Boston Tech Vs. the Bomber 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."
recovery, not prevention. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Doctors, nurses were very near the attack site ... (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Lowering unemployment rates with the otherwise unemployable duds?
Re:recovery, not prevention. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1, Interesting)
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 st
The Survey (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No it isn't. "Mental illness" is a clinical diagnosis. Calling yourself depressed because you're a bit fed up is not.
On the subject of guns, anyone who has shown serious signs of harming themselves or others should not be allowed anywhere near firearms, simple as that. And no, I don't care about their fucking constitutional right to bear arms. The safety of the community as a whole is more important than your ability to express yourself creatively through violence.
Re: (Score:2)
Missing question: Do you believe that people's answers to hypothetical questions bear any resemblance to how they'd actually behave?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure..... And only 20% of statistics are made up....
Re: (Score:2)
Look at war crime records for non isolated mass murders.
Good point. I prefer socially isolated mass murderers. They kill by themselves, and that tends to limit the damage. It gets a whole lot worse when you can enlist lots of help from your "social circle".
Re: (Score:2)
I find them incredibly tedious and dreary. I really hate being seated next to one at a dinner party. Imagine being on a long flight with one. I'd be praying to be the next victim, and the sooner the better.
Re: (Score:2)
...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. (Score:5, Interesting)
My point was that violence is inherently anti-social.
Hmm, is it really? Some violence perhaps, like the mass/serial killer examples (though if one serial killer is copying his hero, is that social behaviour or not?). But take, say, Northern Irish terrorism, or perhaps extreme religious terrorism, too. Or gang violence. Couldn't that be caused in part by inherently social processes? By people wanting to belong to the group, to be admired by the group, or a group talking each other in to more and more extreme and 'pure' views? The most extreme example - war - is a very social activity indeed. Being anti-violence in a war can itself be seen as anti-social by others.
I wouldn't want to say that (especially) bizarre behaviour motivated by extreme religious views or behaviour isn't a mental health issue as well, though, one that sometimes turns in to a criminal issue. But it isn't easy to draw the line (Jonestown? Al Qaeda in 2001? The crusades? Terrorist groups responding to relatives killed by US drones? The Westboro nutters?).
Re:recovery, not prevention. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
The connection with trannys escapes me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this a one-off decision w/ Nash, or are we repeating the choice with each mentally unstable person and trying to maximize the overall score? It makes a difference.
it's more of a question of if you're a nazi or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more a question of what that thing that flew over your head was.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It is just as likely, since most of the mass killers were (D) or tended to be (D), that being a (D) with mental disorders, is the cause. And that most of the places that had Mass Killings, with guns, have had very strict gun controls. In fact, the places that have the highest gun control regulations have the highest gun crimes (Chicago, DC ...)
Or, you could say, correlation doesn't equal causation. It is funny how correlation is all that the left needs to pin all Conservative / Libertarians as nut jobs, yet
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
What I think you would get is a lot of heavily armed well-organised criminal gangs acting proactively to kill any police they came across. So nighttime crime could well increase.
In a police state, more people become criminals.
Re: (Score:3)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 "pre
Crowdsourcing means nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also be aware when you say "predispositon to violence" you walk that razor's edge of falling prey to stereotypes.
I thought it was a pretty clear indication that he hadn't just walked it, but decided to make a running start and go leaping off.
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.
In conservative circles, we refer to this kind of wild conjecture and vague allusionary statements as conclusive proof. See also: Fox news. And the funny thing is? People who run around screaming "I'm the sanest one here!" usually aren't, anymore than people who yell on internet forums "I'm rational! I'm so very, very rational!" ... :)
That's a walking, quacking duck right there. So let's call it a duck ummkay?
"B-b-b-ut, that doesn't fit with my worldview,
Re: (Score:1)
[citation needed] (for "majority")
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't have any, he is just a Leftwing parrot repeating what they tell him at Weather Underground, and Earth First Meetings, in an effort to dismiss some of the best legal thoughts that are the basis for our country, which they hate. If they loved it, they would respect those that paved the way for the rights and Constitution we are supposed to be defending.
These people hate that piece of paper, because it limits their plans and goals for their brand of tyranny. They work feverishly to chip away, and di
Re: (Score:2)
Not really trolling. I'm just sick and tired of Parrots who get traction because nobody calls them out on their bird brain ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation most definitely needed]
Re: (Score:2)
. 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.
Nonsense. It is a simple fact that most people born poor stay poor. It's not a question of judging them, just looking at the statistical probabilities.
The fact that you as an individual are no longer poor says absolutely nothing about whether most people born poor stay that way. Any real world situation has outliers.
It is pure rightwing elitist-individualistic garbage to say that anyone can make anything of themselves, and that therefore we shouldn't worry about poverty, racism or anything else becaus
Re: (Score:2)
All I am here to argue about is in my humble opinion, it is clear that Charles Whitman did have a lot of exposure to violence, especially at an early age, and that *likely* contributed to his actions. Nothing mor
Re: (Score:2)
You did claim consensus should negate her opinion because the way that whole last paragraph reads, it's implied.
