NYPD to Jam Cellphones

[Anti-Bunny]

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/nypd-eyes-disru.html

We also discussed the complications of media coverage that could disclose law enforcement tactics in real time. This phenomenon is not new. In the past, police were able to defeat any advantage it might give hostage takers by cutting off power to the location they were in. However, the proliferation of handheld devices would appear to trump that solution. When lives are at stake, law enforcement needs to find ways to disrupt cell phones and other communications in a pinpointed way against terrorists who are using them.

What the hell? That's their solution to stop another 9/11?

[Hanzii]

Stop terrorists from communicating and using tv and internet to find out where the police is and what they're doing.
Yeah that would be bad.

Of course it can be missused, but not any more than giving certain agencies access to firearms, and we're quite happy to do that.

[Lurb]

My older office was across the street from a big police station and cellphone coverage did cut sharply right on the closest side of the building. And the remote never opened the car in the parking.
So no remotely operated car bombs from our northern big boys. Of course that doesn't stop timed ones, or their beloved DIY unattended mortars.

[wisefool]

Questions.

What's to stop a bunch of Badguys from using walkie-talkies from say, Germany or China? I don't think they care about disrupting your TV broadcast by using illegal bands.

There's a higher chance next attack they'll just tweak a walkie talkie and transmit static on the police band.

[Grifman]

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/nypd-eyes-disru.html



What the hell? That's their solution to stop another 9/11?

No, this is there solution to dealing with another 9/11 as it occurs, not stop it.

[John Many Jars]

An American Mumbai, not another 9/11. It's a good idea. You have to figure any terror-inclined groups in the US looked at Mumbai and saw a new template for success, one they could emulate without special equipment or training.

[Robert Sharp]

Questions.

What's to stop a bunch of Badguys from using walkie-talkies from say, Germany or China? I don't think they care about disrupting your TV broadcast by using illegal bands.

There's a higher chance next attack they'll just tweak a walkie talkie and transmit static on the police band.

Pretty sure they are talking about not just about calling the cell company, but actual white noise, EMP type solutions that will temporarly knock out all radio and transmission frequencies. But who knows.

[Phil_Stein]

Hehe - I love some of the responses here.

Police take an incremental step that might help mitigate terrorist attacks, including one like the very recent one in Mumbai.

Commenters: "But it won't stop every kind of terrorist attack. It's a waste!"

When you come up with your single, all-in-one, prevent-every-kind-of-terrorist-attack device that of course does not impede in any possible way against any possible civil liberties, step right up to the plate and post it here in QT3 for all to read. (Law enforcement agencies are regularly monitoring these forums, right?)

[Lum]

It makes as much sense as cutting land lines and power (which are also often done in hostage situations).

Ironically, during a real 9/11, mobile phones won't work anyway because the grid will explode from overuse.

[Bahimiron]

I liked the story a while back about how they'd developed some kind of low frequency tone generator that would allow them to vibrate cars from a distance to grab the attention of people talking on their phones in traffic.

[Malcolm Tucker]

So this is like a localized jammer that the police set up outside a building full of bad guys? What are you dudes objecting to?

[Talisker]

I have no problem with this if they'll also let me borrow it when I go to see a movie.

[Pogo]

You can build one yourself.

[extarbags]

This would almost definitely be in violation of FCC regulations, and it would also be impractical and ineffective. An actual terror group would be at least as likely to use private two-way radios as cell phones, so such a device would have to blot out literally every frequency used for radio communications. Seems like an incredibly bad idea to me.

[Phil_Stein]

Hehe - extar - way to go. I was afraid the funny had died out in this thread.

It's pretty hard to conceive of terrorists using cell phones for coordination. Why, that hasn't happened in a major terrorist attack for at least, oh, two months (http://www.eaglespeak.us/2009/01/ny-city-police-lessons-from-mumbai.html) or so.

And if there was a Mumbai-type situation, and the terrorist were using cell phones, I certainly would expect that the FCC commissioner would come down hard on the NYPD for blocking cell traffic in the area.

[Nengjanggo]

I thought I heard on the radio yesterday that police are having discussions with cell phone providers about blocking communications in certain areas at certain times also. I'm pretty sure I heard on the radio that cell phone communications will be blocked at the presidential swearing in. I wasn't listening too closely, and I don't know anything about how cell phones work; maybe they just shut down certain antennas or something? Or the phone companies just don't transmit data that they receive from those areas? Would that be easier, and/or more possible, than massive white noise generators?

Edit: Part of the reason they were so interested in cell phones, according to the dude on the radio, is that the Mumbai attackers were receiving orders during the attack from dudes in Pakistan. So I guess cell phones make large scale, very coordinated, stuff possible that walkie talkies would not.

[extarbags]

Hehe - extar - way to go. I was afraid the funny had died out in this thread.

It's pretty hard to conceive of terrorists using cell phones for coordination. Why, that hasn't happened in a major terrorist attack for at least, oh, two months (http://www.eaglespeak.us/2009/01/ny-city-police-lessons-from-mumbai.html) or so.

And if there was a Mumbai-type situation, and the terrorist were using cell phones, I certainly would expect that the FCC commissioner would come down hard on the NYPD for blocking cell traffic in the area.

Yeah, you're right: terrorist attacks are the same every time, and police don't have to obey the law if it's important enough.

[Phil_Stein]

No extar, YOU'RE right. We shouldn't take any pro-active steps to address a significant element of a massive terrorist attack that happened just about two months ago.

And I'm sure you're a legal scholar about the ins and outs of FCC regs and law enforcement. And if it is against current laws/regs, then there's probably no possible way that we could, you know, CHANGE those laws. After all, we wouldn't want the 13 year old girls in the vicinity of a terrorist attack to have their ability to text-message impinged for a day or two.

[extarbags]

No extar, YOU'RE right. We shouldn't take any pro-active steps to address a significant element of a massive terrorist attack that happened just about two months ago.

No, Phil, what we shouldn't do is spend a bunch of time and money working on some half-effective "solution" to one out of a million possible terror scenarios, all of which are incredibly low-stakes to begin with, relative to the lower profile problems that kill orders of magnitude more Americans each year than terrorism ever has.

