easiest thing in the world is to pickup whoever you like and claim they were the perpetrator of whatever crime you're trying to "solve".

Re:recovery, not prevention. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479505)

Sorry, not possible. Sure, we could do medical examinations on those that need it instead of those that can afford them. Sure, we could stop poisoning our environment and of course we could stop meddling in international affairs with little to no knowledge of the local culture and cultural dos and dont's, but that's quite impossible. We cannot change the American way of life or the terrorists win.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479601)

Well written. I would add that I think all to often we medicate people with drugs that even the pharmaceutical companies are not clear on. Not that they would ever admit it, but just look at the disclaimer on all drugs. They are to try and avoid lawsuits, not just from adverse bodily effects, but from someone going insane and doing the terrible things we have seen over the years. Politicians are going to go after whatever lobby pays the least. You can beat dollars to donuts that the pharmaceutical industry has more lobby in Washington then the gun lobby, the ACLU or any other American citizen rights groups.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (1)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479641)

1. You responded to a troll with a long post.

It's a little known fact that an investigation of serial murderers has revealed that there isn't a single common motivation amongst them,

2. I find this link to be informative: Serial Murder - Multi-Disciplinary Perspective for Invesigators [fbi.gov]

Which is why, in the final analysis, stripping away people's rights and liberties will do exactly dick for prevention

3a. You responded to a troll suggesting that rights be taken away.
3b. You articulate so many ideas with fine phraseology, and then invoke "dick." Kind of a waste.

That's why people cry out for restrictions... not because they'll do any good, but because they feel a need to do something, anything, to restore their sense of personal power.

4. That is contradictory.

.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479801)

There have been studies done linking lead poisoning to aggression control -- after banning lead in gasoline, the crime rate in every country that did so dropped within a few years by double-digit percentages.

I cannot speak to the entire list of countries that banned lead in gasoline. For the USA, in their book, Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner convincingly argue the drop in crime was an aftereffect of Roe v Wade. Mainly most of the children who would have been committing crimes were aborted.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (1)

gmuslera (3436) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479395)

In fact, no matter the crime, even you can invent or fake it, what matter is in the end to have an excuse to strip those rights and liberties, who is in charge here after all?

Re:recovery, not prevention. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478495)

Prevention is probably impossible.

But we'll spend trillions of dollars and give up all our rights to try.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (1)

sanman2 (928866) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478541)

the only way that'll happen is if the bomber is discovered to be a white anglo saxon male with a grudge against the government, like mcveigh

in that case, then the police state will quickly come out in full force, no questions asked

(I'm Asian myself)

Prevention? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478895)

I would say that the person(s) that did this was/were quite intelligent probably does not live in boston and had to stay in a hotel. May have been part of the race. Also were the bombs timed how did he/she know the best time to strike? Wore the detonation devices specific or just something of the shelf like a stop watch? This shows that as we loose more rights this does nothing how many of us are probably watched 24/7 for not being of sertain group, emails read, and people talk about our personal things like nothing. Also now if your an isolated person cause you do not want to talk to the average idiot you may be even more of a person of interest. I say we have the new gustapo and it has not stoped anything. Look at TSA when was the last time that you heard that they cought a terrorist? This may have been organized plot why did American Airlines shutdown on tuesday which sounds like a very skilled attack, why the fire in the library a few blocks away? Why the letters with ricin? When you have multiple people doing these then you have a conspiracy. Why did no one group say they had done this act? Billion spent, bill of rights raped, no privacy, people coming in and out of your residence like its their duty to look at every detail of your life. Don't forget all the non lethal weapons that give people cancer daily used by the new gustapo. When you look at all the evidence its all a stage for a police state, regardless if the new gustapo caused it or failed to catch it. This is insane since the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Look at countries in the past what has transpired with police states, why are we okay with allowing the bill of rights to be raped daily? Do we have to belong to a certain group to be free what is this? Anyway posted by White hispanic of european decent.

Doctors, nurses were very near the attack site ... (2)

perpenso (1613749) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479367)

Well, the emergency response seemed to be on the ball, minimizing the damage.

Circumstances greatly facilitated that. There were doctors, nurses and medical personnel on site near the finish line. Marathon organizers put together a huge medical team. The minutes saved by being very near to the attack site surely saved lives.

Now we get to see whether the surveillance technologies are up to scratch after the fact.

At an event like this I'd wager cell phone photos and videos dwarf the traditional surveillance cameras.

