@leftofcentre: The 'right' to privacy in a public place

The law, as is usually the case, seldom makes such straightforward judgments - it certain DOES not say that anyone who is in a public place 'surrenders' his or her privacy rights.

I urge you to look a little deeper before making blanket statements - even anonymously.

Facebook

I have a Facebook account but seldom use it. But when I go and check my "friends," I get a list of many people, most of whom I do not know. I do not find it a very secure way to communicate with people. It does not provide me with privacy in my communication.

Tip of the privacy iceberg

While many of my friends, colleagues and even family members have been lauding the miraculous benefits of social media, I've long known that there will be/is a cost of such benefits. We are seeing examples of that in the reaction to the riot.

Chow-White sums up perfectly (in the final two paragraphs of the article) what I've been thinking - for about the past decade.

I think Professor Samuel also makes some keen observations, but I've often seen her expounding on, rather zealously, the wonders and benefits of the virtual community via social media. Her comments above are nice to read, are sobering and much needed, because it's "experts" like her that the media and citizens will go to in seeking answers to the bigger questions and critical discussions of social media.

I do wish that communications people like Samuel wouldn't append 'citizen' to every social media phenomenon. To me the term 'citizen surveillance' is a bit of a euphemism; just as 'citizen journalism' is, to me, a very generous way of saying vanity publisher. Let's call it [citizen surveillance] what it really is: vigilantism. If you really need an updated version, how about 'digital vigilantism'?

Friends and Spies

An important article.

It seems a hockey riot has become a very convenient entrance level for the training and co-option of the public into a historically 'useful' role to the state as informants-cum-vigilantes.

It has made the aftermath of the riot much more disturbing than the riot itself.

The word security in relation to the need for surveillance gets bandied around a lot - but security according to whose definition?

Fear and security go together like a horse and carriage.

They have been made for each other. For a reason.

Tread carefully.

The problem is the definition of 'troublesome', 'suspicious', 'violent' behavior is defined by the guys and gals with the platinum 'Get out of jail free' card. They make the rules and they control and write the definitions... all of which are custom-designed to exclude their own culpability.

The security of the state no longer means the security of 'the people' as it would in a real democracy - even though the marketing of the imposter it now passes for consistently tries to convince us otherwise.

No, protecting the security of the state means protecting the framework of deceit, manipulation, and distraction through which the ruling class are able to continue to hide, launder, and commit their crimes.

The issue is very simple:

The issue is very simple: "For every action there's an equal reaction"

We all learn this in highschools, all over the world, then spend years absorbing "higher education", on how to ignore the obvious and replace it with beliefs, based on screwballer theories. Like "economics".

Which means that all the so called benefits of various inventions, ideologies, faiths and policies have equally detrimental consequences.

History is the chronicle of incredible human stupidity.

Yet, humanity never seems to learn.

This is the most ridiculous part.

Ed Deak.

How come the image is blurred????

Are we not entitled to see the real face of the riot?

The Image

...can be found all over mainstream media, as the person in it has been arrested, has waived his rights as a juvenile, and apologized publicly on Saturday evening.

I guess the Tyee blurred it out of an abundance of caution.

Just a couple of points...

some of the rioters were posing for pictures...surely they understood they might go viral.

The police read out the riot act i.e. warned of arrest for unlawful assembly.

If someone is participating in an unlawful assembly, do they not lose any rights to privacy?

blurred image

As this article is about the pros and also the cons of exposing people on Facebook, we decided not be seen to be editorially weighing in on one side or the other, so we published an image with the face blurred. Thanks for the question jwstewart -- it's a good one and I'm open to all other perspectives on what we should have done.

