Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Tech Wars In Meat Space 151

Posted by michael from the less-lethal,-and-other-euphemisms dept.
Starfish writes: "Police and protesters are asking if new technologies used by both sides will turn street protests into bloodless, but also meaningless rituals. Real protest robots, phaser-like weapons, and other cool gadgets are discussed in this Village Voice article. Good heads up about the Ruckus Society's tech action camp in October."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tech Wars In Meat Space More

Tech Wars In Meat Space

Comments Filter:
  • All users with ID's with a 5 or a 9 were destroyed at 1:38am. All such users please step into the Casualty-Booth for processing.
    That is all.
  • Aren't you worried that this will escalate any conflicts where the protesters will have a bigger arsenal?

    Do you want to see the police resort to SWAT teams and tanks, as well as tear gas? Police in the US are supposedly supposed to use minimal force, it's like the protestors are giving no other choice but to "take out" the threat to safety. If the protestors start firing on the police, the police will have no choice but to shoot back, you can't blame them for that.

    I feel that we'll see another WACO where we'll have a worse standoff thanks to the enemy having as much technology as the police.

    There was a show on the discovery channel showing their new equipment to deal with situations outside.

    • Captain Heal (who, as well being a cop served as a Marine in Vietnam, the Gulf War, and Somalia and advised the UN as a civilian expert in the Balkans) did comment that he respected the tactics and strategies used by Ruckus Society as "sound." He suspects that many dissident groups have been schooled by sharp military veterans. But he said low tech solutions like sheltering behind vinyl banners supported by aluminum poles and using magazines as shin guards against bean bag projectiles could encourage some police officers to ratchet up their tool choices to more lethal ones. But there's no resentment, he says. "You can't blame someone for trying to defeat you when you're acting counter to their purposes," he said. Sorry that not everything was able to fit in the article -- usual problems with space in printed publications. As for the "phaser" -- reactions with oxygen do indeed make the beam, or ray, from some models glow green. Some potential users say they want the ray to be visible so that it's easier to apply and to track weapons fire from colleagues. I hope these clarifications help. It's always a cool thing to learn new things about research/article subjects from reading SlashDot commentary! Erik

  • The Scariest Thing in the Article (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jeko ( 179919 ) on Saturday August 04, 2001 @01:48AM (#2115007)
    USMC Colonel Mazzar, speaking in his official capacity, about the use of force by cops and military forces against protestors:

    "It is the exploitation of perceived civil liberties which extends into violence...

    My civil rights are merely perceived?!

    Colonel, I see you're working at a college. Do us all a favor and go audit the freshman civics courses again. You are an embarrassment to the cause you have sworn to defend.

    • My civil rights are merely perceived?!

      Only some of them. What the colonel was probably getting at was that, in addition to all of the civil rights they legitimately and properly have, many people extend those rights in invalid ways or assume the existence of rights that do not in fact exist. For example, the right of free expression does not extend to arbitrary destructive or dangerous acts, no matter what pseudo-political excuse the perpetrators concoct. The colonel's point is quite valid.

  • Read this disclaimer from the website of one of the sources for this article

    The only reason we include the following disclaimer is because our legal department says we must. DISCLAIMER: All of the officers and support personnel mentioned below are innocent of any criminal, civil, procedural, or administrative wrongdoing until proven guilty or liable in a court of law or other properly constituted tribunal. These parties are encouraged to submit rebuttals to these charges. All of the following material consists solely of the personal opinions of the author, Al Shemonia, and such opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Copwatch.com or its board, associates, affiliates, or members. This material is not currently presented as fact.

    So I guess for copwatch, that whole "innocent until proven guilty" is only for them and not for the cops. Goodness forbid that they practice what they preach.

    Hypocracy at its finest.

    Brian Ellenberger

  • Quit bitching and act! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You all whine piss and moan about police/govt abuse, and then line up and fall all over yourselves trying to give your basic rights like gun ownership back to the government.

    Like the government is in some way the natural holder of your rights.

    People like you with your insane notions of democracy, the rights of man, etc sicken me.

    Read your damn history!

    Fight to KEEP your natural rights!

    Read the Constitution.

    Understand that the crap you were fed in school is just that...crap.

    The US is a republic, not a democracy. (well it is supposed to be but you are messing that up as fast as you can also (democracies suck worse then this as soon as the huddled masses realize that they don't HAVE to work and vote themselves 364 holidays a year and liberal social programs to support them(then you have europe, but that's another story)))

    The government does not assign you rights like social security cards.

    Your rights are natural, the constitution only defends them from the govt.

    The government is all for taking rights away from you and if you do not secure some means of keeping your rights secure you will soon find that the press is not a big enough shield in this era of mega-mergers. (How many Media companies really need influenced to keep a story of 100 protesters getting their heads cracked under cover? How long did they manage not to mention the Levy/Condit bit? What do you think they'd do if they were offered free radio spectrum in exchange for silence?)

  • Sometimes Slashdot depresses me... (Score:3, Informative)

    by m0nkyman ( 7101 ) on Saturday August 04, 2001 @02:30AM (#2127157) Homepage Journal
    I just read the comments above, and the general tone surprised me. Once upon a time, slashdot readers would have talked about the tech, not talk about how dumb protesters are.