Perhaps that was poor wording on my part. All I was trying to state was that if we were to believe girlintraining any more than we are to believe wikipedia, I simply wanted her to back up her claims that Whitman was "normal". Now that she has provided citations from medical experts to make her case, I applaud her efforts. But people are entitled to their own opinion, and she failed to sway mine. Speaking of that,...
You do claim violence *likely* contributed. This I completely disagree with.
I think it is fair at this point that we agree to disagree. Nature vs. Nurture may not b
Re: (Score:1)
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?)
Well, he did win the popular vote, so I fail to see the problem here.
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 unfortunately, you'd be very wrong [ncjrs.gov]. There is no such thing as a "predisposition to violence". There are risk factors, but these are not predictive at an individual (micro) level, only at a macro level. Or put another way, if I run into a crowd and start shooting a gun into the air, I cannot predict how any particular individual will react in that situation... but I can predict to a reasonably high accuracy what the group will do.
Your comment, on the other hand, is your own statement of belief.
State [huffingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Since I chose to reply to your earlier post, you seem to be under the impression that I don't agree with everything you said, and that is just not the case. The only point you made that I take issue to is being able to call Whitman "a perfectly normal man". I don't dispute any of
Re: (Score:2)
"But it is not a behavioral norm to attack our peers."
That is trivial to circumvent. Zimbardo, Millgram, The Third Wave, ...
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
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 forge
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
.
This. Blood Levels (Score:2)
I keep thinking those that were literally raised in gun culture (and within the mist of lead it generates) can be explained by this phenomena. An enlightened society would conduct a thorough and statistically meaningful study of those that were 'gun raised' and ended up putting them to their inevitab
Re: (Score:2)
But compulsory treatment for the mentally ill most certainly has an impact on their freedom and rights. It is in fact a classic example of the greater common good overriding the individual's absolute freedom.
You can't prevent all violence, but that doesn't mean you can't try to prevent some of it.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
If only there was some kind of drug that could produce the reverse effect of lead poisoning. Waaait, that sounds familiar....
[Mal and the crew watch a holographic report on the Mirandans' fate]
Dr. Caron: There's thirty million people here, and they just let themselves die.
[Everyone jumps at the sound of a brutal attack in the distance.]
Dr. Caron: I have to be quick! About a tenth of a percent of the population had the opposite reaction to the Pax. Their aggressor response increased beyond madness. They have become
[A crash is heard in the background, now closer]
Dr. Caron: [sobs] Well, they've killed most of us. And not just killed they've done things
Wash: [Realises] Reavers... They made them.
Dr. Caron: I won't live to report this, but people have to know. We meant it for the best to make people safer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care whether you're Asian, black or Inuit, you're fucking delusional.
Not in the article (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/how-%E2%80%98extra-9%E2%80%99-could-ward-zombie-apocalypse [networkworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Locic doesn't work when you don't agree with an unstated hidden premise.
Re: (Score:2)
the cops complain about the CSI factor. I.E. being actually held to the same ethical standards as cops on TV.
Re: (Score:2)
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 descrip
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"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 t
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you live? Who do you pay rent to? Where do you buy your food? If you don't drive where do you buy your train/bus tickets? (all the transport and stations here have cameras), how do you research your masterp
Re: (Score:2)
1. A normal-looking, middle-aged. white, middle class guy with a travelling salsman-type job, car, suburban house and family. You can go most places without question, no one's going to remember a guy in a cheap suit eating a sandwich in his car at lunchtime (or whatever).
2. A youngish student in a student city. No matter what colour you dye your hair, or how late you wander around singing drunkenly, no one's going to bat an eyelid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
computers (Score:1)
Computer, enhance!
I wonder if they tried. I know from various TV documentaries that it works.
Re: (Score:2)
Computer, enhance!
I wonder if they tried. I know from various TV documentaries that it works.
The really clever bit is when they turn a 2D photo into 3D then spin it through 180 degrees so you can see the suspect's face and not just the back of his head. It makes you wonder how criminals get away with anything nowadays.
What proprietary formats? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"different proprietary formats of video from security cameras"
Since when are iPhone and Android devices considered security cameras?
Ok, even then... (Score:2)
Aren't some security cameras Android based?
But even then, it seems like most security cameras use standard formats. So the question stands.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Good luck with all that technology (Score:1)
"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 j
Is this going to start happening more often? (Score:1)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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?
You do realise the bare possibility that, in the aftermath of the shock of having a fucking bomb go off next to him, and possibly seeing his friend's leg blown off, he dropped the bag in a state of some little confusion?
Re: (Score:2)
CBS News reported that the FBI sources said it wasn't them (they're not white, 6'2", wearing the right clothes or... well, anything like the suspect).
Re: (Score:2)
I expect conspiracy theorists are already working on this.
Re:The Mechanical Turk may be faster... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Off hand I'm pretty sure those two guys are some sort of police that are trying to keep a low profile.
I thought "not-very-convincingly-civilian-looking off-duty military" myself. But they could equally have just been a couple of butch gays.
Re:The rumor mill (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Misdirection (Score:4, Informative)
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.