Re:recovery, not prevention. (1)

c0lo (1497653) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479413)

Prevention is probably impossible.

You reckon? We've seen TSA banning liquids, nail files and what not, and not another terrorist attack flying a plane into a building... this means prevention should have been effective.
Tell you what: let's ban pressure cookers and black backpacks and we're safe... how hard can it be?

Also: what the hell TSA is wasting money for? After all, running is a form of transportation, isn't this also in the scope of TSA protection?

(</sarcasm>) Let me repeat my point: given that prevention is impossible, what the hell TSA is wasting money for?

Not in the article (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478403)

Not in the article: Success rates and false positives.

The problem with these type of technologies is that even if they're 99% effective, that still means they're useless. You need to be about 99.9% effective before the false positive rate drops to a point where it is investigationally useful. If these technologies happen to finger the person who did this, everyone will point to it as proof that it works. But I can tell you right now, there won't be any news stories of the dozens to hundreds detained, questioned, and humiliated by simply matching an arbitrary profile -- because in both the media's eyes and the general public, that would be flinging mud on a "hero".

I'm all for investigation into these technologies... but none of them are mature enough yet to be used in criminal investigations responsibly.

Re:Not in the article (1)

AK Marc (707885) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478655)

stupidest article ever. They make a judgement call that you wouldn't prevent the apocolypse if it harmed more humans than it saved, but you would if it helped more than it harmed. If it's an extinction question, I think we'd take the "hurt 80 to save 20, because if we don't, there won't even be 20 at the end" choice.

Locic doesn't work when you don't agree with an unstated hidden premise.

Re:Not in the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479479)

You're an idiot.

Re:Not in the article (1)

davydagger (2566757) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478697)

criminal investigations responsible?

the cops complain about the CSI factor. I.E. being actually held to the same ethical standards as cops on TV.

Re:Not in the article (1)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478891)

The problem with these type of technologies is that even if they're 99% effective, that still means they're useless.

No, it just means they need to do one of two things: use additional techniques to sift the first cut data, or expend massive amounts of time and manpower.

But I can tell you right now, there won't be any news stories of the dozens to hundreds detained, questioned, and humiliated by simply matching an arbitrary profile -- because in both the media's eyes and the general public, that would be flinging mud on a "hero".

That's nonsense. Practically any big investigation involves hundreds, thousands, or even more interviews and massive numbers of tips. reports, and clues. You only have to look at stories covering the 9/11 attacks, Unabomber, Oklahoma City, Anthrax mailings and plenty of others and they all involve massive investigations trying to match a partial description, a fragment of data. The reporting also reflects that. Maybe not while the investigation is ongoing and the information needs to be protected, but in time, or when it is over.

I also very much doubt a profile is "arbitrary." From what I know that seems to be the very opposite of what goes on. It may be wrong, but it certainly isn't arbitrary.

Humiliated, eh? Interesting theme....

I'm all for investigation into these technologies... but none of them are mature enough yet to be used in criminal investigations responsibly.

I can't help wondering if your actual view is that you can't investigate this sort of crime responsibly at all since it might turn up a politically incorrect suspect.

Re:Not in the article (1)

pipedwho (1174327) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478917)

This is due to lazy investigative techniques and incompetent use of forensic evidence. If you have multiple independent indicators that are individually only partially reliable, then you need to use a number of these in conjunction to produce a more accurate result.

For example if I have 5 separate unrelated pieces of evidence that all point to the same person, and each test has a non-systematic error of 5% (ie. 95% reliable), then the resulting accuracy becomes 99.9999%.

The problem is lazy police work. It's easier to stop investigating once you've got your first piece of evidence and someone to pin it on. Then, just let the courts sort it out.

The expression, "better that a hundred guilty persons escape, than one innocent party suffers", must be reversed in the minds of any detective/prosecutor/judge/juror too lazy to do their job properly and obtain or expect sufficient evidence.

Re:Not in the article (1)

jhol13 (1087781) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479183)

"I'm all for investigation into these technologies... but none of them are mature enough yet to be used in criminal investigations responsibly."

Are you claiming that police cannot use those responsibly? Why not? If they know the technolgy is 99% effective they can question most if not all, but detain only those whose questioning and/or other evidence gives reason for that.

Even with 99.9% detaining and humiliating them would be a horrible thing to do, kids in prison for no reason ...