    In the past twenty years, I've watched the change as police have become more and more likely to clamp down on protests. The black bloc is a response to police violence, not the cause of it. As an original black bloc-er circa 1989, I know why we started fighting back. It was due to police being more and more likely to use force to put down democratic protests. We were defending ourselves. In Genoa, there were some pretty serious allegations that the 'black bloc' doing property damage to small businesses etc. were provocateurs. That tells me that they are getting worried about the effectiveness of the black bloc, and want to discredit the movement.

    Freedom is not easy folks. You have to be willing to fight for it.
    • The reasons behind protests have changed, too. According to Michael Albert of Z Magazine [zmag.org], they are to scare elites out of their wits, so their policies will be changed.

      Through the escalation of the WTO protest response, you can see the elites are indeed scared, and with good reason. The above article is a coded incitement to violent protest, because only violence (in the view of the author) will frighten elites and effect change.

      Is it any wonder the cops react as they do?

      D

    • As an original black bloc-er circa 1989, I know why we started fighting back. It was due to police being more and more likely to use force to put down democratic protests. We were defending ourselves.

      Yeah, right... I live in Gothenburg, which was smashed to pieces by black-block people during the EU meeting this summer.

      The protesters claimed that they were "provoked" by the police. What I saw was a police force that did their job professionally and with as much restraint that could be expected from them.

      In fact, most people (>90% according to most polls) who live in Gothenburg thought that the police should have used much more force than what they did.

      "Aber herr GI Joe, ve zere only defending ourzelves againzt thoze violent jewz. Ve vere provoked, you zee?" I'm not really kidding, that was the argument that the nazis used!

      /d2ksla
      • I was in Gothenburg to demonstrate, and most locals I met had nothing against the legitimate protests and some were actually quite upset that national/international media didn't really mention the large demonstrations that took place, just how there were several hundred "violent anarchists" throwing rocks at the police.
        Or how about the police surrounding Hvitfeldtska? I was there and saw how the police started hitting (peaceful,sitting) protesters when some of the people inside the school managed to get out (they got out far from where the crowd was. This was never reported by any other media than local Gothenburg papers and left-wing papers.
        And during the friday night "reclaim the streets" event, there were a lot more cops than people participating in the event (I didn't see how the situation around the police officer who fired at the demonstrators was, there were to many cops around for me to be able to see...)

        Oh yeah, even though most left-wing people are against the kind of violence that heppened there, and although they said so, the right-wing politicians and media were still screaming about how all people left of center were evil because they didn't say that they were against the violence...

        /Mikael Jacobson
  • Are we going to see a slow-moving bomb-squad robot heading towards the protesters with the tear-gas gun? Or Johnny 5?

    Then maybe the protestors will retaliate with home-made Battlebots! The police bot would have no defense except a radio jammer and an EMP grenade.

    Seriously, do you really see cash-poor protesters using expensive bots? Not unless it's a /. rally for Dmitri gone awry. Next rally, bring your 'bot.

    • Not at all. What I think this means is that the ritual protest (circa 1760 or so); workers against the ruling class; will/has become ineffective. Corporations have moved beyond national and even some global boundaries and are less and less concerned about what protests really go on. Most recent protests have been fairly small historically, but have been involving modern technology. This only means that future protests will have to be more cunning and clever than past ones; a situation that has always been the same. After any mass movemnet the stakes are raised. Look into the labor struggle of the industrial age.
      • I don't understand, are you saying the protestors will be able to successfully fight the police as well as damage the corporation?

        If there are some sophisticated stuff that enables the protestors to hold off the police, then the SWAT team and more heavy artillery will come in.

        That's why I fear this, it may make the police desprate enough to roll out Tanks down main street USA.
  • Just remember the echoing lines of Joshua:

    "The only way to win is not to play"

    -Mr. Fusion

  • Protestors = agitators (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sourcehunter ( 233036 ) on Saturday August 04, 2001 @02:52AM (#2139737) Homepage
    "I would trust the judgment of trained law-enforcement professionals trying to maintain public order and public safety over that of a younger, immature, less circumspect agitator."

    This quote emobides what is wrong with law enforcement in America (especially) and (I'd assume) across the world!
    Basically, this quote says "Everyone participating in the protest is wrong and just an agitator - a malcontent - someone who we should lock up anyway."

    That thought, combined with these new weapons - I'm scared.

    "One more day before the storm
    At the baracade of freedom
    when our ranks begin to form...
    will you take your place with me?"
    --- "One Day More" from Les Miserables

    • Protest is a form of free speech. Every democratic country gives the right for protesting. What you say is unfortunately true. It's what Bush said just before the G8 top in Genua: "these people are hurting poor countries" as if the anti-globalisation lobby lacks intelligence. I heard the CNN reports and some other stuff, the reporters seemed to have forgotten that there were thousands of peaceful demonstrators present in Genua, even helping the police with riotors.

      The press media and Bush insinuated that the protestors were criminals anyhow, so that's just plain FUD. If they take away the right for protest, either by public opinion or by making protesting physically dangerous, people will find another way to express their minds. This won't necesarry have to be peaceful actions. Look at the "animal liberation front" who blow up meat-companies, these people are against animal abuse, but no-one listened, they got fed up with the situation and started to do some bad things.

      Bush has identified Iraq and Libia as the enemy states, but the terrorism he wants to fight doesn't necesarry have to come from abroad, I fear more Oklahoma's if the politicians won't listen.