Let there be light

Public exposure via social media is a useful tool. In confirmed instances of antisocial behavior, shaming is a valid punishment and future deterrent. In former times, shaming and banishment were used effectively in small groups to maintain social cohesion. The internet and its ability to retain information has, in a way, reduced our populous, disconnected society to a tribe: there is now nowhere to hide, the shamed can be recognized anywhere, their history will follow them - as will any public reparation for their actions. Things have changed; this new awareness of exposure and its potential personal impact might reduce people's willingness to commit (or be "caught up" in) such visible crime in the future.
Although I think the public reaction has gone overboard (as usual), I don't think it's valid to link surveillance of these rioters with possible future surveillance of political protesters. The law isn't always just and often needs to be challenged; but most can agree that this chaotic destruction had no purpose, and isn't something to defend. This was unquestionable "troublesome, violent" behaviour, caused harm to people and put others in danger, damaged Vancouver's international reputation, impacted some merchants and wasted taxpayer's money. Exposure of participants in this case is a good thing for society.
Whether or not people learn how to be good citizens online is another matter. It's too easy to post shoot-from-the-hip opinions without considering the impact, and many hide behind their perceived anonymity to comment in ways they'd never do in person.
This time is a good opportunity for the legal profession, schools and government to educate people about the importance of presumption of innocence, admissible evidence, etc.

Google CEO predicted something like this last year

Google CEO Eric Schmidt predicted something like this when he was interviewed in August 2010. To quote from the article in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704901104575423294099527212.html):

"He [Schmidt] predicts, apparently seriously, that every young person one day will be entitled automatically to change his or her name on reaching adulthood in order to disown youthful hijinks stored on their friends' social media sites."

Obviously young people today need to be educated about the repercussions of social media and how their actions (good and bad) will be recorded at every turn.

Privacy or Anonymity

Many misguided social commentators like Ms Uechi confuse privacy with anonymity. Looking back at what pre-urban societies with limited mobility, there would have been personal privacy, same as now, but no anonymity for many good reasons. The primary one was security, so a stranger would be noticed, and observed carefully until a value judgment on the risk he/she presented could be made. And anyone committing a crime would more likely be noticed and reported. With the highly mobile urban society of today, where large numbers of people confer anonymity, there is a great opportunity for criminals, and yes the rioters are criminals, to perpetrate crimes and get away with them. Thank heavens there is the promise that technology is going to make people take responsibility for their actions, or better yet, consider the consequences of the actions without an assumption of anonymity.
Now, let's get some intelligent commenting on the new, and clearly inevitable social realities aided by digital media, without "the sky is falling" reactions.

"Friends and Spies"

Lynn,
I just registered with The Tyee just to compliment you on exquisite and succinct insights into what is and what's at work.
Fred

The fallout

Our local paper (Cgy Herald) just published a story about the fallout from that very picture. The young man made a public apology, and the threats against him and family escalated to the point where they fled their house. Confirming cityzen's point about the masses going overboard as usual. All the comments to that story are sanctimomious with a hint of violence, and anyone voicing moderation is in the unwelcome minority.

Anyhow. I was pretty against the proliferation of camera's on every street corner and in every business out of concerns of privacy and big brother, but on the whole the citizen journalism is not a bad thing.

For one, it allows us to capture thousands of instances of abuses of authority by the people hired to 'serve and protect', which they fail t to do regularly, and for another because again I agree with cityzen about social ostracism being a much more potent tool than whatever the justice system is going to come up with. Even though in this case the social ostracists are coming across like the biggest intolerant, violent assholes ever.

Should or shouldn't is only up to the owner of Tyee

Mr. Beers,

With all due respect to the decision making of the photos involved in this article;

If this article attempts to address the pros and cons of exposing people on Facebook the addition of any photos, edited or unedited is a moot point and does not add anything of value to the article.

Any other riot photos could have been chosen; in particular why this one chosen and then edited?

One could make the claim that by blurring the photos the Tyee is indeed weighing in on the side of censorship.

The tragicomical part of

The tragicomical part of this whole mess is that here we have a few hundred hooligans condemned and hopefully prosecuted, for having caused a relatively minor damage, while, here in the interior, we have the USAF B52 flights over us every day, planning and training to destroy cities, countries and possibly millions of lives, while considered "heroes" .