One can always remain anon if he tries hard enough (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478413)

If a person is reasonable intelligent, and a loner, I have no doubt that covering tracks would be possible if one really wanted to.

Don't talk on social media.
Don't tell anyone.
Buy supplies with cash in different locations, spread over significant time.
Wear different clothing/hat/sunglasses and don't ever use them before of after the event.
Die your hair, shave, obscure your style and gender.
Don't drive a car, anywhere.
Don't do obvious stuff like use cellphones in the operation.

Fortunately, the type of people capable of this kind of stuff tend not to be the brightest bulbs.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478665)

The person buying supplies would also be well advised to get what he/she can at second-hand places. A pressure cooker or other parts from the local Goodwill is not only cheaper than buying new, but almost certainly full of many irrelevant fingerprints. Ditto some electronic parts.

At this point I wonder if someone is quietly burning a white cap and gray hoodie (and adding water and stirring ashes)? Of course, the official
description is likely wrong on this point to reassure a possible culprit.

The point about no car is well taken. In Boston a car is pretty well a disadvantage anyway, there being so few places to park.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno (1)

greentshirt (1308037) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478681)

I agree with most of this but you don't need to kill your hair, simply coloring it would be enough.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479093)

But then what is the payoff for the killer? Presumably the same drives that lead people to this kind of act also helps ensure that they will get caught, sometimes through a subconscious slip-up. If they wait until they're about to die of old age and then publish a memoir claiming responsibility, people will say, Right. What a desperate old windbag.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno (1)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479533)

Why brag about it at all? I certainly wouldn't. Although I'd probably make sure some kind of statement finds its way into the press to make sure people understand why I did it.

Though... it ain't my style. It sure isn't really an interesting target. The chance to hit someone who can be exploited to make me look like a monster is far too high.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno (2, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479205)

Don't talk on social media.
Don't tell anyone.
Buy supplies with cash in different locations, spread over significant time.
Wear different clothing/hat/sunglasses and don't ever use them before of after the event.
Die your hair, shave, obscure your style and gender.
Don't drive a car, anywhere.
Don't do obvious stuff like use cellphones in the operation.

You do realize that everything you just listed is what the Department of Homeland Security trains people are the things terrorists do, right? Let me tell you something about walking through the woods unnoticed; Don't try and cover your tracks. Every attempt to cover them is, in actuality, disturbing the surroundings even more. It makes you easier to track. If you want to go unseen in the world, step lightly and deliberately, and don't move in a straight line towards your destination. Take a circular route. Walk where others have walked (deer trails, for example). Disturb little, move erratically, sleep lightly, and nobody will find you.

Which is what anyone who's spent any amount of time outdoors can tell you. It's common sense. The advice you're offering, if followed, would be like shooting a flare up, saying "Hi, I'm over here!" Terrorists aren't stupid. They aren't exactly smart either, but they do plan. A lot. In detail. Because they know what's coming after them when they're done: A bunch of very pissed off Marines. And intelligence isn't really important, not nearly as much as planning. That's why 9/11 happened. That's why terrorism survives to this day, despite all our efforts to stop it. They aren't stupid.

Never underestimate your opponent. If you're going to catch terrorists, you have to think like one. And you sir, are a terrible impersonation of a terrorist. The real ones know better. Which is unfortunate. If they were more like you, we'd have won the war on terror by now.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479371)

Oh please. It's a well known fact that Bin Laden died his hair pink and cross-dressed after 9/11 up to his death. Terrorists are so predictable.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno (-1)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479445)

Oh please. It's a well known fact that Bin Laden died his hair pink and cross-dressed after 9/11 up to his death. Terrorists are so predictable.

How come whenever we want to make fun of a man, we call him gay, or girlie, etc.? Did it ever occur to anyone that it's insulting to women? As though the worst thing a man can do is to act like a woman? I could give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut how Bin Laden was dressed, or was wearing a dress, or the color of his hair, or his sexual orientation.

The only thing I'm going to remember about the guy is he was the leader of an organization that claimed a lot of innocent lives before getting what he had coming to him. But implying that he was more (or less) of a man because of what he did is stupid -- he's still a man. A disgusting, evil, vile man, but still a man. And nothing he did changed that.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479987)

The only thing that would cause problems for a terrorist in that list is changing your hair colour. If you immediately show up with a different hairstyle and colour after a terrorist event, people are going to ask questions, much better to shave your head constantly and then wear a wig. The rest is either untraceable or useless even if it is traced. Of course it's barely a start if one really wanted to commit an act of terror, but in and of itself there isn't much wrong with it.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479421)

"Shave" is terrible advice. 1) It's the kind of change that people notice, and 2) it's a relatively long-lasting change.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno (1)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479541)

Depends on your usual facial hair. Sure, if you usually run around like Santa's come to town, it is a long lasting change.