    • "I would trust the judgment of trained law-enforcement professionals trying to maintain public order and public safety over that of a younger, immature, less circumspect agitator."
      Basically, this quote says "Everyone participating in the protest is wrong and just an agitator - a malcontent - someone who we should lock up anyway."

      No, it does not. There are plenty of pigs in the world, and there are also plenty of punks. Overall, though, the average policeman has far better training and discipline than the average rioter, and is motivated to preserve rather than undermine public safety. One might reasonably disagree with the colonel's overall views regarding correct balance between protest and public safety, but mis-paraphrasing him like that only makes you - and by extension your "side" - look dishonest.

  • If there's no blood, or more importantly interesting video, then who's going to be interested in reporting it. Maybe I'm just feeling cynical tonight, but I'm starting to think that Net protests may well be ineffectual simply because they aren't interesting enough to watch on TV. The general public needs something to get their attention like entertainment. A bunch of people typing e-mails or sending letters doesn't sound like an interesting story. People getting beat up by cops on video, or run over by a tank...now that's interesting.

    Thinking about it a little more...some video is better than none. For instance, is anyone producing any video on the Sklyarov case? Not something especially entertaining, but wouldn't people be interested in an interview with his family. Crying about how their loved one has been taken away from them, they have no idea if/when they'll see him again. That's a tear-jerker right there...someone will be interested in that. The irony of a Russian being unjustly held prisoner by the USA (at least to US citizens) will appeal to another subset of people. If people get beat up protesting his captivity that will appeal to an even larger group of people (especially if it's on video.)

    Net protests aren't going to go over well unless there's something at least as interesting as the hampster dance web site to the general public. In the US at least, freedom from tyranny, freedom of speech, and the pursuit of happiness are all things that we've always been taught that we have in Social Studies/Civics/US History classes. Reading about it online is going to be about as interesting as your average high school history class. (Not that history isn't interesting, but most people I know could give a shit about history. They're more concerned about tomorrow and more often the present.) The rights we have as Americans are guaranteed by our constitution, correct? Why should we worry about crap like that when we can hear about drama (Elian Gonzales), violence (OJ Simpson), or sex (Clinton) on the news.

    I think getting some video of the key players in the Sklyarov case is important. Even if it's not on the news, there are aspects of the story that will appeal to people, especially if it comes with some video with tears and/or violence. If it's interesting enough it will spread around the Net as quickly as the original South Park epsiode.

  • Very simple:

    -You don't get a nail in with a screwdriver

    -You can't solve social problems with technical solutions. The money would be better spent on studying conflict resolution and teaching it to the cops.

    In my experience, the less cops around, the more peaceful the demonstration. If the cops are so damned worried about their security, then stay the hell out of people's way!

    ---------------
    Fire Your Boss!
    • I agree with the gist of your post, and teaching cops conflict resolution might be helpful. The real problem is that protests are viewed as a problem and no one gives a damn about what's being protested. Sometimes the protesters are right, and when one or more of them get hurt, the focus falls on that, and never on the message the protesters were pushing.

      Cops are scared of being injured or killed on the job, and there's no doubt a bunch of protesters seem like a threat. I'd personally like to see someone show the number of protestors killed by cops vs. the number of cops killed by protestors. I can't blame the cops for being scared. But the bottom line is, the cops shouldn't be there.

      A lot of protests lately have been over corporate actions. What the hell are cops doing protecting the corporations against the point of view of protestors? The cops are following orders -- but who the hell is giving the order? Are corporations paying for protection? If so, where's the protection that goes along with our normal tax dollar payments? Who's protecting the protestors?

      Corporations should hire their own security.

      I know it's an ugly ramble, but I can spare the karma at the moment, so there it is.
      • I'd personally like to see someone show the number of protestors killed by cops vs. the number of cops killed by protestors.

        I'm not going to look up the statistics but I'm guessing that protest-related deaths in First World countries are incredibly rare. Giuliani was certainly the first known fatality of the recent anti-capitalist/anti-globalization protests, though there have been a number of serious injuries.

        What the hell are cops doing protecting the corporations against the point of view of protestors?

        The police and government would counter that they are maintaining public order, not protecting corporations exclusively. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine when "public order" started justifying attacking peaceful protestors and passive resisters with pepper spray. Here in Canada we have had incredibly shameful incidents in which people locked to posts etc. have been sprayed right in the face despite being completely nonviolent.

        Corporations should hire their own security.

        They do. However, their rent-a-cops have no authority off their property - if they try to herd or grab you in the street you have every right to defend yourself by beating the stuffing out of them if neccessary. Companies would LIKE to be able to field troops against hostile demonstrators in public spaces, but thank Ford they don't have that ability yet.

        Who's protecting the protestors?

        This is the crux of the issue. Police are supposed to defend nonviolent, law-abiding citizens from violent criminal thugs. However, the issue is getting turned around so that anybody assembling to criticize the government is defined as a criminal by the police, and law enforcement then acts accordingly. A lot of people are arrested at protests, but few end up with criminal records. Why? Because they were doing nothing illegal! Their arrests are simply a scare tactic to try and reduce the number of people who protest the next time.

        • ... Giuliani was certainly the first known fatality of the recent anti-capitalist/anti-globalization protests, though there have been a number of serious injuries.

          I'll reply here too that I didn't think before I posted. I have a specific question though about this bit: I usually consider myself pretty skilled at narrowing down net searches to find what I'm looking for, but haven't had good luck with that one. When you say "look up the statistics," where would one go to examine those?