The age old difference between self induced individual, and governments sanctioned criminal actions.

All the air generals who ordered the destruction of European and Asian cities during WW2, to terrorize the people to give up, should have been charged with war crimes and received the same punishment as the nazis and Japanese.

Religions and ideologies are supposed to be promoting love and prosperity, yet have been the biggest killers and destroyers in history.

Where is the logic, or legality , or even elementary human decency in their actions, whether they're claimed "ordered by God" or by "economic prophets"?

Will humanity ever wake up ?

Ed Deak.

Understanding the Meaning of Due Process

"The Court of Facebook" A clever title.

I'm a little surprised that no one has drawn the parallel to the Dziekanski case.

Spectator sports, including hockey, don't interest me very much. And I've never been on Facebook. Still, this topic is of some interest to me, because I've learned, from harsh experience, about the definition of "due process" and how it is so readily replaced with undue process and/or abuse of process.

I'm getting ready to bring an unprecedented case - a so-called "Charter Challenge" - before the BC Supreme Court, where I've represented myself already a number of times. The most crucial of those previous hearings - before three judges of the Court of Appeal - was never recorded.

I'm now going to ask our Chief Justices to authorize the court registry to give me the recordings of the other hearings. I was previously told, more than once, that only lawyers are entitled to receive those recordings. I believe a letter to the two CJ's is going to change that policy, but why is it necessary for an informed citizen to challenge such policies?

About ten years ago we entered the Internet age with the rapid proliferation of web-enabled applications and databases. Now we are into the Wikileaks age. If I can be surreptitiously filmed in any public place, why are there signs at the entrances to our courthouses specifically banning cameras and recording devices?

The answer is obvious. The judges don't want the public to see what goes on in the courts. They don't want an informed public. They prefer a public that engages in rioting on any excuse so that they can administer Law and Order.

Could we please

not glorify this sordid set of events with some kind of halo of being a case of citizen's rights being violated by the evil repressive regime? These people were not freedom fighters against any kind of tyranny! They were youngsters who couldn't hold their liquor or their emotions and acted out, not giving a thought to the consequences for themselves and others. I would suggest some of them qualify as neglected children, having been denied basic social training, and maybe some of them should be removed from the parents who have obviously failed them grossly. The question of exposure by fellow citizens thereby becomes a moot point, for we are (are we not?) all obliged to report children we believe to be at risk...

Would like to know how many

Would like to know how many people who are commenting here were actually stuck down town through the riots?! People need to be accountable for their actions, if you don't want to live in a society where we use social media as a way to identify criminals THEN RAISE YOUR CHILDREN WITH RESPECT AND TEACH THEM ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS! as a city we were attacked and yes we want them to take responsibility for the choices they made. These young adults grew up with social media and committed their crimes smiling for thousands of cameras - did they really think no one would stand for their city and each other ( how many civilians cars were turned over and set ablaze? Stopped counting after 10) how about the people who were trapped on burning parkades trying to get away from the violence.
I'm so sick and tried about hearing about the rights of criminals, what about the rest of us! If our laws can't protect us from such behavior and parents dont want to raise their kids with morals then expect that the people will do what they can to bring justice.

Fred R.

Thanks, Fred....much appreciated.

I think you'll often find great articles here on The Tyee followed by some great discussions.

Neglected children? Puh-leeze.

"I would suggest some of them qualify as neglected children, having been denied basic social training, and maybe some of them should be removed from the parents who have obviously failed them grossly."

Whether their parents have "failed" them or not, they're still . And given my personal experience with the public child welfare system and its results, "taking away" these kids would quite likely ensure a worse fate than the crappy parenting they look to have had so far.

Lack of brains/social training isn't a free pass to vandalize, steal and act like a chimp on crack, and if you're dumb enough to post pictures of yourself committing a crime publicly, you deserve to face the consequences thereof.

whoops, lost a sentence!