[NoWayJose]

No, Phil, what we shouldn't do is spend a bunch of time and money working on some half-effective "solution" to one out of a million possible terror scenarios, all of which are incredibly low-stakes to begin with, relative to the lower profile problems that kill orders of magnitude more Americans each year than terrorism ever has.
So what should the NYPD be doing about those lower profile problems?

[Jason McCullough]

I'm sure terrorists would totally not ever realize police have this capability and switch to different technology. Kind of like how they keep hijacking planes even though that clearly won't work anymore.

For situations where they have someone surrounded it's not a bad idea, just like cutting power and phone lines, but the terrorism angle is ludicrous.

[Bahimiron]

So what should the NYPD be doing about those lower profile problems?

Fucking shoot everyone at McDonalds so as to reduce heart disease in Manhattan, right?

[Phil_Stein]

I'm sure terrorists would totally not ever realize police have this capability and switch to different technology.

Alternative technologies may be less attractive to terrorists.

Consider a 2-way radio:

1) Somewhat harder to obtain
2) Harder to use
3) Much more limited range. A cell phone can easily connect to a controller in say, Pakistan. I would imagine that a 2 way radio would be much harder to connect from NYC to a distant point like that
4) Still jammable by law enforcement, I would assume. Note the line from the original article (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/nypd-eyes-disru.html): "law enforcement needs to find ways to disrupt cell phones and other communications in a pinpointed way against terrorists who are using them" [emphasis added].

===

Are you guys seriously making the argument that when terrorists use a given technology to significant effect in a successful attack, that law enforcement should not react and take steps to reduce the effectiveness of that technology for terrorists in the future? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

[extarbags]

Alternative technologies may be less attractive to terrorists.

Consider a 2-way radio:

1) Somewhat harder to obtain
2) Harder to use

Yeah, if the terrorists are four years old. I know it's cool to assume that people who do bad things are defective in every way, but it's probably not too helpful to assume that terrorists don't know how to obtain and operate devices roughly as complex as an Xbox Live headset.

3) Much more limited range. A cell phone can easily connect to a controller in say, Pakistan. I would imagine that a 2 way radio would be much harder to connect from NYC to a distant point like that

You're right; it's difficult (though not impossible) to set up two-way radios to work over that kind of distance. What's less difficult is giving instructions to people via cell phone and having them use two-ways for communication once the event starts.

4) Still jammable by law enforcement, I would assume

Yeah, well that's part of my point... it's possible to jam any radio frequency, but for this device to be effective, it would have to be able to jam every radio frequency.

Are you guys seriously making the argument that when terrorists use a given technology to significant effect in a successful attack, that law enforcement should not react and take steps to reduce the effectiveness of that technology for terrorists in the future? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

The argument I'm making is this: the lengths we go to to prevent bad things from happening should be determined by how likely the bad thing is to happen and how bad it will be if it does happen. So we should do what we reasonably can to prevent terror attacks, but engineering and deploying this machine isn't really reasonable. It would be time-consuming and expensive, it would require a lot of bureaucratic re-working of the regulations at the FCC (which, despite what a big joke you seem to think they are, are actually pretty vital laws for the operation of literally every single radio network in this country, and the consequences of breaking them can sometimes be serious in both legal and real terms), and there's no guarantee that it will work until it works on all frequencies, which only adds to the expense in both time and money, all to ward off an event that has a very low likelihood of happening even one time, let alone enough times to make it worthwhile.

[Jason McCullough]

Are you guys seriously making the argument that when terrorists use a given technology to significant effect in a successful attack, that law enforcement should not react and take steps to reduce the effectiveness of that technology for terrorists in the future? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

I'm just repeating what Bruce Schneier (http://www.schneier.com/) says, really: if you focus on counteracting individual specific movie-script tactics as the opponent uses them, you waste time and money better spent elsewhere. Stopping terrorists by jamming cellphones (and just cellphones! I could least understand trying to do broad-spectrum at least; that might actually make it somewhat difficult for the opponent) is like inspecting people's shoes in terms of pointlessness.

Reviewing the article closer, they say they don't know if the NYPD actually wants to shut down localized communications (makes sense, albeit very difficult to block all channels) or large areas of Manhattan (?)

To summarize: the Mumbai terrorists were effective because the response to them was a complete joke, not because they had cell phones.

On a side note, there must be something about working for the government in a security capacity that makes you an idiot about FISA:

The NYPD has also been at odds with the Justice Department over its attempt to get the federal government to loosen up a law governing electronic surveillance. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, warrants must be obtained to begin electronic monitoring of terror suspects, and the requests go through a multi-layered vetting process by the FBI and the Justice Department. Kelly is asking for these agencies to expedite NYPD's requests to be able to combat fast-moving terror situations.

FISA details (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act)
If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins.

You have a three-day free shot, you morons! Fucking shits just don't want any constraints at all.

[extarbags]

So what should the NYPD be doing about those lower profile problems?

I dunno, maybe crack down on drunk driving? Do a better job finding illegal guns to nip gun crime in the bud? Or hey, maybe nothing? After all, New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly isn't going to be building this in his basement in his spare time. This is something he's asking the government to pony up for, which means it has to make sense in the big picture, not just among the spectrum of things the NYPD could maybe do.

[Aeon221]

I'm sure terrorists would totally not ever realize police have this capability and switch to different technology. Kind of like how they keep hijacking planes even though that clearly won't work anymore.

For situations where they have someone surrounded it's not a bad idea, just like cutting power and phone lines, but the terrorism angle is ludicrous.

By forcing them to switch to non-optimal technologies, it's already done its job. It's, you know, an ounce of prevention. Other options are shorter range, more expensive and less secure. They're also more likely to be vulnerable to standard police techniques, yeah?

Of all the anti-terror thingies done over the past few years, this is the only one that seems like, yeah, it could work.

edit: More importantly, it's something that could also be used by allies, unlike goofy techniques.

[nlanza]

Are you guys seriously making the argument that when terrorists use a given technology to significant effect in a successful attack, that law enforcement should not react and take steps to reduce the effectiveness of that technology for terrorists in the future? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

No. They're arguing that spending money on broader-use things like intelligence and more general tactics is often a better way to spend our time than adding specific narrow restrictions to help prevent attacks that already happened.

In other words, the aim is to play for where the ball's going to be, not where it was last week.

Sometimes it does make sense to fight against specific tactics so they can't be re-used, but that can't ever be our only strategy. As 'bags pointed out, the terrorists aren't stupid. They know the rules too.