The opposite seems to be more suitable. If you get away from the public for 2 weeks or so, it should allow you to grow a nice beard that is easily removed again once you're done.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno (1)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479527)

In this time and age, I would not count on that last statement holding true. How many bright people were swindled out of their money, home and future by the irresponsibility of banks?

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479739)

If a person is reasonable intelligent, and a loner, I have no doubt that covering tracks would be possible if one really wanted to.

Don't talk on social media.
Don't tell anyone.
Buy supplies with cash in different locations, spread over significant time.
Wear different clothing/hat/sunglasses and don't ever use them before of after the event.
Die your hair, shave, obscure your style and gender.
Don't drive a car, anywhere.
Don't do obvious stuff like use cellphones in the operation.

Fortunately, the type of people capable of this kind of stuff tend not to be the brightest bulbs.

What you described has little to do with intelligence and everything to do with discipline. Fortunately most criminals lack that as well.

Re:One can always remain anon if he tries hard eno (1)

dcollins (135727) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479887)

"Don't do obvious stuff like use cellphones in the operation."

CBS News tonight:

"[CBS News correspondent Bob] Orr said authorities have video of a man in a black jacket on a cell phone, wearing a gray hoodie and a white baseball cap backwards placing a black bag at the second bomb site outside of the Forum restaurant on Boylston Street and then leaving the area before that explosion. Orr said the man was on the phone at the second bomb site when the first bomb exploded. Orr said the FBI determined the time the man was on his cell phone, then went back and scanned all the calls made in the area to track who they wanted to talk to."

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/17/cnn-boston-marathon-bombings-suspect-identified-in-surveillance-video/

The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (0, Offtopic)

HaeMaker (221642) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478415)

4chan may have found them... http://imgur.com/a/sUrnA

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478525)

Translation: 4chan accused everybody with a black backpack of being the bomber. Especially if they were caught looking at a girl's ass instead of the shitty view of the marathon.

And none of them match the FBI's person of interest description.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (1)

russotto (537200) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478621)

Translation: 4chan accused everybody with a black backpack of being the bomber. Especially if they were caught looking at a girl's ass instead of the shitty view of the marathon.

Yes. And they didn't take into account whether there's any way a pressure cooker would fit inside said backpack, probably because they have never seen a pressure cooker.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479033)

Yes. And they didn't take into account whether there's any way a pressure cooker would fit inside said backpack, probably because they have never seen a pressure cooker.

I have. One could fit inside a backpack. But it would be a bloated backpack -- you'd have to carry/hold it. Trying to walk with a giant metal can rolling back and forth against your back would make you stand out in a crowd. And given the amount of materials they estimate to be in the backpack, there's a good chance it would rip the seams open if you tried, letting your makeshift bomb fall out before getting it to the target.

Which means that, in all likelihood, you're looking for someone carrying a backpack, not wearing it.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479551)

Depends on the quality of the backpack and how you store the item inside. It's quite hard to tell after an explosion what else may have been in the backpack, maybe he did "pad" it, or did so for the transport. I, for one, would have a second backpack inside that I would take out after planting the bomb so I could wear that instead. Else, all the cameras have to do is look for the guy who had a backpack before and doesn't have one after a certain moment in time.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478885)

and obviously you don't have enough intelligence to process the data presented by 4chan.

the fact you trust the FBI speaks volumes about the above.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478935)

Say what you will, but the slack jawed one holding a backpack like no one does is mighty suspicious. Worthy of a talking to, I think.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479515)

You know who else is acting mighty suspicious? You. Anonymously trying to steer the investigation towards a "slack jawed" one. Almost as if you didn't want anyone asking where you were and what happened to your pressure cooker.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (1)

pspahn (1175617) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479611)

And none of them match the FBI's person of interest description.

What about the two guys, one with the black backpack, the other with a shoulder type bag, who are later seen heading in the direction of where the second bomb went off, one of them no longer with a bag?