          The police and government would counter that they are maintaining public order, not protecting corporations exclusively. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine when "public order" started justifying attacking peaceful protestors and passive resisters with pepper spray.

          Yeah, that's what got me mad and then I rambled off my mindless post. My wife didn't even know it had happened and she saw the video when I was watching it, and it set her off too. I have too much probably of an anti-authoritarian vein in me to start with, and seeing that video infuriates me every time. I must admit though I've seen as many videos showing the grace under pressure some cops seem to have as I have videos showing the opposite.

          However, their rent-a-cops have no authority off their property - if they try to herd or grab you in the street you have every right to defend yourself by beating the stuffing out of them if neccessary.

          Yeah, and when the hired thugs go to far, the corporations that ordered them to perform a certain act hang them out to rot on their own. That pisses me off too.

          Police are supposed to defend nonviolent, law-abiding citizens from violent criminal thugs.

          And another thing that bothers me is that what some corporations and the government do are never considered violent and non-law-abiding because the damage takes longer to show up. I'd love to see some civil suits against corporate abuse take the tone of criminal suits instead. But I doubt it will happen.

      • Re:What's wrong with this? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Salamander ( 33735 ) <`jeff' `at' `pl.atyp.us'> on Saturday August 04, 2001 @09:39AM (#2133693) Homepage Journal
        teaching cops conflict resolution might be helpful.

        They often do receive such training. How many protesters do?

        The real problem is that protests are viewed as a problem and no one gives a damn about what's being protested.

        Yes, it is a shame that often no one - most notably most of the protesters - seems to care about the issues. Every protest I attend, it seems like the majority are there for the adrenaline rush, or publicity, or the social scene - anything but the issues.

        Less snidely, the police are expected to be dispassionate regarding the issues under protest. They are not there for the issues; they are there to preserve public safety and the law. You might not like that, you might not like the laws, but there it is.

        What the hell are cops doing protecting the corporations against the point of view of protestors?

        That's not what they're doing. They're not protecting points of view; they're protecting people, and laws, and sometimes property, against inappropriate expressions of a POV. As mentioned before, they are dispassionate wrt the issues, and concerned only with preventing criminal acts - including politically motivated criminal acts.

        The cops are following orders -- but who the hell is giving the order?

        Proximately, the civil authorities. Ultimately ourselves, through our duly elected representatives. If you don't like it, elect someone else. This is a (representative) democracy, not rule of whoever shouts loudest.

        Who's protecting the protestors?

        Those same police. I almost wish that some corporation would be stupid enough to hire their own goons, so you could see those very same police protecting the protesters - which they most assuredly would do. What a conundrum that would create for the self-righteous cop haters.

        Corporations should hire their own security.

        They do, and that's why the protesters prefer to misbehave in public places. They're too cowardly to risk getting their asses kicked on private property with little or no legal recourse, so instead they subject the public to all the BS they claim is directed at the corporations.

        • In addition, calling somebody who's trying to smash up an OCCUPIED police vehicle -- so he can beat or kill the police inside -- a "protester" is, frankly, about as inane as the current media habit of calling members of the military wing of Hamas "activists", when the latter are more properly referred to as terrorists.

          Protest involves sending a message -- through signs, through letters, phone calls, that sort of thing. It doesn't excuse violence, any more than violating an oath is protected by "free speech" laws; the latter is speech, but it's *also* perjury, just like attacking cops is, at a minimum, assault if not attempted murder -- and whether or not it's for a message is irrelevant.

          "Thugs", "juvenile delinquents", "punks", "rioters", and so forth are more proper terms for those who employ random violence for a cause.
        • They often do receive such training. How many protesters do?

          You're right, of course. When I think of protesters, I think of peaceful sit-ins and sign-carriers. But that really hasn't been the pattern lately. I'd just watched the pepper-spray video again where the cops are torturing sitters, and then I posted here. I forgot the think-first-then-post natural order.

          Yes, it is a shame that often no one - most notably most of the protesters - seems to care about the issues.

          You're right again. The handful I've attended were because I cared very deeply about what was happening... but was frequently surrounded by people shouting things like "Fuck the assholes up! Death to the Man!" when we were there protesting excessive violence by police.

          Everything you've said is correct and true, and I should have stopped to think before I posted. There are a few things that get me riled to the point of slack bloodflow to the brain, and cruelty is one of them. Thanks for responding intelligently to my mindless rambling.

      • agree with the gist of your post, and teaching cops conflict resolution might be helpful. The real problem is that protests are viewed as a problem and no one gives a damn about what's being protested.

        Protests *are* the problem. Like acts of terrorism (which if you think about it, are really just protests taken to their logical extreme), they do nothing to promote their cause. When I read a report of a terrorist act or a protest my respect for the cause the protesters were supposedly promoting goes down.

        Consider the case of globalization -- one one side you have essentially all the economists in the world saying that it will be a wonderful thing, and their arguments are backed up by mathematical models, and the other hand you have protesters who can't seem to even shout a coherent sentence about the evils of corporate imperialism. Perhaps the economists' mathematical models are wrong, but protests are useless for discovering that.
        • Protests *are* the problem. Like acts of terrorism (which if you think about it, are really just protests taken to their logical extreme), they do nothing to promote their cause. When I read a report of a terrorist act or a protest my respect for the cause the protesters were supposedly promoting goes down.