Also, this whole "if you aren't in favor of this specific tactic you must not want to fight terrorism" thing you're doing isn't helping your argument at all. "You're either with us or against us" is pretty played out by now.

[Flowers]

The point Phil, is that law enforcement always ends up using their emergency devices and techniques for increasingly piddly shit. If it came down to losing civil rights or having a lot of people die, I would rather that the people die.

That being said, it is probably fine to stop coconspirators from communicating to each other while they are engaged in the commission of felonies that endanger human life through technological means. I say that because it's legal to stop them with deadly force, and this is a less invasive method.

The danger is that police will turn on a jamming device before they engage in large scale police brutality so that it cannot be captured and transmitted by cellphone cameras. The beauty of the cellphone camera is that the footage is almost instantly beyond the reach of officers attempting to destroy evidence of police misconduct.

And if it came down to choosing between the right of people to protest without fear of police brutality or a lot of innocent people dying in an attack? Goodbye, hypothetical hostages, it was nice imagining you.

[Dave47]

The danger is that police will turn on a jamming device before they engage in large scale police brutality so that it cannot be captured and transmitted by cellphone cameras. The beauty of the cellphone camera is that the footage is almost instantly beyond the reach of officers attempting to destroy evidence of police misconduct.
For those of you questioning the plausibility of this scenario, it's worth noting that U.S. produced law enforcement devices are often sold to regimens that put them to more questionable uses. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/06/high-noise-device-for-olympics-reviewed/)

[Phil_Stein]

The argument I'm making is this: the lengths we go to to prevent bad things from happening should be determined by how likely the bad thing is to happen and how bad it will be if it does happen.
Fair enough.

So, as for likely, does the use of cell phones (successfully, it would seem) in a massive terrorist attack ~2 months ago make it likely or unlikely that terrorists might use something similar in an attack in the future?


So we should do what we reasonably can to prevent terror attacks, but engineering and deploying this machine isn't really reasonable. It would be time-consuming and expensive, it would require a lot of bureaucratic re-working of the regulations at the FCC
Sources for technical difficulty?

Sources for use of such a thing being even currently illegal?

Source for difficulty of changing the law if it is in fact illegal?

...and there's no guarantee that it will work until it works on all frequencies
There's no guarantee that any counter-terrorism measure will work. Are you contending that anti-terrorism devices that are <100% effective are not worthwhile?


all to ward off an event that has a very low likelihood of happening even one time, let alone enough times to make it worthwhile.
Terrorist used cell phones 2 months ago!!!! How many times does that need to be repeated? Is it really unlikely that a large scale terrorist operation in the future might use cell phones (or 2-way radios, FWIW)?

[Flowers]

Terrorist used cell phones 2 months ago!!!! How many times does that need to be repeated? Is it really unlikely that a large scale terrorist operation in the future might use cell phones (or 2-way radios, FWIW)?

Oh noes! Terrorist used phones! Everybody, get rid of your cellphones! They have demons in them! And for God's sake, get away from the cans! He hates these cans!

[Phil_Stein]

I'm just repeating what Bruce Schneier (http://www.schneier.com/) says, really:
If you're gonna try to use links to buttress your argument, link to something where they actually said something supporting your argument, not to their bio.


if you focus on counteracting individual specific movie-script tactics as the opponent uses them, you waste time and money better spent elsewhere.
Stop a potential terrorist communication method in a coordinated attack? Yeah, that would be a waste of time and money.

You do know that the Mumbai attack was not a movie or a movie script, right?


Stopping terrorists by jamming cellphones (and just cellphones! I could least understand trying to do broad-spectrum at least; that might actually make it somewhat difficult for the opponent)
From the original article (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/nypd-eyes-disru.html):
"When lives are at stake, law enforcement needs to find ways to disrupt cell phones and other communications in a pinpointed way against terrorists who are using them." [emphasis added]

It's bad enough when you don't click through and read the original article. But I quoted the above in post #23. That's only 2 posts above your post. It's in the same post of mine that you quoted!

Reading comprehension = FAIL


Reviewing the article closer, they say they don't know if the NYPD actually wants to shut down localized communications (makes sense, albeit very difficult to block all channels) or large areas of Manhattan (?)
Oh, so you did read the original article?

But I don't see where you're reading some kind of uncertainty in there. The quote from the NYPD guy mentions disrupting cell phones and other communications (so, more than just cell phones), in a "pinpointed way", which doesn't really imply large areas of Manhattan. Are you reading a different article?


To summarize: the Mumbai terrorists were effective because the response to them was a complete joke, not because they had cell phones.
Well I'm glad you've digested the full post-Mumbai analysis report detailing the attack and response and come to detailed conclusions about all the shortcomings. You should write up a report and send it to the NYPD, because apparently they've come to different conclusions. With your vast blog reading experience, you could really set them straight. As long as our police are not a complete joke, we can let terrorists communicate freely with no means to disrupt such communication. Right-o.

[Phil_Stein]

By forcing them to switch to non-optimal technologies, it's already done its job. It's, you know, an ounce of prevention. Other options are shorter range, more expensive and less secure. They're also more likely to be vulnerable to standard police techniques, yeah?
Forcing them to switch to non-optimal strategies is certainly part of it. Though I think that understates the advantages.

As mentioned multiple times, the discussion is about jamming a variety of communications devices, not just cell phones. I don't know whether the NYPD would be able to jam 100% of all short range comm. devices, 90%, 5%, or 0%, but then, neither do potential terrorists. That's a good thing.

While we shouldn't assume that terrorists are idiots, we also shouldn't assume that they are all super intelligent techno-geniuses either. Terrorist attacks run a gamut of sophistication, from crude to advanced.

Hardening up in areas that terrorists have exploited in the past or could easily do so in the future is a good thing, even if it is at least possible that some terrorists could avoid the hardened stuff, albeit with sub-optimal approaches.

[Flowers]

I just don't know why you didn't react similarly when guns continued their streak of killing nearly three times as many Americans per year as have ever died in a terrorist attack. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html)

For fucks sake, you are acting like they killed them with their cellphones, as opposed to, oh, I don't know, a bunch of fucking automatic weapons?

But have fun dreaming up ways to unintentionally disable every pacemaker in a six mile radius.

