DescentBB

Looks like the FBI is now empowered to monitor social networking sites to monitor \"Flash Mobs.\"

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't one of our inalienable rights the right to peacefully assemble? Now I can understand the necessity to squelch unlawful assembly, but MOST flash mobs are purely for spectacle. An impromptu snowball fight in D.C. does not threaten anyone except the fool that shows up without earmuffs. That being said the flash mob that appeared in downtown Philadelphia on March 20 was intent on malicious and downright criminal behavior.

So is it with benevolence that the FBI should be committed to monitoring our social networks to prevent ALL flash mobs, or could it be for more nefarious reasons that this is being done?

Peacefully assemble or privately assemble?

You have the right to “peacefully assemble” at a football game, and the city has the right to place cops there as well.

I wouldn’t expect any rights of privacy at a “social networking” site if the gathering is done in public.

And what sort of tinfoil-hat \"more nefarious reasons\" would those be?

These events have a history of getting out-of-hand. Besides the March event in Philadelphia, there were one or two smaller-scale gatherings in the past few months that resulted, among other things, in the beating of a random passer-by. In the interest of stopping these sort of acts of mass stupidity, the FBI and local agencies should be taking a more proactive role in finding out when they're planned for. Note that \"monitoring\" doesn't equate to \"squelching\": I doubt very much that law enforcement gives a damn about a group of people doing the Thriller Dance in a public park, but they do and should care about unruly masses of teens clogging up public streets and threatening other people.

Top Gun wrote:but they do and should care about unruly masses of teens clogging up public streets and threatening other people.

But matters of local order concern local authority. The last time I spoke with the FBI (heh, ok, it was the only time), they were too busy to even take on clever small-time internet credit-card fraud that certain parties were getting clean away with. I have a really hard time believing that local gatherings, as such, whether violent/rowdy or not rank so far above that on the federal scene. I was advised to go to the local police... If I had to venture a guess I would say it's just an excuse for a precedent that they're very interested in.

Or, as a less leaping-to-wild-conclusions assumption, perhaps local law enforcement that has had to deal with such incidents in the past went to the FBI asking for assistance. (This article states as much, actually.) While your average city police unit does deal in Internet-based law enforcement to some extent, they certainly don't have the sort of expertise and built-in task forces that the FBI has. We should know as well as anyone how quickly Internet phenomena centered around social-networking sites can start and spread. You need someone actively watching out for signals of a new occurrence, and that may not be something that local police are well-equipped to do.

And if you want to spin things in a PR-friendly fashion, as loath as I am to do so myself, some of the more extreme instances of flash mobs could almost be construed as a form of terrorism. I know the most recent occurrence in Philly caused several blocks' worth of restaurants and businesses to shut down, and several customers of said businesses got roughed-up in the process.

Since the internet crosses state lines, I would have to say it’s the jurisdiction of the FBI.

Fasten your seat belts boys and girls, thread derailment in progress.

Mayor Nutter wrote:“I don’t think people should be finding excuses for inappropriate behavior,” Mr. Nutter said. “There is no racial component to stupid behavior, and parents should not be looking to the government to provide entertainment for their children.”

Let's hear it for some sense in government.

Looks like you're right, Top Gun.

Spidey wrote:Peacefully assemble or privately assemble?

You have the right to “peacefully assemble” at a football game, and the city has the right to place cops there as well.

I wouldn’t expect any rights of privacy at a “social networking” site if the gathering is done in public.

You HAVE the right to peacefully assemble ANYWHERE, the constitution does NOT place limitations. However, STATES have the right to limit said assemblages. The federal government was NEVER granted that right. According to the constitution, "All powers NOT enumerated here, are ASSIGNED to the states and/or the people." Sorry for the paraphrase.

I don’t get it? Did you think I meant you only have the right to assemble at football games?

Sorry Spidey, my rant was not directed at you.

It WAS directed at people that do NOT hold the constitution to heart.

Are you kidding…I have the 13th amendment tattooed on my chest.

N/P

I'm sure Top Gun would feel much safer if he were under Great Leader.

Yep, let's take a rational assessment of a situation and leap ahead to something completely illogical. You sure you're not Glenn Beck posting under a pseudonym?

Top Gun wrote:Yep, let's take a rational assessment of a situation and leap ahead to something completely illogical. You sure you're not Glenn Beck posting under a pseudonym?

Mawhahahahaha

Top Gun wrote:Yep, let's take a rational assessment of a situation and leap ahead to something completely illogical. You sure you're not Glenn Beck posting under a pseudonym?

Naaaa I'm Glenn Beck.

VonVulcan wrote:Fasten your seat belts boys and girls, thread derailment in progress.

it would have to be on a set of tracks beforehand.

This thread was a trainwreck from the start.

the intelligence community already monitors public and private (where an appropriate warrant can be attained, ie: there is \"just cause\") space in an effort to guard against conspiracies to commit anti-social acts.
(ie: violence, fraud, war, etc)

So i don't see why monitoring of online public space shouldn't be a part of that - honestly i'm quite surprised at the suggestion that it isn't ALREADY monitored.

The ability of official organisations to lawfully (or not) collect intelligence on public and private citizens and/or organisations - is a big enough question on it's own, and has been a part of our society for a loooong time.
Is OP talking about this bigger question?
Or is OP (erroneously) suggesting that the ability and legality of official organisations to monitor such things is a new issue?


Now that that's outof the way, i'd like to talk about intelligence gathering as a whole.
i have a feeling that technology is starting to allow insane levels of autonomous monitoring in all our lives, and we will have no choice but to get used to it. What is basically happening is that we are all being made more powerful - this is the general march of technological progress. And as such - i don't think there's anything we can do about it short of becomming a society of luddites (which i don't want).
I'm not talking about governments, but publicly accessable data, public webcams, public feeds, etc. Technological augmenting of the social-sphere tends to bring us all closer together: cities become denser, culture becomes denser, debates become denser, relationships become denser.
You might not like it, I might not like it, but i have a feeling we will have no choice in the matter. No matter how we vote, the march of technology is relentless and unforgiving, we are at it's mercy.

I'm reminded of the futurist comic 'Transmetropolitan'. It's not an exact quote: \"On average we all inhale an automated publically accessable nano-technology web-camera every 24 seconds\".