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478559)

4chan may have found them... http://imgur.com/a/sUrnA [imgur.com]

They also found Natalie Portman, naked and petrified, thousands of times. 4Chan is not exactly a bastion of reliable information. Now I get what you're saying about crowdsourcing, but there's another, older term, for this sort of thing:

Witch hunt.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (2)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479563)

That's no longer the politically correct term, please refrain from calling it that. We ask you to use the term "war on terror" now. Thank you for your cooperation.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478595)

If 4chan has a specialty, its watching many, many pictures. Good work.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478611)

Shame on 4chan. As usual.

Sloppy work, implicating anyone brown with a backpack. Especially the picture of two guys captioned "same skin tone" when clearly the two guys have completely different skin tone.

They need to go back to torturing depressed teenage girls.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (1)

Kielistic (1273232) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479023)

I'm pretty sure the "same skin tone" was part of their reasoning that the two people in one photo were the same two people in the other photo. Not, these two people are the same colour but the two people in that photo are the same as the two in this photo with evidence such as they have the same corresponding skin tones.

Woosh? Maybe?

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (1)

thisisauniqueid (825395) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478911)

Update: these two guys were also photographed after the bombing, standing next to a police van, with their backpacks still on: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hahatango/8653970482/sizes/o/in/set-72157633252445135/ [flickr.com] So at least those weren't the same backpacks that exploded.

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479073)

Almost nobody is saying that it's those two guys. The culprits 4chan has implicated are a guy wearing all black (with a white cap) who is associating with a guy wearing blue.

THESE are the guys that 4chan has basically settled on, and they've now been outed on TV news:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWBJ4IBgjA4 [youtube.com]

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479125)

Incidentally, this picture you linked shows Steven Spielberg helping to carry a stretcher (white jacket with greyish stripes down the arms, just in front of the lower SUV)

Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (1)

darkstar949 (697933) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479431)

Off hand I'm pretty sure those two guys are some sort of police that are trying to keep a low profile.

computers (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478431)

Computer, enhance!

I wonder if they tried. I know from various TV documentaries that it works.

The rumor mill (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478455)

So far the most noticeable thing to me is what seems like an amplified rumor mill. In the old days, when news traveled at the speed of ink, they had more time to verify. Now the rumor mill goes directly to Twitter and gets amplified. We had: 1. rumor of bomb at another location. 2. rumor of suspect being taken to courthouse. 3. rumor of Saudi national being a suspect (AFAIK he's still just a witness).

Any one of us can report; but most of us will spend 99.999... % consuming. The biggest impact for me is that I look at new information and think, "OK, let's let this season for a while before we actually consume it as fact". That "seasoning" used to be built into the slow news cycle. Now you have to do it manually, individually. Maybe that's a good thing. It might result in the cultivation of more "street smarts" and questioning the media.

Re:The rumor mill (3, Informative)

Arker (91948) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478587)

It's worse than you realise - the Saudi national you describe as 'still just a witness' with the first word implying suspicion - that fella was never a suspect, nor is he a witness other than incidentally, he's a victim. The Islamophobia is palpable.

Re:The rumor mill (1)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479585)

Dude, when the police comes knocking and wants you to come with them "as a witness", get a lawyer! Now!

"As a witness" is a nice circumvention of the law here where they had to tell you why you're being arrested if you're being arrested.

What proprietary formats? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478461)

I would think most video would be from iPhone or Android devices, neither of which shoots in a proprietary video format.

Unless you are talking about something like a Red? But even those use industry standard raw digital video formats.

At this point there are really only a handful of video formats and codecs in wide use, none proprietary.

Re:What proprietary formats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478527)

Yep..i haven't really found any video format that I couldn't play on my windows PC using VLC player and/or Media player with the big codec pack installed.

Re:What proprietary formats? (1)

nomel (244635) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478531)

"different proprietary formats of video from security cameras"

Since when are iPhone and Android devices considered security cameras?

Ok, even then... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478607)

Aren't some security cameras Android based?

But even then, it seems like most security cameras use standard formats. So the question stands.

Re:Ok, even then... (1)

kwerle (39371) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479459)

I know nothing about this subject. But I recall someone asking about [open source] software to run a [set of] security cameras and complaining that there are a lot of different formats and no standards. It could have been on /., but I can't find a ref.

So it seems like this might be a real problem - if only one that affects very few people.