Whether their parents have "failed" them or not, they're still responsible for their actions. I'm so tired of hearing the old saw about how "society has failed little Johnny".

Our whole monetary/economic

Our whole monetary/economic system has always been and is built on theft, oppression, exploitation and destruction and the purpose of ideologies is to legalize it in favour of ruling classes.

This is what "free trade" and "globalization" are about.

Is there any wonder that punks pick it up as their right ?

Ed Deak.

Facebook

@North of Hope

It is obvious that you seldom use Facebook because you are so ill informed about it.

You only have friends on Facebook if you accept requests from the person to become a friend.

You can send private messages on Facebook.

Neglected children

@ Dorothy.....

oh p..u..l..ee..z..e

Nathan whatever from Maple Ridge was raised in an upper middle class home by apparently loving parents; he is a scholar and top class athlete. He got caught up in the hysteria of the mob moment, pure and simple.

stuck downtown by the riot

I was one of the many people in the Queen E on that night along with many children there to see the performance of Wicked. Sadly, we also got a horrific and frightening view during the intermission, cars burning, mobs running rampant and nothing but sheets of glass between us and them. Afterwards, parents tried to comfort their frightened children in the lobby, all of us afraid to leave, the VPL asking us to stay put.

Wicked, indeed!

Social Media,

Well, at least, when theres real live video of these illegal actions taking place, the perps are quickly outed and brought to a form of justice. I call this "consequences for your actions"
If we had to wait for this shambles to grind through the "for profit legal system", that's highly manipulated by the same "legal" experts that wrote the rules that they play with-in, Then we will continue to have NO justice, for the honest hard working Canadians, that live and work with in the rule of law EVERYDAY!

the system is non-functional.

understanding media

Welcome to the world of the New Ministry for State Security. The wall may have come down in East Germany but it’s being rebuilt in Canuckistan and Usa one social media layer at a time.

The Stasi are alive and rejoicing.

No one is safe in McLuhan’s global village.

what if...

the person in the photo was actually trying to pull a flaming rag out of the gas tank? Caught at just the right moment, it might look as if he/she were guilty of lighting a fire, when just the opposite was the case...

I confess I have little patience for those who keep whining that we must punish the rioters. This is so obvious as to be slightly simple - what is not simple, but in fact is very complex, is the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.The failings of of our legal system are many, but this idea is central to a democracy, and it means that neither you or I get to judge someone's guilt, that is up to the court. Let me repeat that, for a little emphasis: innocent until proven guilty by a court of law is central to a democracy.

I am waiting for the day when politicians, executives, and CEOs will be outed on facebook for their crimes against humanity.

Lai after I read your post I

Lai after I read your post I thought I would just like to have a say about the people trapped on the burning parkade, after the game was over we went to the parkade to leave but we stopped to watch things on the streets for a short while. Before long the mob moved in front and started to destroy the black and lee and blenz stores at which point we wanted to wait till they had left but what we did not know was was that they had started cars on fire down below. One by one we could hear the cars explode, and release noxious black smoke up into the air. At this point we knew it was not good but we figured that the FD would be along soon but as I found out later was that they were being held back. This was not good, a bad situation was getting worse by the minute, with about 5 cars in the park two beside and three on seymore the smoke started to get extremely bad for the twenty or so of us who just wanted to get away from the hell on the streets below. By the time the FD got to us I figured that some people could be overtaken by the smoke soon as we had to search out some breathing air where we could. When we got out I was left with a real bad headache all night my cousin turned a white hotel hand towel black from the soot. To anyone saying why didn't you just leave? We were trapped on top of a structure fire with no place to go, I think I can speak for all the trapped that we would like to thank tha VFD for helping us as well as all the others they touched that night. Without your help we don't know and don't want to think about how things could have turned out that night.
Arson endangering lives carries life in prison. There was over twenty endangered there. -Terry

VLD

Wait no longer.

Check Google for ex-congressman Weiner's on-line conversations.