          I have to disagree here. Many intelligent protesters I have known have tried the respectable routes first -- letters to politicians, etc.. They only protest as a last resort, and never violently. But then they're lumped in with the yahoos out there for a kick. Protests aren't the problem. The original problem was the problem. A protest is a response to that problem. I don't operate under the illusion that all protesters are vestal saints with virtuous causes -- but sometimes they're right anyway.

          Consider the case of globalization -- one one side you have essentially all the economists in the world saying that it will be a wonderful thing, and their arguments are backed up by mathematical models ...

          Good example -- but if globalization is so great, why isn't it improving us already? There are some very excellent web sites showing the harm of globalization to localities. But as long as the numbers benefit the corporations, no one seems to care.

  • I watched CNN after the g8 in genoa. The best they could do to explain why the protesters were there was one libertarian talking head and one blue dog democrat blathering at each other about how they were isolationists, the other talking head rebutted saying they were ludites. It was disgraceful. It's a BIG movement with a big umbrella that pretty well covers the gambit between extreme far right anarchists who see just flat do not exept government rule, they protest at the g8,IMF,World Bank stuff because they know there will be others and media coverage. On the other side you have hard core communists who see capitalism as the root of all evil. What people don't understand is that those fringes make up about 1% of people opposed to the globalisation movement.
    About 20-30% are there on a single issue. They are environmentalists there to protest the fact that the WTO is trying to enforce a world standard of low environmental standards, it's reached a point where the US succesfully sued mexico into having to take a toxic waste dump because their refusal was a "restriction of fair trade". I'm not a big tree-hugger but I do think that is sort of spooky.
    The other single issue people are there for debt forgiveness for third world nations, or labor organizers who are scared of the WTO because they treat labor the same way they do the environment as far as "restriction to free trade" goes.
    I'm there because I think it is scary as hell that the g8 (seven wealthiest nations plus russia) all come together and have secret closed talked meetings about how best to divide up the wealth of the world. I'm there because I see the world rapidly devolving into a state of corporate fuedalism.
    Blah, I sort of understand why the mainstream media doesn't try and explain this for reasons other than conspiracy theory, it has about 150 different facits and just trying to describe what the WTO and world bank do doesn't sound byte well.
    A nice summary of what most of the anti WTO folks not on the fringe is here http://www.50years.org/platform.html
    it's sort of dry and boring, no crazed manifesto calling for everyone to beat their computer into a plowshare and go get behind the ass of a mule all day. Sorry to disappoint

  • Yes, that's right. Everything that can go wrong will go wrong. However with machines instead of people making the decisions can lead to serious problems, as the price is too high: human life.

    Even the relatively elegant solutions often fail. Thus, for example, the "rubber bullets" that the Israeli Army and Police use are especially designed to be non-lethal - their velocity is lower than a real bullet's, and their shape discourages penetration of the protestors' skin. Usually all these bullets do is a serious bruise (which is the desireable outcome, and essencially the reason why real ammunition is not used instead). However, at close range, if a rubber bullet hits a protestor's head, it might lead to severe traumas or even death.

    The problem is worsened by the tendency of the protesters to put the police forces in unfavorable conditions, so that the nonlethal weapons become lethal. For example, in the recent Palestinian riots, one could see groups of few soldiers facing crowds of few hundreds, that approached them with sticks, stones and guns. Since a violent crowd of such size poses a serious threat, the soldiers had to shoot rubber bullets, some of them at ranges which were not as safe as it could be desired.

    So it looks to me, that no matter how safe is a weapon, protesters will always find a way to push the law enforcement forces to the corner and make them use it in a dangerous way (or simply fire their handguns).

    • Re:Remember the Murphy law (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Since a violent crowd of such size poses a serious threat

      You tend to end up against large violent crowds when you brutally occupy someone else's land.

      • You also tend to end up mugged if you walk around very well-dressed, alone, and flashing lots of high-denomination bills around certain parts of various cities. That doesn't mean that the mugging is right, either; attack soldiers, and the soldiers have every right to fire back -- and the fight doesn't have to be "fair". Continue to attack, and it would seem proper for the military to even preemptively attack folks with a history of plotting, committing and inciting violence...

      • It is beyond the scope of this discussion whether the soldiers are supposed to be there or not, however any armed force will not tolerate big crowds (remember the National Guard in the 60s, don't tell me the NG was an alien force occupying California universities)

  • I don't know, but it's fun to watch.
    Oo, looka that one stuck like a fly while the rest set their phasers to "stun"
    [fizzle]
    Hey, that's not stun.
  • Me mum commented the other day that if the media didn't make such a circus out of the things there wouldn't be as many protests. I asked her if she thought The Man would exercise the little restraint He does if there weren't heavy media coverage...
  • So long as the events are covered by media and the message can be understood from that coverage protests will not be meaningless rituals.
    • So long as the events are covered by media and the message can be understood from that coverage protests will not be meaningless rituals.

      That's the point. Angry rioters being brutalized, rightly or wrongly, makes for good imagery for the reporter to talk over; if the reporter does not have a good video to talk over, the item gets less play time. So if the police can put down the demonstration without obvious brutality, there is no reason for it to be covered with anything more than brief blub.