Oh, and my statistic only covers murder, not accidental deaths or the roughly sixty-eight percent of suicides where a gun was used, so don't bother playing a numbers game, because I made sure to keep some extra numbers handy to slap on to the figures.

[Phil_Stein]

Flowers, is it really so hard for you to understand that there are multiple elements to a terrorist attack, and that taking reasonable steps to prevent use of proven elements in the future is, umm, a pretty sensible way of reducing (not eliminating) the likelihood of successful future attacks?

Do you lock the doors on your house or your car? You know that's not 100%, right?

Also, I am well aware that there are other problems in the US besides terrorism, and that conventional non-terrorist violence (gun-driven or not) is one of them. What's your point? I'd like to see less drunk driving too - should we bring that into this discussion? Also, Super Mario Brothers on SNES is really good, and I'm thinking about watching the start of the new 24 season tomorrow - any thoughts?

[Flowers]

Flowers, is it really so hard for you to understand that there are multiple elements to a terrorist attack, and that taking reasonable steps to prevent use of proven elements in the future is, umm, a pretty sensible way of reducing (not eliminating) the likelihood of successful future attacks?

Do you lock the doors on your house or your car? You know that's not 100%, right?

Also, I am well aware that there are other problems in the US besides terrorism, and that conventional non-terrorist violence (gun-driven or not) is one of them. What's your point? I'd like to see less drunk driving too - should we bring that into this discussion?

Do you really think the chance to save fifteen or twenty people from something that may or may not happen several years from now is worth the civil liberties of millions of Americans? Because I don't. You are talking about creating a device that would make it easier for police to keep people from documenting and transmitting evidence of police brutality. As police brutality is something that does happen every day in the United States, and terrorist attacks are something that only happen every several years, I prefer to address the larger concern of civil liberties for all Americans, as opposed to the hypothetical saving of stipulated people.

To sum it up, I think you are being a giant sissy, and you are giving up your liberties to feel safe from a threat that will probably never, ever come anywhere near you. I use my civil liberties, and I was raised to believe in the United States Constitution, and the lessons of the founding fathers, and I'm not even going to bother with the quote that you can probably feel coming.

You want to know how to discourage terrorist attacks? Tell Israel to go fuck itself.

[Phil_Stein]

Do you really think the chance to save fifteen or twenty people from something that may or may not happen several years from now is worth the civil liberties of millions of Americans? Because I don't.

Umm, where's the civil liberty infraction again?

Terrorists attack, police have capability to turn off communications in a pinpointed area.

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I need some fancy legal-talkin' to tell me how that's some kind of civil liberties violation.

[Flowers]

Umm, where's the civil liberty infraction again?

Terrorists attack, police have capability to turn off communications in a pinpointed area.

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I need some fancy legal-talkin' to tell me how that's some kind of civil liberties violation.

Well, you don't have to be a lawyer, but it would help if you weren't pretending to be obtuse. I will put it to you thusly;

If you have to ask, you will never know.

Tell you what RainbowSix, in the alternative, why don't you crack open that imagination you seem so eager to use when it's time to dream up terror scenarios, and think about how it might be bad for police officers to be able to stop people from using their phones?

[Phil_Stein]

If you have to ask, you will never know.

Oh, now that is AWESOME.

===

Flowers says a bunch of idiotic stuff.

I in turn refute it.

Flowers tries to change the subject multiple times (never mind what I said about cellphones in terrorist attacks, let's talk about gun violence in conventional crimes instead!)

That tack doesn't seem to work, so Flowers waves hand and makes civil liberties claim.

When challenged - oh, well, it's much too sophisticated an argument for the likes of YOU...

Flowers, you're a lawyer right? Does this kind of stuff work with juries? That would explain a lot...

[nlanza]

Flowers says a bunch of idiotic stuff.

I in turn refute it.

Shouting "Mumbai! MUMBAI!" over and over does not exactly count as "refuting" in any sane universe.

Everybody knows that the terrorists in Mumbai used cell phones. You're not actually providing any additional information by bringing that up repeatedly.

The point, which you're still missing, is that "terrorists did this thing once" is only part of the picture.

[Phil_Stein]

Terrorists did this thing once (that I'm aware of), recently.

We apparently have the capability to make it much harder/less likely for them to use it again in the future.

What's the point that I'm missing again?

[nlanza]

Terrorists did this thing once (recently).

We have the capability to make it much harder for them to use it again in the future.

What's the point that I'm missing again?

Did you really not understand anything about the proposal other than "there's this magic switch that saves us from terrorists"?

This proposal might, on balance, be a good idea. I don't know.

But you're acting like it's an unalloyed good and has no possible downsides.

Do you not understand that there might be civil liberties problems with giving the police the power to disable cellphones? Since you like to point out recent events, consider the BART shooting and how the police attempted to confiscate cellphones and other video evidence of the shooting. You don't imagine that's the only time police officers have attempted to suppress evidence of misdeeds, do you?

Do you not understand that the time and money spent developing and implementing a cell-phone jamming system could be spent fighting terrorism in other ways, and it's important to figure out what the best use of our resources is? Nothing's free.

Do you not understand that blocking cell phones is not a cure-all, and that it's far from clear that the Mumbai terrorists succeeded because of their phones and would have failed otherwise? As has been pointed out up-thread, the monumental incompetence of the official response to that attack probably had a lot to do with its success. Perhaps we could take that as a clue, and worry less about gadgetry and more about the human factors of terrorism.

In short, yes, you're missing the point rather spectacularly.

[JackBurton]

I'll have to ask, but I was under the impression that it is pretty much standard procedure during any type of hostage situation or extended police standoff to cut the communications ability of the perps. In the past that meant cutting a telephone wire...it appears to me that this would just keeping up with technology.

Edit: spelling and grammar...

[nlanza]

I'll have to ask, but I was under the impression that it is pretty much standard procedure during any type of hostage situation or protracted police standoff it is SOP to cut the communications ability of the perps. It appears to me that this would just keeping up with technology.

Cutting specific phone lines isn't really the same as blocking radio communication in a wide area, though.

For example, consider the case of non-terrorists stuck in the middle of a situation like Mumbai. Kinda crappy if they can't call for help and give information to the authorities.

[Flowers]

Oh, now that is AWESOME.

===

Flowers says a bunch of idiotic stuff.