Not quite crimes against humanity but getting closer.

What about Photoshop?

So, let's imagine I had a bitter break-up and decide to do a bit of quick and easy Photoshopping to slap my ex's head on someone torching a police vehicle and decide to shame him on Facebook?

Those who are such staunch supporters of public shaming and electronic stockades assume that members of the public are pure of heart. Always.

The discussion of edited photos is critical in the discussion of electronic stockades because it is just one clear example of the possibility that vigilante-ism offers the accused no opportunity to be innocent until proven guilty.

Furthermore in the specific example of the riot in Vancouver, participants and voyeurs were almost all under the age of 25. Many of you may not be able to remember back that far, but I can assure that back then you ran on half a brain just as they do.

That means that while some are correctly identified as perpetrators, others may simply be victims of ongoing cyber-bullying, or were just photoshopped in because they dissed someone's best friend, and still others are claiming responsibility falsely because even bad fame is good fame (think reality TV stuff).

Like, so totally you can't like know WTF. LOL.

Crossing the Line

I have no problem with the public reacting with comments and publicly shaming individuals involved in the riots. Being judged by the court of public opinion for your anti-social actions is inherent to how most if not all societies operate.

What I do take offence to however, is when the masses take it upon themselves to not only be judge and jury, but also to take on the role of executioner. It's one thing to hand over your evidence, make a complaint to the police and maybe also write a hateful blog or facebook post condemning the actions of the individuals involved. But in my mind, it is completely crossing the line when the public actively tries to destroy the lives of these individuals and encourage others to participate. I've heard about death threats, I've seen people distributing emails of employers, school administrators, directors of various organizations with an eye to systematically dismantling the lives of these individuals, who I might add have yet to be convicted in a court of law.

Has the riot sullied Vancouver's reputation? Yes. Have the actions of those citizenry who took it upon themselves to go beyond mere commentary and instead engaged in the vindictive destruction of the accused rioters lives, done anything to remedy this reputational damage? In my opinion it has not.

Photoshop argument is moot...

Photoshop and other photo manipulation software leaves digital artifacts that even a layman can see.

Too many people here defending criminals over society.

When it's news

I am a strong opponent of public surveillance cameras. I think it's troubling that ICBC is offering its database and technology to police. I am disturbed by the mob mentality that sometimes attends comments on facebook photos of rioters (just as I am bothered by the mob mentality that characterizes too many online forums).

However, I come at this as a journalist. When a news photographer takes a picture of a private person in a public place, that person must grant their permission for its public use unless they are part of a news event. Looting and pillaging are news events. When the public (not the state) takes out its cameras to photograph looters and then puts them in the public domain to show us what happened, that in itself is fine by me.

What would all the people who have just discovered their inner censor propose instead?

Not the rights of criminals but the rights of humans

It is not the rights of criminals but the rights of humans that is being discussed here. Perceptions of what is right and wrong vary depending on your culture and life experience. It is those who shout the loudest who create societal norms, not necessarily those who are the most moral and right. Criminals have a life experience that have lead them to where they are not necessarily out of choice. And just because there is a picture of someone somewhere looking like they are doing something doesn't mean that they did, you cannot completely understand context with a two dimensional object. Blaming is close minded! Society and community should take responsibility here. Society created these people who rioted. Mabe there is something wrong with the way we are all living our lives. Individualism has breeded people who feel no empathy. I think punishment for this riot should go beyond individuals to the greater community. For example take the violence out of hockey and most sports and we may see a society that is not so immune to the consequences of their actions. We may see less family violence for example.

Stogie, mispelling corrected....

"Nathan whatever from Maple Ridge was raised in an upper middle class home by apparently loving parents; he is a scholar and top class athlete. He got caught up in the hysteria of the mob moment, pure and simple."

"He got caught with his hand flicking a lighter under a rag placed in the gas tank of a cop car."

There, fixed it for ya.

He's a scholar and would appreciate the accuracy.