    • Cameras are a two-edged sword. On the one hand, they allow protesters to get their message to a greater audience; OTOH, they attract the "rent-a-riot" types who don't seem to care what the protest is about so long as it's an excuse to indulge in mindless violence and vandalism. The latter does nothing to help the cause of the protest. From watching the media coverage of recent "anti-globalisation" protests, the general public wouldn't have had a clue about what the protest was about - all they saw was a bunch of "anarchists" trashing the place.

      Ghandi is frequently quoted in these parts as saying: "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." To keep this in context, it should also be noted that he also said: "Non-violence is the first article of my faith. It is the last article of my faith."
      • I am a veteran of a couple large-ish Anti-Capitalist protests (Windsor, Quebec). Let me assure you, there are certainly agent-provacateurs amoungst the crowds. The police badly need to justify their overwhelmning threats of violence. While I was marching with the Windsor-Detroit Communists (we had grown to about 800-1000 on the streets in Quebec) we were joined at the front by someone who was as obvious as could be. He reputed to be a local Communist (though our known-local-contact didnt know him) he was dressed in 'casual wear' like it was haloween and asked *alot* of odd questions with regard to our direction and intent. It was almost laughable. We later made a film and this person features prominently in it.

        Now, it is also a known fact that radical movements, like the present anit-capitalist one, will become paranoid and dillusional. Those involved will cease to trust 'outsiders'. The solution to this I fear is absolute honesty, why keep secrets at all? If you are completely honest about your intent there is no need to keep secrets.

        What to help ruin the present Plutocratic Picnic? Join the FIGHT! See protest.net [protest.net].

      • the general public wouldn't have had a clue about what the protest was about - all they saw was a bunch of "anarchists"

        On the other hand, had there not been violence the general public would have been fed pre-digested propganda how the G8 countries are going to make the World into so much better a place. I doubt they would even have shown the peaceful demonstrations.

        Not that I accept the violence, though.

      • "rent-a-riot" types who don't seem to care what the protest is about
        all they saw was a bunch of "anarchists" trashing the place

        So, the mere fact that many (2000?) chose to attack cops, barriers, etc. means that they didn't care about the issue? What evidence do you have of that? Also; a lot of the violence that occurred was instigated by cops. They invaded a building that was being legitimately used to report the riot. Cops beat people inside (it's unclear whether or not protesters turned violent) until the walls were covered in blood. It's sick that either Italy has no law preventing such invasion; or that the cops ignored the law. The day after Guiuliana was killed (shot twice and then repeatedly ran over, then denied medical treatment), the cops were a lot less confrontational and it worked a hell of a lot better.

  • Protesters won't.

    Why? Because the cops can afford it, and the protesters usually can't.

    And if real people have to hit the streets on either side, then the other side has an advantage.

    End result: protests will become even less effective and more meaningless than they are now, because the police will have a lot less incentive to keep the violence down. They'll be able to use violence at will.
    • Read the last line again. The protesters need to give this a human face, or it is in no way effective. Robots battling against robots has no public relations meaning beyond spectacle. Risking your life and limb for the cause is the only thing that's effective.

      "Kid sacrifices life to protest WTO" is an effective headline indeed.

      "Police and protest robots battle; street filled with used robot parts" is going to make people laugh, but won't create any kind of public relations victory.

      I think you can see the real reason non-leathal weapons scare these protesters; if you can't say you were injured by a savage police force, but were instead temporarily immobilized to prevent you from looting, all sympathy for you vanishes.

      D

    • Re:Cops will have the bots... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BadDoggie ( 145310 ) on Saturday August 04, 2001 @02:15AM (#2134130) Homepage Journal
      It's worse than that. Non-lethal weapons are more likely to be used because they are non-lethal (http://austin.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_ id=590 [indymedia.org]) And because the repercussions are lower when non-lethal force is used in any crowd control situation, the police are that much more likely to use such force, and using as a defense "I was in fear for my safety and the safety of my fellow officers. It was just a beanbag/foam/pepper spray. At least I didn't kill him." And you can't really argue with that because there is a need to have police, a need to protect the police who protect you, and there is also an easily understood concept that when you have to make someone stop doing something bad, it doesn't necessarily mean you have to take his life -- worst case you Rochambeau.

      Would I rather be shot by a beanbag or a bullet? Not a tough choice, that one. But the rules of engagement change with non-lethal weapons and the threshold for their use is lowered by virtue of the fact that they generally don't kill -- not intentionally, anyway. It becomes much easier to pull that trigger.

      I could write a dissertation here, score a five, get some cool responses and maybe some E-Mail, but I don't have the time or resources. There's a lot of information about this; check out some of it. Google, teoma, even Yahoo.

      Let me note that the military's use of non-lethal weapons has historically been to disarm/disable an enemy so that lethal force could then be used, from the days of catapulting rotting carcasses into the keep to the gas attacks of WWI.

      woof

      • This leads to an interesting question:

        If protesters were to use non-lethal force against the authorities, would the authorities be permitted to step up to lethal force to "protect" themselves? I see a probability that the police might use non-lethal force as nothing but an antagonistic agent in order to cause some good old fashioned patriotic carnage...

        • i think this is a very good, and scary point. i'm fairly sure that if the cops sprayed us with their ray guns, and we sprayed them with ours, they'd pull out the old fashiond chemical powered lead projectile gun in self defence.

          wonderful.

        • Once protesters start using any level of physical force against "the authorities", we're no longer talking about "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievences.". we're talking about a mob.