I in turn refute it.

Flowers tries to change the subject multiple times (never mind what I said about cellphones in terrorist attacks, let's talk about gun violence in conventional crimes instead!)

That tack doesn't seem to work, so Flowers waves hand and makes civil liberties claim.

When challenged - oh, well, it's much too sophisticated an argument for the likes of YOU...

Flowers, you're a lawyer right? Does this kind of stuff work with juries? That would explain a lot...

Phil, you didn't refute shit. What did you think you refuted? That I think people who get all huffy about potential terrorist attacks are just a playful melange of Chicken Littles and jackbooted thugs? That you will most likely never, ever, be the victim of a terrorist attack? That police routinely misuse equipment and authority that is given to them to combat a neverending stream of perpetual emergency known as the "War on _________?"

Or maybe you refuted that I called you out on being weak on gun control, and that guns happened to be the element that was infinitely more integral to their plans than chatting on their cellphones?

You are hyperventilating about something that will never claim as many lives as slippery tubs, and you, for all your powers of fantasy that you employ dreaming about the next attack, cannot conceive of a police officer doing something bad with that device.

It's not that it's a sophisticated argument, in fact, that reference to a Red Hot Chili Peppers song is meant to convey the fact that the implications of the statement are so fundamentally plain that if you must request an explanation, it betrays the fact that you are somehow lacking in a basic capacity, and so, will be unable to understand the concept even if it is explained to you with color coded puppets and you are motivated to pay attention by the prospect of receiving hard candies, as any person of normal faculties would not need an explanation, and anyone needing of an explanation probably already has pockets full of candy.

[Phil_Stein]

Do you not understand that there might be civil liberties problems with giving the police the power to disable cellphones?
There MIGHT be civil liberties problems with essentially every single power that police have. That's the whole point of police - they have guns and lots of other cool stuff and the legal authority to compel you to do things. Hopefully, they comply with the law and with common sense. Sometimes they don't. But you could use that argument (that the police might abuse it) against essentially every power and technology that the police have. It's a weak argument. What would make it strong is to suggest that there's something compelling about THIS technology that shifts the balance of potential for good/bad use towards the bad. So what's the potential for bad use? That the police cut off my cell phone access for a while? Umm, compared to all the other bad things that police can do, and all the other ways that they can misuse force and authority, sorry, I'm not seeing that as particularly bad.


Do you not understand that the time and money spent developing and implementing a cell-phone jamming system could be spent fighting terrorism in other ways, and it's important to figure out what the best use of our resources is? Nothing's free.
Absolutely correct. Has anyone provided any evidence that this technology is going to be particularly expensive? Is second guessing the technology budget decisions of the anti-terrorism component of the NYPD really the best use of QT3 posters' time.

FWIW, cell phone jamming technology already exists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_jammer) (as, of course, does radio jamming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_jamming)). I see no reason to think that the NYPD purchasing some of this technology and/or customizing something more suited to their purposes should be particularly expensive. Do you?


Do you not understand that blocking cell phones is not a cure-all
Did I say it was? Again, should we only consider technologies that are, in fact, 100% cure-alls?


...and that it's far from clear that the Mumbai terrorists succeeded because of their phones and would have failed otherwise? As has been pointed out up-thread, the monumental incompetence of the official response to that attack probably had a lot to do with its success.
I don't have a crystal ball, and I doubt you do either, so I don't know the counter-factual history (how the Mumbai attack would have gone had the terrorists not had cell phones or if police had successfully jammed them). However, with multiple small teams of terrorists moving about the city, and, presumably, the need for tactical adjustments in their plans as events unfolded, I would assume that the ability to easily and effectively communicate, with each other and/or a control entity in a safe area who could coordinate things, likely helped their operation. Do you disagree?

[Phil_Stein]

For example, consider the case of non-terrorists stuck in the middle of a situation like Mumbai. Kinda crappy if they can't call for help and give information to the authorities.
Yes, in the event of an ongoing terrorist attack, there would be a need to balance the impact of such a device against terrorists versus the impact against civilians and others. Do you think it is bad for the police to have options in this regard? Do you think that perhaps there was some point in the Mumbai attack sequence where the value of allowing civilian cell phone use within the combat zone was less than the value of cutting the terrorists' use of cell phones?

[Phil_Stein]

Flowers - again I challenge you to actually back up your argument about civil liberties issues instead of saying "Neener neener you're too stupid to understand".

And I don't see where:

A: I have introduced my thoughts on gun control into this thread.

B: Why my thoughts on gun control are germaine to this discussion.

Just for good measure, why don't you tell me what my thoughts on gun control are, since you seem to have a pretty good handle on them?

[JackBurton]

Cutting specific phone lines isn't really the same as blocking radio communication in a wide area, though.

For example, consider the case of non-terrorists stuck in the middle of a situation like Mumbai. Kinda crappy if they can't call for help and give information to the authorities.

I hear you on that, reading through the initial post and links though, the only thing Kelly mentions is pinpointed disruption...My guess is that he is describing something like setting up a moblie jammer outside the Plaze hotel if there was a hostage situation inside....doen't help someone stuck in a room much though...

Ultimately though its more of kelly's bullshit posturing and double talk. It's not really something of any interest to anyone outside of NY but reading through those links and especially his testimony it all just strikes me as more of his BS.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure the NYPD already has this technology at it's disposal but I would have to check...

[Flowers]

Dear Phil Stein,

No.

[Lum]

He HATES THESE CANS!

STAY AWAY FROM THE CANS!

http://photos21.flickr.com/29332061_4dc8725189.jpg

[Adree]

http://i44.tinypic.com/xqfgv7.gif

[CSL]

Hopefully, they comply with the law and with common sense. Sometimes they don't. But you could use that argument (that the police might abuse it) against essentially every power and technology that the police have. It's a weak argument.

Funny, I seem to remember that being the extremely pursuasive argument behind having civil liberties. That without those guarentees, hopefully the authorities will let us keep them and have some common sense. Anyone with a wit of common sense would see this as giving the police a huge wedge that they could potentially use to curtail civil liberties - using your imagination a little bit would quite easily allow you to think of five or ten potential cases of improper usage of just such a tool.

Remember, 90% of the people would probably use this kind of a tool properly. But we aren't worried about them, just the 10% who might use this kind of a tool improperly.

