New York Cops Announce Dubious Precrime Plan to Find Mass Shooters on the Internet

theintelhub.com...

“The goal would be to identify the shooter in cyberspace, engage him there and intervene, possibly using an undercover to get close, and take him into custody or otherwise disrupt his plans.”

They seem to imply that not having a social network account means you are anti social and therefore a suspect.

The Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza, did not have a Facebook or Twitter account. He was described as a mentally ill loner who avoided social interaction.
Likewise, James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado theater shooter, did not have a Facebook or Twitter page.

I'm wondering how these cases would be prosecuted. Will there be legislation to criminalize suspicious behavior?

The article goes on to say that recent shootings will be used to justify a program that is actually designed to spy on Muslims and political activist.

Despite its announced decision to use precrime techniques to uncover potential mass shooters, the New York Police department appears to be more interested in surveilling Muslims and political activists.

Honestly I always assumed this type of surveillance was already in place.

Yeah, this could potentially be an avenue used to make being introverted / a loner, or even a participant in an alternative lifestyle, a punishable crime. This is a very important step to ensure that people can be brainwashed effectively - to take away any possible safe haven where free thought could happen.

Isn't this kinda what the FBI already does by "finding" Jihadi 'extremists', then befriending them and earning their trust? The FBI then goes on to train them, coddle them, hold their hands and support them right up to handing them fake weapons and bombs to be set up with when the handcuffs come out.

Will the NYPD be supply the "Patriots" all the weapons and other things to "commit" their crimes with too? I mean, I think it's a valid question when we're into concepts of Pre-Crime. How Pre do we see it go? Do we MAKE the crime itself on the reasoning that it WOULD have happened anyway so the shredding of rights to reach the end result is just?

I know cops chase bad guys..it's their only purpose in life, so I can't say they shouldn't be doing this....but the methods and tactics give rise to major questions about motives and justice, if any, in the outcomes? How many men are out there today with BAD ideas that will never BE more than a BAD idea...until an NYPD detective enters their life to effectively end it?

I don't understand the logic here. Both shooters they themselves imply, didn't use the Internet for that purpose.

So what reason would they have to believe the Internet would be the place to look, based on that?

Is this just an excuse to scour the web for anti-american gov't activities?

reply to post by yourmaker

One name.... Jared Loughner. He was an ATS member for a brief time...among other things. There are enough of these crack pots that do make a real footprint online to make the watching of sites they are likely to pop up on a valid tactic and real concern. I don't mind cops watching sites like ATS on the same level any one of US sees stuff here. It's public after all....and what the heck, I'd call for their HEADS if a killer pulled something at my Son's school and we all learned he'd been talking about it online well in advance just to go unnoticed or ignored.

It's this concept of actually developing relationships as undercover operations that bothers me. Drugs or other areas? Not so much.. No one BECOMES a drug dealer because a cop came along. However, this world is SO subjective and the crimes themselves....so vague in definition sometimes.

So...thought police.
Yeah, baby! Bring it on!

Seriously though, this HAS to be dead in the water. If it isn't it is time for me to find another country to live in.
Seriously

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The problem with it is that they are trying to link the LACK of an online presence on sites like Facebook with mass murderers. I know several people that would fit this bill of theirs. Do you not trust the Government? Ah, I see you're not on Facebook either... tisk tisk tisk. Come with us please.

Isn't this kinda the premise of the movie Minority Report?

To be honest, most of these mass killers leave such a "crazy" imprint that it should be rather easy to track them down and then cross reference if there are guns in the household or recent purchases of body armor and the like.

It is a slippery slope though... what else will law enforcement use such tools for?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Isn't this kinda what the FBI already does by "finding" Jihadi 'extremists', then befriending them and earning their trust? The FBI then goes on to train them, coddle them, hold their hands and support them right up to handing them fake weapons and bombs to be set up with when the handcuffs come out.

Will the NYPD be supply the "Patriots" all the weapons and other things to "commit" their crimes with too? I mean, I think it's a valid question when we're into concepts of Pre-Crime. How Pre do we see it go? Do we MAKE the crime itself on the reasoning that it WOULD have happened anyway so the shredding of rights to reach the end result is just?

I know cops chase bad guys..it's their only purpose in life, so I can't say they shouldn't be doing this....but the methods and tactics give rise to major questions about motives and justice, if any, in the outcomes? How many men are out there today with BAD ideas that will never BE more than a BAD idea...until an NYPD detective enters their life to effectively end it?

This is exactly what happened in portland a few years ago. Its one of those things, how can someone NOT say its a good thing they caught the guy? Nevermind that they pushed him to do it and supplied the (non-functioning) bomb.

www.oregonlive.com...

People want to talk about slippery slopes, well, this ones covered in KY Jelly.

reply to post by darkbake

this could potentially be an avenue used to make being introverted / a loner, or even a participant in an alternative lifestyle, a punishable crime.