VLD

In the case of the gas tank photo at the top of this article, there's video corroborating what he was doing. Same for a vast number of the idiots, including some girl who announced TO THE TV CAMERA CREW that she'd stolen the purse she was holding from a nearby store.

If this kid is actually a scholar, he obviously missed the lesson on every action producing an equal and opposite reaction.

here we go again...

Yet more people telling us the obvious, that criminals should be punished, although I also appreciate the nuance and ability of some to see through the layers of smoke on this issue. Why do you feel compelled to tell us that those who break the law should face the consequences? No one here has suggested otherwise - we have simply pointed out that we leave the judging of crimes to the judiciary.

But I think CynthiaF has the best take on the matter: "It is not the rights of criminals but the rights of humans that is being discussed here." I watched a video of some portion of the riot in which an older (40, 50ish) man and a younger man are obviously desparately trying to get the hell out of there. I sure hope they succeeded, because the guy was knocked down twice, and was bleeding. And I hope some virtuous friend of his didn't take the opportunity to plaster his picture all over facebook, proclaiming him to be a rioter. His picture is in the public domain, but his story is not, and therein lies the problem.The community does need to take responsibility for what happened, and stop wringing their hands over the 'idiots', for we are all idiots now.

I don't live in Vancouver, nor did I attend the riot (er, hockey game) but I feel a responsibility to make my community - my province - my country - my world - a place where these kinds of things don't happen. That will only begin with thoughtful discussion, not cries for vengeance.

Hockey Street Riots

Thanks to Facebook and Twitter the citizens of B.C. have, in great measure, avoided the substantial cost and delay of bringing the offenders to justice. Furthermore, the speed in which the offenders have been apprehended - principally those offenders who have turned themselves in to the police - has been amazing. The controversy as to the propriety of exposing criminal behaviour via Facebook and Twitter will no doubt reign for some considerable time. Certainly the criminal justice system will require to evaluate the pros and cons of the situation, and perhaps address the question as to the use of public video cameras, as practiced in several european countries. Hopefully the upcoming Independent inquiry will be given a free hand to evaluate the role the police and the mayor's office played before and during the riots. Several press reports have indicated that poor planning on the part of the aforesaid parties contributed to the riots getting out of hand.

Obfuscation?

"Whether their parents have "failed" them or not, they're still responsible for their actions. I'm so tired of hearing the old saw about how "society has failed little Johnny"."

I said their parents. That's not the same as 'society'. Why do you communicate in this manipulative manner? I simply suggested another way one might look at this, where the responsibility still lies in private hands rather than those of 'society'. To my mind, this kind of thing rests with the family and the way kids were raised. (Don't get me started!) How they square it internally around the dinner table is none of our business, but we can and should hold the family collectively responsible, when the talk is of minors.

where the heart is...

"Mabe there is something wrong with the way we are all living our lives. Individualism has breeded people who feel no empathy. I think punishment for this riot should go beyond individuals to the greater community. For example take the violence out of hockey and most sports and we may see a society that is not so immune to the consequences of their actions. We may see less family violence for example."

I see where you're coming from, but you manage to set the cart before the horse. Things start at home, and then they ripple out from there, not the other way around. It requires, however, that parents pay attention to the job and are not too preoccupied with their own pain and with scraping up the dough for the good life as advertised on maximillions or such places. Children are even more attention-requiring than bon sai. Some people have not understood this. We must bring them to do so. This is where our effort should be concentrated. There will always be violence around us of one kind and another. We must equip our children to not get 'sucked in'. We cannot move everything out of reach that they can hurt themselves with; it is better to teach them horse sense.

@leftofcenter

"When you are in a public place, the law clearly states that you surrender your right to privacy. So, when you're caught on camera committing illegal acts or participating in a riot, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that these images are going to circulate wherever."

The images yes, the building of a website trying to accuse people of having comitted a crime though is a different story. Especially if the individual photo does not actually show any act (e.g. someone standing in front of a broken window shouting is not evidence that they BROKE the window).