[nlanza]

There MIGHT be civil liberties problems with essentially every single power that police have. That's the whole point of police - they have guns and lots of other cool stuff and the legal authority to compel you to do things. Hopefully, they comply with the law and with common sense. Sometimes they don't. But you could use that argument (that the police might abuse it) against essentially every power and technology that the police have. It's a weak argument. What would make it strong is to suggest that there's something compelling about THIS technology that shifts the balance of potential for good/bad use towards the bad. So what's the potential for bad use? That the police cut off my cell phone access for a while? Umm, compared to all the other bad things that police can do, and all the other ways that they can misuse force and authority, sorry, I'm not seeing that as particularly bad.

Right, see, this is pretty much the argument any time something with potential civil liberties impact comes up. Somebody says "Oh, anything could have problems, and it'll probably be fine", and then we fast-forward 5 or 10 years and the same people are wringing their hands and saying "Well, who could have predicted there'd be a problem here?".

And who says a potential civil liberties problem has to be the worst possible problem before it's okay to think about the implications? Again, I'm not saying this proposal is necessarily a terrible idea, but the way people are rushing to embrace it without really even acknowledging that there might be problems or that it might be more complicated than "flip switch, stop terrorists" worries me.

What would the rules be? Do the police need to get a warrant? Can they just do this whenever they think there's an emergency? What's the accountability?

Also, consider the fact that the FOX News article that Wired links to talks about how the NYPD also wants to be able to conduct electronic surveillance with less scrutiny than the federal government requires. After the FISA mess, does that not concern you at all? Doesn't it maybe indicate that the NYPD isn't particularly concerned with civil liberties and may not be presenting a completely balanced account of how their proposed new powers would work?

Is second guessing the technology budget decisions of the anti-terrorism component of the NYPD really the best use of QT3 posters' time.

I'm sorry, I thought I was in P&R, where the charter is basically wasting time and second-guessing things. Am I taking up time in which you were hoping to cure cancer? If so, I do apologize.

FWIW, cell phone jamming technology already exists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_jammer) (as, of course, does radio jamming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_jamming)). I see no reason to think that the NYPD purchasing some of this technology and/or customizing something more suited to their purposes should be particularly expensive. Do you?

Presumably they aren't just buying something off the shelf and handing all their officers a user's manual. Figuring out the right technology to use costs money -- presumably they don't want to block off communications in a five-mile radius like one of the jammers in your Wikipedia link mentions, and they probably also don't want to disrupt pacemakers like another one mentions. Then there's training and policy and maintenance and so forth and so forth.

Sure, maybe it's not the most expensive thing in the world, but it's not free in either time or money. As such, and since we're talking about taxpayer money here, why isn't it legitimate for citizens to question this?

Did I say it was? Again, should we only consider technologies that are, in fact, 100% cure-alls?

No, but the way you're glossing and dismissing over any potential downside sure makes it seem like you don't think there could be any here.

I don't have a crystal ball, and I doubt you do either, so I don't know the counter-factual history (how the Mumbai attack would have gone had the terrorists not had cell phones or if police had successfully jammed them). However, with multiple small teams of terrorists moving about the city, and, presumably, the need for tactical adjustments in their plans as events unfolded, I would assume that the ability to easily and effectively communicate, with each other and/or a control entity in a safe area who could coordinate things, likely helped their operation. Do you disagree?

There's a wide gulf between "helped" and "was the key factor". There's a lot of stuff that probably helped them. We can't ban or fix it all.

"We must do something! This is something! Therefore, we must do it!" is maybe emotionally satisfying, but it's awfully bad policy.

Again, there's a near-infinite number of things we could do. The key is figuring out which ones are the best ideas and doing them, not just rushing to let the police do whatever they want and hoping they make good decisions.

[Pogo]

If you have to ask, you will never know.

Yeah you're fucking special. Keep fighting against the authoritarian state that this country is devolving into!

Phil's worried about an attack that will never come, while you're worried about the threat of a police state that is not happening, but you'll still use your "Just wait and see 5 to 10 years down the road! You'll see!" snarky shit to appear superior.

[Talisker]

http://j-walkblog.com/images2/popcorncat.gif

[extarbags]

Yeah you're fucking special. Keep fighting against the authoritarian state that this country is devolving into!

Phil's worried about an attack that will never come, while you're worried about the threat of a police state that is not happening, but you'll still use your "Just wait and see 5 to 10 years down the road! You'll see!" snarky shit to appear superior.

Nice work carefully cutting out the parts of his post and others that detail specific examples of recent events in which police tried unsuccessfully to suppress evidence of brutality, and were hampered by--guess what--cell phones.

[Aeon221]

I'm pretty sure that the video and camera elements of your cell phone will work just fine without coverage. My phone, which came free with the cell plan, manages to do it, so I'd expect expensive doohickeys like the iPhone would too.

So, given that you can still create an audiovisual record of police activity, how does temporarily losing the ability to communicate by cell create vast opportunities for police abuse? Or any opportunities, for that matter?

I don't particularly like the police, but I'm just not seeing it. Maybe one of you creative types can figure something out?

[Pogo]

Nice work carefully cutting out the parts of his post and others that detail specific examples of recent events in which police tried unsuccessfully to suppress evidence of brutality, and were hampered by--guess what--cell phones.

I can't take pictures or movies on my cell phone when I don't get reception?

This isn't a fucking EMP device we're talking about. Nice work not understanding what the hell is being talked about.

[extarbags]

I can't take pictures or movies on my cell phone when I don't get reception?

This isn't a fucking EMP device we're talking about. Nice work not understanding what the hell is being talked about.

You can't send them to people. As was noted in this thread which you appear not to have read, police tried to confiscate cell phones to suppress the evidence of this most recent shooting.

[Pogo]

And they've tried to do that with video cameras as well. Nobody's saying some police don't overstep their boundaries. Apparently, some police overstepping boundaries hasn't prevented them from carrying guns, batons, and tasers. We should get rid of all of those too.

And I'm so buying one of these http://www.cell-phone-jammers.com/

[extarbags]

And they've tried to do that with video cameras as well. Nobody's saying some police don't overstep their boundaries.

You really can't connect the dots here? They were confiscating phones.... and the reason that didn't work was because phones can send the evidence to a safe, remote location almost instantly, right? This was, again, covered in this thread. Maybe you should try reading the posts before you respond to them with your oh-so-clever name-calling.

