

Twitter terror arrest: cause for concern - bensummers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jan/18/twitter-terror-arrest

======
mquander
So, you know, what the hell do we do? Every day there's a news story like
this: "Man/woman/child does totally innocuous thing X; is expelled from
school/arrested and jailed/has house raided and burgled by
police/beaten/shot." Every single story, it could have been me. I make
offensive jokes, do funny-looking stuff with technology, and hang out with
other people like myself. I have an interest in not getting fucked over for no
reason.

What do we do? I don't have any idea what to do. As far as I know, no
politicians are offering to change this situation. Is there some way to fix
this system?

~~~
RyanMcGreal
OTOH we occasionally read the story: _Terrorist posted comments on Twitter
feed before smuggling bomb onto plane_.

In a way, it's our fault (us being the public). When we demand childishly that
our security systems be comprehensive and infallible enough to catch every
single would-be attacker, we _inevitably_ end up catching a bunch of false
positives in the net as well.

~~~
mquander
I have to say, I am quite skeptical of that "we." There's a small media
feeding frenzy every time there's any kind of "security" hubbub, but how many
normal people actually support these measures after reading accounts of them?
How many would support them if the media climate were more levelheaded?
Precious few, I suspect.

(Based purely on my anecdata talking to friends and family, it's 0%, but I'm
sure there's a minority of folks around who really do support such things.)

Look at the recent "underwear bomber" escapade. There, we had much more
credible circumstantial evidence pointing at the suspect in advance (e.g. the
dad's phone call about him.) That is a hundred times more damning than this
Twitter post -- although still not terribly damning, if you ask me -- and yet,
he flew. Was there some great popular outrage that we didn't catch him in
advance of his flight? Not as far as I can tell; mostly, there was a great CNN
and op-ed outrage.

~~~
garethm
I'd guess the way the Paul Chambers incident was dealt with was as harsh as it
is because the underwear bomber story happened about three weeks before his
tweet. No one in the chain of people he dealt with wanted to be in the
position the person who said don't worry about the underwear bomber is in.

------
rms
Compare to Eliott Madison's arrest for tweeting information about the police
movements during the illegal police assault during the Pittsburgh G20 summit.
His obviously unconstitutional charges were withdrawn.

Conclusion: Twitter is good for protesting in Iran, bad for protesting in the
USA.

<http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/united-states-v-madison>

~~~
pyre
Reading that link, it looks like only the PA charges were dropped, and the
NYPD is still building a case against him.

~~~
rms
:( You're right, I celebrated too early when I heard the PA charges were
dropped.

Also, thank you Hacker News for ignoring my baiting statements about the
police. It'll take 5-7 years for the courts to rule one way or another about
the legality of the police action.

------
jacquesm
This whole case seriously pisses me off, the 'world we live in' is the one we
make.

~~~
potatolicious
Precisely - knowing nothing about the details of this case, but I'm willing to
bet that it wasn't some automated system that flagged him, but rather he was
ratted out by a "concerned" (read: paranoid) citizen.

~~~
jacquesm
It's funny, some of the worst things that we used to scold the eastblock for
are now part and parcel of everyday life.

And nobody lifts a finger.

edit: if anything it is the 'concerned citizen' and the buffoon cops that need
a talking to.

------
colinplamondon
He made a threat.

I think it's in bad taste to make public bombing threats, even as a joke. It's
just not respectful to the people who have to dig through this shit and
interdict the real bad guys. As societies, we have limited resources with
which to investigate threats that are made, and our governments have an
obligation to investigate each and every threat that's made, even jokingly on
Twitter.

The reaction is totally over the top, granted, and I'd rather they spend their
time interrogating trust fund Nigerians recently returned from a Yemenese
vacation, but there should be a penalty for making joking bombing threats, in
the same way that you shouldn't go around yelling 'fire!' in a movie theater.

Criminal prosecution is ludicrous, though.