Re:Ok, even then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479669)

Definitely vouch for difficulty with CCTV footage - given the duration a number of installations remain in place for, there's codecs that go back to mpg1 (custom versions of course) and all the way through to a nice friendly h.264 modern format. We have issues with evidence playback all the time both from private premises and from agencies who should know better when conducting interviews. VLC definitely has been our friend in playback, but sometimes it requires re-recording from a truly proprietary PC/recording solution.

Re:What proprietary formats? (1)

servognome (738846) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479379)

The most important evidence probably comes from closed circuit security systems, since they are running constantly, monitored, time stamped, etc.
Guessing all the security companies have their own formats for data archiving and transmission, not to mention many of these systems are probably out of date because they've worked well enough for years.

I bet most of these CCTV systems don't even implement the CSI "enhance" feature so useful in criminal investigation.

Golden Age vs HELL ON EARTH (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43478577)

Forget all the online protest forms,
Urge your senators to OBEY their fucking OATH.
WRITE THEM ABOUT THIS ALONE ON IT'S OWN, BY YOUR OWN HAND.

Good luck with all that technology (1)

Geste (527302) | 1 year,1 day | (#43478877)

"Ultimately this will be a case study in whether an individual bent on destruction can remain anonymous in an era of digital surveillance"

I would say that someone bent on destruction and bent on anonymity stands a very good chance of achieving both if they are canny and use commodity goods like pressure cookers, nails and match heads. I am preparing myself for the possibility that the perpetrator/s may never be identified. Depressing.

The nature of this thread disturbs me. That we somehow might get a jump on perceived opponents and/or frank miscreants with technology. What say Robert S, McNamara? Vietnam? Iraq, anyone?

During the late 70s I worked in an emergency room in Boston (my bittersweet home town). A regular visitor was a nervous, disturbing cop who had been farmed out to the graveyard shift after killing an innocent citizen, James Bowden, in Mission Hill. We had to put up with "Eddie" because we depended on the local police district when things got out of control.

But the number of criminal suspects (mostly minorities) they brought us who "fell down the stairs" never inspired confidence. As the city then waded through the racist swamp of the Charles Stuart case, that confidence only decreased. Police seemed much more interested in arresting "them" than solving crimes. I hear things have improved since I left Boston in the late 80s. I hope so.

So how about we put all of the technology in its proper perspective and lets see if the FBI and Boston PD can move beyond their checkered past and deliver some police work.

Is this going to start happening more often? (1)

jimmetry (1801872) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479133)

marathon run...
bomb goes off...
hundreds injured...
into hospital...
in come the businessmen...
"here's your free treatment, ma'am"...
fleet of cyborgs now living in downtown Boston...

Misdirection (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479189)

The Boston Marathon Bombing was White House directed op involving units from DHS and Justice. The bombing and the Racine laced letters, also part the White House directed op were intended to scare Congress into passing bills aimed at increasing background checks on weapons ownership applications and the ban of civilian owned assault weapons. In President Obama's words on the steps of the White House, with guests ferried the White House despite the Sequestration (rather Sequestration Theater) he said, "This is a shameful day."

Re: Misdirection (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479363)

kool story bruh

Re:Misdirection (3, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,1 day | (#43479627)

For gun laws? C'mon, that story holds no water. To get rigid gun legislation, shouldn't a gun have been used? Or many? Where's the logic in "Hmm, someone blew up a house, let's tighten gun laws"? If someone sat on top of a building and sniped away at people reaching the goal line, I could see some connection, but bombs? C'mon, at least try to find some connection if you call it a conspiracy.

If you say that they want to tighten chemical control, now that's something we could start discussing (even though... I'd be hard pressed to find out what else they could regulate, monitor or outright forbid in that area, ever tried getting sodium persulfate lately? And that's not even bomb material (at least not that I'm aware of and no, I don't want to discuss it, lest someone reads it and feels the pressing urge to take away one of the last chemicals I can still get, with some hassle, that I can use to etch PCBs!).

But back on topic. Do you HONESTLY think they need to blow up shit to gain public support for tighter gun laws? The support is already there in some parts of the public. The amount of "gun nuts", people who dare to consider at least one part of the constitution important, is rather small. Very vocal, but also very small. Think banning assault rifles or making getting them hard enough that 99% of the people wouldn't bother would cause more than a "tsk" from 99% of the population? Doubt it.

When you want to make it a conspiracy, make it one for something where support is lacking. Like, say, yet another war.

Wallyworld (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#43479693)

This is the ultimate game of "where's waldo?".

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...