[Aeon221]

It seems pretty self evident that cell phone blocking capability wouldn't be a standard feature on every patrol car. It'd be something carried by, say, SWAT teams.

[Pogo]

I can connect the dots just fine, but apparently it's ok for you to start stretching the notion that every cop on the force is going to have a cell phone jamming device and use it every time they attempt to make an arrest or see somebody recording them.

The lawsuits have and will come for police that do this and the law will evolve. I trust the vast majority of police to use their guns properly, I can trust the vast majority to not jam my cell phone just because I have one and am in the vicinity.

The police who abuse their powers and taser somebody improperly, or shoot them in the back, will be the same police that are looking around to try to get rid of evidence of wrongdoing.

In some cases I would say video evidence gathered by bystanders is highly prejudicial and should be confiscated. This is an extreme example, but Rodney King was videotaped getting his ass whomped by a dozen cops. The videotape conveniently didn't show King getting up (twice) after getting tasered to rush cops and attack them. It also didn't show him speeding through a school zone at 100 mph with twice the legal limit amount of alcohol in his system. I expect officers to have the authority to kick someone's fucking ass for doing these things. If King had killed someone on his drunken driving spree, the idiots in South Central would probably still have rioted because to them (and you probably) that short clip of the ass beating is all that mattered.

So yeah, keep fighting the good fight of civil liberties that, for the most part, aren't even infringed upon. You're going to need all those civil liberties while you sit on the internet fighting for them on internet message boards for the next 20 years of your life.

[extarbags]

It seems pretty self evident that cell phone blocking capability wouldn't be a standard feature on every patrol car. It'd be something carried by, say, SWAT teams.

How is that self evident? This idea exists only in the mind of the NYPD commissioner, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that such a device would be as widely deployed as the civilians who approve the funding will allow.

[Mordrak]

The lawsuits have and will come for police that do this and the law will evolve. I trust the vast majority of police to use their guns properly, I can trust the vast majority to not jam my cell phone just because I have one and am in the vicinity.


Most cops ask people to back off, turn off their camera, or try to confiscate it when they realize they are being filmed by the public.

[extarbags]

So yeah, keep fighting the good fight of civil liberties that, for the most part, aren't even infringed upon. You're going to need all those civil liberties while you sit on the internet fighting for them on internet message boards for the next 20 years of your life.

Ooooooooh ya got me. Ya got me good.

[Dave Perkins]

And I'm so buying one of these http://www.cell-phone-jammers.com/

That is the greatest Christmas gift ever. Thank you, India!

[Pogo]

Most cops ask people to back off, turn off their camera, or try to confiscate it when they realize they are being filmed by the public.

And the public doesn't have to comply with the order to turn off their cameras. Unfortunately most people won't get a lawyer to defend their actions for free. Telling somebody to back up makes sense, the police may be fearing for their safety.

Considering how many urban areas are equipping patrol cars with video cameras, I think the concept of police not allowing themselves to be taped is just widely overblown by the internet/media. I don't even have to mention how the worst circumstances always get the most coverage. You can probably find just as many stories highlighting how a citizen's use of video helped the police in their case, or justified their use of force, while at the same time you'll also find police dashboard video that shows unjustified use of force.

[Pogo]

Ooooooooh ya got me. Ya got me good.

I can think of two threads supporting my conclusion that you will, indeed, spend your next twenty years sitting on message forums in your underpants.

You got yourself.

[Aeon221]

How is that self evident? This idea exists only in the mind of the NYPD commissioner, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that such a device would be as widely deployed as the civilians who approve the funding will allow.

It stands to reason that a device intended to help in dealing with hostage situations and terror attacks would only be supplied to the groups intended to deal with said situations. In other words, SWAT.

How often do you see patrol cars with assault rifles, riot shields, tear gas, or any of the other gear that SWAT teams use to deal with hostage situations?

[Hanzii]

You really can't connect the dots here? They were confiscating phones.... and the reason that didn't work was because phones can send the evidence to a safe, remote location almost instantly, right? This was, again, covered in this thread. Maybe you should try reading the posts before you respond to them with your oh-so-clever name-calling.

When did this happen?
The BART shooting where one witness told how a female officer tried to take her cell phone? Note the word tried. Also there were several films of the incident and no stories about how the police took all those phones and the films only got out because the clever witnesses managed to press send before handing their phones over.
I guess if that had happend the story of police supressing evidence would overshadow that of a wrongfull shooting.

Maybe you should just learn to read alltogether before jumping into a thread all angry and condescending.

Yes this is yet another weapon in the police arsenal that can be misused (but not as dangerous as the guns we let all officers carry) and yes this shouldn't be a device on every officers belt, that he can use at his own discretion.
But as a tool in the along with other tools to be used when prudent and carrying certain usage rules (like perhaps getting a judge to sign off on it). Why not?

[Phil_Stein]

I'm still not seeing how this is a civil liberties issue. What civil liberties are the police violating by procuring a few such devices?

The fact that a device could conceivably be used as part of some sort of police abuse of power is not particularly notable (nor does that make it a civil liberties violation for the police to obtain such devices).

Just about any device that the police use - guns, batons, handcuffs, the various more exotic equipment of SWAT teams, etc, may conceivably be misused. Heck, even a coffeepot or a desk sergeant's pen may possibly be misused, given enough creativity. Saying that something is POSSIBLE is pretty weak sauce. Better to look at LIKELY benefits versus downsides (including possibility for misuse on the downside).

Others have pointed out that with the likely deployment of these things (a limited number of such devices assigned to special use by anti-terrorist squads, SWAT teams, and the like), the potential for abuse by beat cops is pretty low. And also, since cell phones and the like generally have the ability to record (IIUC), devices would have to be confiscated to truly protect wanton cops. While police could certainly confiscate devices (though I suspect such occasions are rare), the specific scenario that some seem to be envisioning is that police are aware that they have abused a suspect or something like that, are aware that they have been recorded, do NOT have control of those who did the recording (those who have done the recording have dispersed, perhaps), call in the SWAT team to jam local cell phones, the SWAT team agrees, arrives, performs the jamming, allowing the police to do a house to house or something and locate and confiscate the cell phones. Is that scenario POSSIBLE? Sure. Is it likely? Not particularly, IMO.