~~~
jacquesm
He never made a threat, he made a joke.

One that you may think in poor taste but I thought it was well within the
acceptable. Blow up an airport because they don't have their planes landing on
time ? Sounds _very_ realistic to me.

We've had a guy _executed_ because of these overzealous clowns
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes>

I think to investigate is fine, to arrest is _way_ across the line. If these
guys can't tell the difference between a legitimate threat and a bloody joke
then we have other problems than terrorism.

I'm mad enough about this to write about it in a way that I possibly shouldn't
but I am seriously past caring:

[http://jacquesmattheij.com/I+am+a++terrorist%2C+and+so+are+y...](http://jacquesmattheij.com/I+am+a++terrorist%2C+and+so+are+you%2e)

Let's see who is brave enough to turn me in.

~~~
ErrantX
Something doesn't feel right in all of this case. Like we are missing
something. I suspect there was some otherp particular reason the police were
worried he may take extreme action secondary to the tweet; it would explain
things more clearly.

There us also a double standard with some of the people outraged over this.
Hundreds of people are reported eah month as veiwing kiddy porn. The majority
are innocent but you will struggle to find too many people who will disagree
With them beig investigated.

If a concerend indvidual, perhaps someone who knows he guy, as worried by what
he read and reported it what do the police do? They just have to have a look;
I mean ok they went much too far (assuming the story is accurate and this guy
wasn't, for example, difficult or refused to cooperate etc.)

as I said, I can't help feeling there is a touch more to this than a busy body
stalking Twitter :-)

I'm ac

~~~
jacquesm
> Something doesn't feel right in all of this case. Like we are missing
> something.

I have a very hard time imagining anything short of this guy having a history
of blowing things up that would be reason enough for an arrest.

> I suspect there was some otherp particular reason the police were worried he
> may take extreme action secondary to the tweet; it would explain things more
> clearly.

Because you would hope that that would be the case ?

That's just wishful thinking on your part I'm afraid, I have absolutely no
problem in believing that it happened the way it has been described, by now
the police is well aware this thing is going to blow up in their faces if
there was even a remotely plausible reason they would have trotted it out on a
leash for display by now.

> Hundreds of people are reported eah month as veiwing kiddy porn. The
> majority are innocent but you will struggle to find too many people who will
> disagree With them beig investigated.

Being investigated for the possession of child pornography because of
anonymous tips makes it far too easy to smear people and to use the police as
attack dogs in personal vendettas.

It also basically gives the authorities carte-blanche to go and investigate
anybody at all claiming there was an anonymous tip, and I think that for that
reason alone this ia a bad development.

I realize you may probably disagree but if a person is 'so concerned' about
this that they would report you but not concerned enough that they would make
that report without being anonymous then it is most likely a sick prank being
pulled on someone.

If it weren't then there would almost always be someone in the vicinity of the
individual being reported that would have the balls to face the perp over this
and make a non-anonymous report.

The lucky few child pornographers that only have cowards in their circle of
acquaintances we'd have to learn to live with.

> If a concerend indvidual, perhaps someone who knows he guy, as worried by
> what he read and reported it what do the police do?

I would think that even a personal visit is one step too far, a simple letter
that would state that the guy is because of this 'flagged' and if there is any
indication that there is more to it then it might be time for doing something
about it. Until then make sure that when he gets on a plane that his luggage
gets some extra tlc.