The law is also quite clear about this: It's Libel.

"The author is just part of the same old crowd in Vancouver who feel lawbreakers should have more rights than those people whose lives and livelihoods were put into peril that night."

Sorry, but getting together a lynch mob, be it in real life or online, is still breaking the law. As the saying goes: Two wrongs don't make a right. Or to use your favourite line:

The author is just part of the same old crowd in Vancouver who feel lawbreakers should have more rights than those people whose lives and livelihoods are being put in peril by those hoodlums on the internet.

Common sense

Nature and nurture, sure. Examine social causes of disfunctional human behaviour? Absolutely. Reduce violence in hockey? Please.

Torch a cop car, smash a window, punch a stranger, and steal some Gucci? Get a lollipop, a pat on the head, and a social worker asking how we made you what you are? No. Go directly to court. Publicly apologize. Make restitution.

Is it any wonder why the right doesn't trust the left on issues related to crime? The Conservatives' prison plan and minimum sentence laws are hopelessly misguided, but some lefty rhetoric about crime makes it easier for people to support those positions.

Your right VLD

“The community does need to take responsibility for what happened, and stop wringing their hands ….”: Unfortunately that’s not going to happen.

It means going beyond the obvious. It means getting past finger pointing , faulting and blaming, booze, drugs, youth naivety, herd mentality, the power of mobs and violence in team sports.

Those that were obvious and oblivious culprits will be dealt with, hopefully through our legal system. Most will have a hard time escaping reality.

Unfortunately those whose culpability is less obvious will remain out of sight. They will continue to lay blame, like Dave Obee in today’s Times Colonist, who “doesn’t buy the notion that society is to blame for the riot”, and they will insist it was “the few hundred idiots” caught on camera.

Obee may be right, society may not be to blame for starting the riot, but that’s a semantic argument. However, our media is responsible for promoting the distortional thinking that turns athletes into glorified heros or subhuman enemies. Thinking that easily turns into mob mentality and ultimately creates and encourages criminal behaviour. These folks weren’t born with criminal intentions imprinted in their thinking, they were trained to think that way. And that training goes way beyond the parents, most of whom are equally distortional in their thinking.

It’s understandable that powerful social institutions, like the press, the police and political bodies, would want to avoid scrutiny, they have a lot to lose: Heaven forbid that we have a society that is capable of thinking clearly.

Unfortunately, until we get serious about trying to understand why people think the way they do the finger pointing and the riots will continue.

left-of-centre

"Too many people here defending criminals over society."

Hmmmm.... puts me in mind of another quote from another powermonger who thought the same way.

"Our starting point is not the individual:
We do not subscribe to the view that one should feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, or clothe the naked … Our objectives are different: We must have a healthy people in order to prevail in the world."
— Joseph Goebbels

I'm sure the resemblance is purle accidental.

Facebook

With Facebook, cell phones and cameras around why would you want our crimes recorded.The riot is the best and the worst of reality TV.

useful

i wish we used the social media tools for posting pics of discourteoys drivers and motorists breaking the laws as well as litterers

Hooligan and Vigilante

Alan Abel commented
"Let's call citizen surveillance what it really is: vigilantism."

What's the link between repudiation and attraction ?

Do Hooligan and vigilante share behaviors ?

Expanding the audience

Same behaviour, just different numbers.

In a community where people are known by their neighbours, and their neighbours witness a criminal act, there could be public shaming, threats, and vigilante-ism. There would also be witnesses who would relate events, both to their neighbours and to a court.

The difference with Facebook is that the circle of the community has been expanded dramatically.

It could be argued that the posting of photographs and identification of individuals has some beneficial effect. A photograph provides 'best [or at least better] evidence' of the perpetrators' identities. Facebook then provides a means for other witnesses to step forward, perhaps but preventing, wrongful identification and prosecution by vindictive or mistaken eyewitnesses.