[RyanMichael]

It seems pretty self evident that cell phone blocking capability wouldn't be a standard feature on every patrol car. It'd be something carried by, say, SWAT teams.

And there's certainly not an abuse of the usage of SWAT personnel and resources (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/09/swat_fever_its_epidemic_sorry.html)! Why, all this militarization of the police is hardly noticeable (http://www.reason.com/topics/topic/226.html)!

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia!

And the public doesn't have to comply with the order to turn off their cameras.

Have you ever TRIED to contradict the order of a police officer?

"Put that camera away."
"No, it's my right!"
"Okay, you got me!"

Here's a hint - That's not how the conversation goes (http://mikecane.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/more-police-abuse-of-power/).

[Pogo]

Here's a hint - That's not how the conversation goes (http://mikecane.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/more-police-abuse-of-power/).

*sigh*

Nobody is fucking saying it doesn't happen. That is just not what occurs a majority of the fucking time.

"But some bad things could happen some of the time" isn't a good defense here, as it would imply that police shouldn't have guns or batons because they may use them improperly.

Good job on being sucked into the media claptrap, though.

[RyanMichael]

*sigh*

Nobody is fucking saying it doesn't happen. That is just not what occurs a majority of the fucking time.

"But some bad things could happen some of the time" isn't a good defense here, as it would imply that police shouldn't have guns or batons because they may use them improperly.

Good job on being sucked into the media claptrap, though.

Yeah. Isolated incident (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24844476-952,00.html), isolated incident (http://carlosmiller.com/2008/08/28/minneapolis-police-seize-cameras-days-before-republican-national-convention/), isolated incident (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/photographers-criminalised-as-police-abuse-antiterror-laws-1228149.html).

In the immortal words of one Chief Wiggum:

"Okay, folks, show's over, nothing to see here, show's - Oh, my God! A horrible plane crash! Hey, everybody, get a load of this flaming wreckage. Come on, crowd around."

[Aeon221]

And there's certainly not an abuse of the usage of SWAT personnel and resources (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/09/swat_fever_its_epidemic_sorry.html)! Why, all this militarization of the police is hardly noticeable (http://www.reason.com/topics/topic/226.html)!


You still working on a way to abuse this specific device? Oh, and I liked how all the Reason articles were written by the same guy. What's up with that?

Look, I get that the police abuse their powers. I've been on the receiving end of it several times. I'm not seeing it for this widget.

[Pogo]

Yeah. Isolated incident (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24844476-952,00.html), isolated incident (http://carlosmiller.com/2008/08/28/minneapolis-police-seize-cameras-days-before-republican-national-convention/), isolated incident (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/photographers-criminalised-as-police-abuse-antiterror-laws-1228149.html).

In the immortal words of one Chief Wiggum:

"Okay, folks, show's over, nothing to see here, show's - Oh, my God! A horrible plane crash! Hey, everybody, get a load of this flaming wreckage. Come on, crowd around."

I see that you're trying to turn this into some internet-linking-dick-wagging, but your gullible, strawman-erecting ass is not worth the time for me to bring up every story where police haven't abused their powers.

[Anti-Bunny]

Oh, and I liked how all the Reason articles were written by the same guy. What's up with that?

Radley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radley_Balko) does The Agitator (http://www.theagitator.com/about/). He is awesome (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT50-uMXvpE).

[RyanMichael]

I see that you're trying to turn this into some internet-linking-dick-wagging, but your gullible, strawman-erecting ass is not worth the time for me to bring up every story where police haven't abused their powers.

Strawman, my muscular buttocks.

Are you more likely to be endangered by a terrorist or have your civil liberties abused by a peace officer?

[Pogo]

I'm more likely to be endangered by the economic and societal effects of a large scale terrorist attack than any police officer, since I don't do stupid shit like attack cops or drive 100 mph while drunk. Your question is meaningless. Bye, I'm going to go do something else.

[extarbags]

Bye, I'm going to go do something else.

Such a loss.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Phil's worried about an attack that will never come, while you're worried about the threat of a police state that is not happening

I wish I had your confidence that it is not happening, because it sure feels like to me that it is. And I don't know why anything thinks it is inconceivable for law enforcement to decide that whatever is good for stopping terrorists is good for stopping any type of criminal - even presumed until proven in a court of law, which is Flowers' point.

[Aeon221]

Have you ever TRIED to contradict the order of a police officer?

"Put that camera away."
"No, it's my right!"
"Okay, you got me!"

Here's a hint - That's not how the conversation goes (http://mikecane.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/more-police-abuse-of-power/).

What’s next? Being arrested for videotaping the public appearances of that pack of whores who are running for the 2008 Presidency? Being arrested for videotaping them while they’re off-stage and make a comment they don’t want exposed?

Your sources are pretty crappy. That's the most egregious thing I've seen, but other than the WaPo article they're all pretty biased.

[Pogo]

Such a loss.
I consider all the oxygen particles you turn into CO2 to be a loss.
I wish I had your confidence that it is not happening, because it sure feels like to me that it is. And I don't know why anything thinks it is inconceivable for law enforcement to decide that whatever is good for stopping terrorists is good for stopping any type of criminal - even presumed until proven in a court of law, which is Flowers' point.
I understand the sentiment. I think Bush's administration did a lot to set us back on this front, particularly with the widespread institution of the broadly defined "terrorist" label and highly transparent pandering to the general populace's emotional fears.

We're still in a transitory period (and have been for several decades) where lawmakers have some blurry lines to navigate distinguishing which military laws can be applied to domestic terrorism, and how civil servants fit into it all. I do have confidence that the democracy won't let us slip into the state you're afraid of. I'll admit though, that confidence is not unwavering.

[extarbags]

I consider all the oxygen particles you turn into CO2 to be a loss.

Oh look, you're back.

I understand the sentiment. I think Bush's administration did a lot to set us back on this front, particularly with the widespread institution of the broadly defined "terrorist" label and highly transparent pandering to the general populace's emotional fears.

Cool. You know what might be just the thing for that? Continuing the Bush administration hysteria responsible for the current state of things.

[Pogo]

Cool. You know what might be just the thing for that? Continuing the Bush administration hysteria responsible for the current state of things.

We'll have to wait and see how it plays out. These things develop quickly and take a long time to undo, it seems.