This is what worries me also darkbake if this takes hold then a cascade of indicators could occur in the minds of the average person that would make people paranoid and suspicious of anyone odd or different.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Isn't this kinda what the FBI already does by "finding" Jihadi 'extremists', then befriending them and earning their trust? The FBI then goes on to train them, coddle them, hold their hands and support them right up to handing them fake weapons and bombs to be set up with when the handcuffs come out.

Right. The way it works now, the feds will give perps the opportunities that they probably would not have had otherwise. I'm not saying I am against this tactic but I would bet some of the perps would never have launched their plans without the influence of the undercover agents.

How would one practically implement this program anyway? (1) Even if you could statistically narrow down potential future killers using demographic/social statistics, criminal profiling, and internet tracking/usage, you would still be left with thousands of potential candidates across a broad geographical range. These candidates would then have to be filtered out through a more fine-comb method of investigation, tracking, spying and what not. How would one implement this practically? Would we have FBI and CIA agents descend into local schools across the nation and interview teachers and classmates about certain students who they have targeted on this previous list? (2) Furthermore, would this even be legal and constitutional. (3) And what type of man-power and cost would this have in order to even be implemented effectively? I find this just completely impractical.

-Ghoster

reply to post by yourmaker


Not saying i agree with the move but there is a chance shooters are giving away their plans on the internet before they kill people.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

##snipped##


Two different posts from 4chan. I learned about these posts on reddit.

Raist

reply to post by theghoster


They won't care one bit about the legality of such things. They'll pawn it off like the end justifies the means. Just as we are seeing in Paragould, Arkansas with SWAT patrolling the city streets, confiscating IDs and checking for guns to combat crime. And guess what? The people will lap it up.

Of course this is for your protection and there is nothing dystopian about it

Come on now, they are using profiling techniques to get an idea of who they should be watching. They didn't imply not having a social network would be a crime or anything ridiculous like that. They try to develop profiles to give themselves some sort of framework to determine who they should watch. You can't watch everybody, they don't have the resources. They have to use some method to figure out who's most likely to commit this sort of thing and try to get a better idea if the person is planning something.

It's like Columbine. Could that shooting have been prevented if the police had been engaging in active investigatory efforts to find people like Eric Harris who was posting bomb making plans and threats on the internet? That's the sort of thing you want police to do. Or do you feel that them responding to a shooting as it is occurring (reactionary police response) is all they should be doing?

Well they've got a lot of work ahead of them..

www.socialbakers.com...

They only have about 54% of the population using their service. Twitter has even less.

www.alexa.com...

compare twitter to Facebook.com here, FB reaches about 42-45% and twitter only 8% and that's counting every country. oh and their is an incredible amount of fake accounts on them usually used for spamming.

Other people use other social networks, forums could be considered a social network which lots of people use instead of FB.

reply to post by tanda7

Right. The way it works now, the feds will give perps the opportunities that they probably would not have had otherwise. I'm not saying I am against this tactic but I would bet some of the perps would never have launched their plans without the influence of the undercover agents.

You know, that is really where I see the line on this, too. Right about where they cross into what the guy couldn't have done or wouldn't have done without the Agents help. I guess they must get around outright entrapment by that stage being crossed well after initial contact and the investigation starting. Personally, I don't see a distinction for how it still isn't very much that when they are taking people all but by the hand into places not otherwise possible.

My biggest question on this is a pretty obvious one when you think about it. I'd absolutely think about it as a Juror. I'll tell you that. Just how dangerous can these guys be....and how skilled a terrorist are they when they are repeatedly given bombs that aren't even explosive ...or have major malfunctions in their assembly at BEST......and/or weapons that can't fire and they never know it? These cases keep happening and now we want to trust them with even more? Hmm......

When even the training itself is supplied by the prosecution/government....how can it be called prosecution with a straight face? If they want to call it prosecuting stupidity for being blindly led how these guys are, at least it would be honest, right?

reply to post by grimreaper797

They didn't imply not having a social network would be a crime or anything ridiculous like that.

That's true. What I said was;

They seem to imply that not having a social network account means you are anti social and therefore a suspect.

I should have made it more clear by saying "...therefore a SUSPECT of a PRE crime."
I agree with you. If I were tasked with sniffing out dangerous elements on the internet I would not hesitate in;

creating an algorithm that would search online “for terms used by active shooters in the past that may be an indicator of future intentions.”

(from the article)
I'm neither surprised by this nor against it. But it raises questions for me.


reply to post by yourmaker

reply to post by christoph

The reason that part of the article interested me is this.
Making this observation in the article,

The Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza, did not have a Facebook or Twitter account. He was described as a mentally ill loner who avoided social interaction.
Likewise, James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado theater shooter, did not have a Facebook or Twitter page.

is a step toward shaping public opinion. The seeds are being planted in the culture to encourage online interaction, or be deemed abnormal.
Those percentages you supplied are rising daily, according to your links christoph, last month over 2% increase (not 2% overall).

reply to post by tanda7


Eventually there will probably be a government social network that you get an account created that you can't delete when you are born lol. You will be watched if you don't post every aspect of your life. If you eat a burger, and it's tasty, you damn well better talk about it.