          I'm not talking about legitimate self-defense against excessive use of force by "the authorities", but the best answer to that is probably a hasty retreat followed by contacting the various news media who nowadays would just as soon air sensational footage of police violence and violation of the rights of peaceful protesters, complete with interviews of the peaceful protesters detailing the violence visited on them by the police, as they would footage of protesters crossing the line into rioting.

          Attacking police, destroying public and private property, and attempting to silence any dissenting points of view don't seem to me to be the most effective way to convince others of the intellectual superiority of one's viewpoint. And if they only want to impose their will on others instead of persuading them, then how are they any better than those they criticise?

          • Very good points.

            Mod this one up please moderators.
          • I'm not talking about legitimate self-defense against excessive use of force by "the authorities", but the best answer to that is probably a hasty retreat followed by contacting the various news media who nowadays would just as soon air sensational footage of police violence and violation of the rights of peaceful protesters, complete with interviews of the peaceful protesters detailing the violence visited on them by the police, as they would footage of protesters crossing the line into rioting.

            A nice vision, unfortunately, it just won't happen. Media coverage (in the US) of the recent anti-globalization protests NEVER SHOWED the peaceful 99% of the protestors, never mind interviewing them. The clips were all of the "violent nutcases", which is the impression the viewer is left with.

            The news media are money/ratings driven, and violence begets ratings. Interviews that make people think do not beget ratings.

            • Of course they aren't going to spend any air time on peaceful protesters peacefully protesting while the police stand by peacefully.

              But, if the police are violent towards peaceful protesters, they'll be just as glad to air that. And once the public sees that the police are rioting, and not the protesters, they're going to start to wonder what it is that the protesters are saying that the police don't want us to know about. Then the news media start showing interviews with the protesters where they discuss what's being protested.

              Of course if the non-peaceful "protesters" show up and fulfill the police's most pessimistic expectations, that makes for the kind of video that a calm explanation of the issues can't compete with in the contest for air time as it is presently conducted.

      • Non-lethal weapons are still weapons and they are still very capable of causing serious injury or even death. Just think back at the Quebec protests just a few months ago and the many people who were poisoned by tear gas, and one particular individual who was hit in the throat by a rubber bullet at very close range. He now breathes with a metal tube in his throat because his oesophagus was crushed by that allegedly non-lethal weapon. He's fucked for life because of these idiot weapons that aren't supposed to be "dangerous".

        Just as a kitchen knife isn't supposed to be dangerous if it's used PROPERLY and RESPONSIBLY, perhaps these mild weapons might also be safe if they were wielded by intelligent trained people; not common badge-bearing thugs whose checks are signed by the same fascist leaders we'd all like to strangle for selling out our lives to the highest bidder.

        People didn't need these bullshit meta-weapons 20 years ago, I don't see why we'd need them now.
    • All you need to do to fight back is scrounge a gigawatt laser [slashdot.org]...
    • Also, in that event it really would knock out any publicity the rioters would be hoping for. Just think about which one of these is more likely to be the headline in a major newspaper: "Rioters fight WTO injustice" or: "Police successfully test new non-lethal riot gear" That would take out any useful publicity in the protester's eyes.
    • I've actually worked with the Institute for Applied Autonomy (IAA) [appliedautonomy.com], and part of their aim was to develop inexpensive disposable gadgets to help in civil disobedience. And they have created some good stuff. (esp. GraffitiWriter)
    • Unless we use our 1337 h4x0r 5ki11s and root the critters. ;-)

      But, if they use software from the US Northwest [microsoft.com]:

      [mr.rogers]
      Can you say "CODE RED!!" ? I knew thet chya could!
      [/mr.rogers]

      Soko

  • Even the mere thought of sending a robot to protest for you makes me sick. What a way to show your conviction by doing something else.

    And say you send one of these to go protest Dmitry's arrest for you? Then you'll probably just be arrested yourself for breaking some kind of DMCA rules which makes no sense here in RealWorld (no affiliation with Real Networks). And God knows they're all going to have Linux installed anyway, which is good and all, except the companies making them will go under, because Linux just doesn't make money.
  • There are many protestors out there who actually feed off the potential for danger. At my old university, the student politicians who were trying to make names for themselves for upcoming elections often went overboard with the activism. Anything they could do for a photo opportunity is fair game -- the same guy who was smashing televisions as a statement against pop culture one year was signing deals with Pepsi for exclusive distribution in the Student Union Building the next. I swear to god I'm not kidding.

    When we had some protests over here that got ugly with tear gas, the student politicians were hot on the student press pushing them to go crazy and put the Liberal government went through the ringer, which was just fine with the student gov't, most of whom were getting themselves ready for a future with a rival poltical party.

    Robots making graffiti will only steal the thunder from a potential PR fiasco, which is exactly what many of the protestors are going to want.

  • The problem is not the legitimate protestors, but the small minority who insist that extreme acts of violence and vandalism are required to get their message across.

    what the enforcement officers need are not non lethal weapons, but more precise weapons (letheal or non lethal) to be used to incapacitate the ones inciting or engaging in violence. Take this violent minority out, and the protests will be more or less peaceful.

    As it is, this violent minority has all but negated any positive benefits of these protests.
    • what the enforcement officers need are not non lethal weapons, but more precise weapons (letheal or non lethal) to be used to incapacitate the ones inciting or engaging in violence. Take this violent minority out, and the protests will be more or less peaceful

      Such weapons exist, and have for some time. They're called a rifle with a heavy barrel, solid rest, and damn good scope. However, the Supreme Court has saddled us with a court finding that use of force is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and therefore must be reasonable under the circumstances. A use of deadly force for a purpose other than protecting a person against a threat of death or great bodily injury would probably be found unreasonable. Shooting rioters to protect property would be VERY hard to defend in court.