> as I said, I can't help feeling there is a touch more to this than a busy
> body stalking Twitter :-)

You have a lot of faith in the law, which is nice. I've seen tons of
incompetence far worse than this so I'm very much on the side that has
absolutely no problem believing the story as it is told.

~~~
ErrantX
> because of anonymous tips makes it far too easy to smear people and to use
> the police as attack dogs in personal vendettas.

I never said anonymous. (actually it was somewhat a bad analogy because the
Police are pretty much legally bound to investigate even if they feel it is a
personal grudge etc. particularly if the accuser is a child).

Anyway; I am not aware this was an anonymous tip. In a way those might be
treated even more seriously.

> but not concerned enough that they would make that report without being
> anonymous

I think that is naive. People get scared; especially if the threat is real!
But as I said Im not aware this was anonymous.

> a simple letter that would state that the guy is because of this 'flagged'
> and if there is any indication that there is more to it then it might be
> time for doing something about it. Until then make sure that when he gets on
> a plane that his luggage gets some extra tlc.

:( you really think that is a better approach. Firstly can you sere the media
outcry about watchlists and targeting innocents without bother to investigate
:) and I agree, it's very wrong.

I think that would be a massive OTT step. Go round, knock on his door and talk
to him about it - i.e. establish if you need to investigate or drop it.

But I can see what might have happened (and I might have revised my opinion
here); at some stage a police man was sat there and suddenly realised "shit,
Im responsible for deciding if this guy is a threat" - and then the fear sets
in that he might get it wrong and end up killing people. It's pretty
irrational but people are like that :) so this copper makes a mistake - and
needs to be disciplined ofc.

Im still not convinced there isn't a little more to this than meets the eye;
something to convince them either this guy might go ahead with this threat or
that he had the capacity to bring it off (even if it is something simple like
he works in a job associated with explosives etc. - say a chemistry teacher).

7 hours questioning is _very_ excessive; either they were treating this as a
really serious threat - or more likely he was non-cooperative (in which case
he doesn't get any sympathy from me :P)

------
kevingadd
Seems like if a terrorist really wants to cause chaos, all he has to do is
issue bomb threats from people's twitter accounts - by stealing the password
via an XSS hole, or via a phishing attack, or by accessing the account via
malware.

Depressing. Anyone who denies the value of anonymity in our modern society
should consider the cost of having your identity associated with easily
falsified forms of communication, like Twitter.

------
motters
This highlights the dilemma of social networking online. You tend to think
that you're just chatting with your small circle of friends, using in-jokes
and so on, whereas the audience may in fact be much bigger and be unable to
judge isolated comments in their intended context.

------
fghiklhnb
Similar thing happened a few years ago - somebody texted the lyrics of a Clash
song to another band member. It contained the words gun and airliner - which
resulted in special branch kicking the doors in. But the police deny there is
a monitoring system.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jun/03/terrorism.world>

(MI5/NSA - I think you are all jolly nice people who should get raises)

~~~
pmorici
You're kidding right? In the article it says the guy sent the message to the
wrong number and the recipient called the police.

------
FiReaNG3L
On the other hand, everybody would be pointing fingers at police if, indeed,
he blew the airport sky high.

~~~
conover
I wonder at what point you can give the police a pass for missing something?
What is the threshold of reasonable? Based on this article, I guess we are at
a point now where there is no threshld. Everything is a serious security
threat. Rather scary.

Edit: This also reminds me of the "You can't say bomb on an airplane." scene
in the movie Meet the Parents.

~~~
dagobart
maybe someone should redo the Monthy Python "Spam" sketch with the term
"bomb", in flight, to get everyone back down to earth

------
diN0bot
kids have been suspended from schools for decades for jokes like this,
especially after columbine. meh.

~~~
dagobart
people (authorities) should learn to realize what kidding is

------
pasbesoin
I'd like to ask what the public cost has been (and which continues to
accumulate) for this line of pursuit. Both in outright expense, and in
allocation of limited resources (thereby removing them from performing other
work, pursuing other leads, etc).

Of course, the personal cost to the Twitterer has been extreme and will likely
continue to accrue at a rate difficult to match against the resources the
State can (wastefully) afford to invest -- afford at least for the moment,
until its stupidity overwhelms even it.

(The caveat being that in democracies, the State and those resources are
(purportedly) ours. Just blaming "the State" ignores our own culpability. If
you don't like it, vote them out. If you don't know for whom to vote, inform
yourself. If you don't like any of the choices, run,)