      The case is called Tennessee v. Garner, if you're interested. It's at the very heart of police use-of-force case law. It should be familiar to any law student or law librarian, should you wish to look it up.

      Yeah, I know some Texan is going to talk about a state law about protecting property after dark. I don't think that statute has been tested in decades, but god help whoever tries to rely on it.

  • It is sad to see real life following what is often portrayed in movies. Robocop's and terminators may be the police of the future, but what happens when we give machines intelligence or when a robot goes haywire? Ultimately we are not preserving human life when using robots to fight for one side, but killing human life on the other end.
    • I fully agree. Being able to suppress protestors with no PR backlash is probably one of the last remaining steps to stripping away freedom of speech.

      The only way I would endorse nonlethals in government hands is if every single use had to be scrutinized by a very-public review board, not only to determine if it was a justified use, but to give the individual targeted a platform to speak.

      Of course, this could also be the ultimate LART we've all been looking for. :)
      • I fully agree. Being able to suppress protestors with no PR backlash is probably one of the last remaining steps to stripping away freedom of speech.

        No WHAT kind of backlash? Try reading 42 USC 1983. (Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code.) In terms of empowering members of the public to take legal action against government agencies for civil-rights violations, it's probably the most sweeping law of its kind in the world.

        Also, look at the backlash after Rodney King got beaten. Read on, for the relevance.

        The only way I would endorse nonlethals in government hands is if every single use had to be scrutinized by a very-public review board, not only to determine if it was a justified use, but to give the individual targeted a platform to speak

        First of all, there's no such thing as "nonlethal." There's lethal, consisting primarily of firearms and knives, and then there's less-lethal, which includes the technotoys of the original article. Less-lethal also includes the batons that cops have carried for over a century, the defense sprays of the last 40 years, and the unarmed, empty-hand restraint techniques taught everywhere from police academies to Tai Chi classes. They ALL have the potential to kill.

        Second, such a review board does exist. It's called civil court, and there are a lot of attorneys who will take 1983 cases on contingency. The reason civilian review boards aren't popular is because they tend to make decisions based upon ignorance: very few people on such boards have ever been faced with situations where they need to either act or die, and have about a second to decide what to do. Therefore, they have no conception of what the job actually entails, and what the cop sometimes has to do, just to ensure that he goes home at night.

  • "Down with multi-national corporations!...(gasp)...can't...breathe!...(gasp)

    ...I find your lack of faith in the "New World Order" disturbing...

  • The article reads like a summary of all of the non-lethal crowd control ideas that have been endlessly bandied around during the last couple of decades.

    Crowd control techniques that are conspicuously absent from real use.

    The problem is that things like lasers and sonic weapons and electrified water guns are more expensive and/or more difficult to keep non-lethal than good old-fashioned tear gas and pepper spray and firehoses.

    Lasers blind people. Sonic weapons turn their bowels to jelly, harm internal organs, or both. Electrified water guns have nasty effects on anyone with a pacemaker or just a weak heart. And so forth.

    With increased cost and increased number of lawsuits, I don't see why any riot-control force would use them.
    • "With increased cost and increased number of lawsuits, I don't see why any riot-control force would use them."

      To protect my land. I could care less if you protest. don't destroy my store, car, home.... so far most big protest have lead up to looting or damages.

      Wait until you protest around someones store that has his shotgun, looting starts he will end up killing 3 or 4 people. He was protecting his property and with an overwelming amount of looters coming at him, courts will look at him as a hero, "protecting his livelyhood".

  • From HSV Technolgies Website... (Score:3, Funny)

    by tshak ( 173364 ) on Saturday August 04, 2001 @01:32AM (#2156498) Homepage
    How long does it take to immobilize someone? The effect occurs within a few milliseconds.

    This will come in great when I need to get in the front of the line for the next Star Wars movie. No more camping outside the theatre - JUST STUN THE CROWD!
  • This article really makes me think that Erik Baard (the author) has seen Demolition Man one too many times...

    Oh well. At any rate, I have to go get my suit from the cleaners. I've got a date at taco bell tonight.

  • The twin infared laser creating an ionized circuit for an electric shock is a pretty damn cool idea. . ! (I wonder how many decades ago the tech went stale and got mothballed by the military. . ? Whatever.)

    Anyway, it be great to have one of those things. I mean, all you have to do is make it visible to the naked eye when it fires and you've got yourself a real-life phaser, there cowboy!

    Too bad that only the evil empire has them.

    Ah well. Hopefully they'll be easy enough to build in my basement from an electronics hobby magazine and some spare parts.

    Imagine. . . Being able to invisibly & non-lethally zap anybody in a kilometer range. Damn. The world could get really stupid if this kind of tech ain't vapor. I mean, screw paint ball! Though if this tech is only becoming available now, (i.e. it's ancient history), imagine the crazy shit they currently have with which they can drop you at a thousand yards. (How many of us already have chips in our heads? I wonder. Beep beep.)

    Whatever.

    A Lazy Saturday afternoon. . .

    -Fantastic Lad

Slashdot Top Deals

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Close