Oregon Community College Shooting

[XtremeJibber2001]

so you are FOR the monitoring of free speech by citizens? under what legal premise? using what criteria to decide what is free speech and what is more than that?

It's done all the time, is there a law against it? Do police and federal officials avoid public demonstrations because they might hear free speech?

advocating for the monitoring of free speech by a govt agency ( which includes internet, email, chat and other "private" correspondence) and observing a public demonstration are two entirely different things...

I don't see the difference. Police Officers use social media all the time to catch perpetrators. Are they breaking the law?

[madhatter]

so you are FOR the monitoring of free speech by citizens? under what legal premise? using what criteria to decide what is free speech and what is more than that?

It's done all the time, is there a law against it? Do police and federal officials avoid public demonstrations because they might hear free speech?

advocating for the monitoring of free speech by a govt agency ( which includes internet, email, chat and other "private" correspondence) and observing a public demonstration are two entirely different things...

I don't see the difference. you don;t see the difference between public and private correspondence???? Police Officers use social media all the time to catch perpetrators. Are they breaking the law?

email, chat etc are not the same as social media... and who sets the criteria as to what meets a definition of "improper" and thus warranting the elimination of rights under the 2nd amendment?

catching a criminal who brags about a crime already committed isn't the same as posting online that you hate "X", want to see all "X" eliminated, deported or similar...

when someone says hang michael vick by his balls and feed him to a dog are they a potential criminal? if they say he should be shot is that grounds for revocation of rights?

[XtremeJibber2001]

so you are FOR the monitoring of free speech by citizens? under what legal premise? using what criteria to decide what is free speech and what is more than that?

It's done all the time, is there a law against it? Do police and federal officials avoid public demonstrations because they might hear free speech?

advocating for the monitoring of free speech by a govt agency ( which includes internet, email, chat and other "private" correspondence) and observing a public demonstration are two entirely different things...

I don't see the difference. you don;t see the difference between public and private correspondence???? Police Officers use social media all the time to catch perpetrators. Are they breaking the law?

email, chat etc are not the same as social media... and who sets the criteria as to what meets a definition of "improper" and thus warranting the elimination of rights under the 2nd amendment?

catching a criminal who brags about a crime already committed isn't the same as posting online that you hate "X", want to see all "X" eliminated, deported or similar...

when someone says hang michael vick by his balls and feed him to a dog are they a potential criminal? if they say he should be shot is that grounds for revocation of rights?

Your posts on this forum are no less or more private than if you said the same things in a coffee shop or on the steps of city hall. In the same way a Police Officer might perk up when he hears someone at a coffee shop talking about a mass shooting the same would apply to those words when the appear on social media. There is no separate set of rules governing speech on the internet or in public, it's the same.

Evaluating threats, in my opinion, is not a simple as you make it to be. Someone making a comment about Vick is one thing, but someone making a series of comments about Vick is another.

I think you first need to define privacy.

[madhatter]

It's done all the time, is there a law against it? Do police and federal officials avoid public demonstrations because they might hear free speech?

advocating for the monitoring of free speech by a govt agency ( which includes internet, email, chat and other "private" correspondence) and observing a public demonstration are two entirely different things...

I don't see the difference. you don;t see the difference between public and private correspondence???? Police Officers use social media all the time to catch perpetrators. Are they breaking the law?

email, chat etc are not the same as social media... and who sets the criteria as to what meets a definition of "improper" and thus warranting the elimination of rights under the 2nd amendment?

catching a criminal who brags about a crime already committed isn't the same as posting online that you hate "X", want to see all "X" eliminated, deported or similar...

when someone says hang michael vick by his balls and feed him to a dog are they a potential criminal? if they say he should be shot is that grounds for revocation of rights?

Your posts on this forum are no less or more private than if you said the same things in a coffee shop or on the steps of city hall. no one said they were...In the same way a Police Officer might perk up when he hears someone at a coffee shop talking about a mass shooting the same would apply to those words when the appear on social media. There is no separate set of rules governing speech on the internet or in public, it's the same.on a public forum that's quite clear, and I never said different...email, chat, instant messenger etc are not the same....

Evaluating threats, in my opinion, is not a simple as you make it to be. wait what? its obviously NOT cut and dry which was my point....who evaluates them and under what authority and what criteria? which I clearly stated previously... you ignore all the salient points of the argument then rail against the rest... Someone making a comment about Vick is one thing, but someone making a series of comments about Vick is another.so what about the 8000 page rick torre thread? how many people made numerous comments there that were far from friendly...are they all potentially criminals who should not have 2nd amendment rights?

I think you first need to define privacy.

privacy is already clearly defined...as "reasonable expectation of privacy, which most certainly includes my email, FB chat, IM chat, text messages etc...and where do you expect the manpower to come from to determine whether " ready the trains" is a serious threat, sarcasm or simple mindless rhetoric?

[deadheadskier]

I agree freeski, hence why I said in my very first comment on the subject that I feel that such intelligence gathering for when the sick tip their hands should fall under the jurisdiction of the ATF. Further education in schools sounds like a great idea as well. I'm fine with more armed security too.

Never said I want a gun ban. Think what you want.

so you want a secret police force to monitor correspondence of americans ( free speech) and then you want to use info gained during monitoring that is deemed in appropriate to be used to take away a right guaranteed by the constitution? gee what could go wrong there?

nearly none of the cases from your nyt interactive post showed any kind of behavior that was illegal or clearly presented a danger until they actually DID do something illegal...some may have but most did not...

"He graduated from the Switzer Learning Center in Torrance, Calif., which teaches students with learning disabilities and emotional issues." you want THAT to be a reason for disqualification?


"Federal officials said Mr. Flanagan bought the gun legally from a licensed dealer. He had not been convicted of a crime or determined to be mentally ill." what is the disqualifier here?

"A judge ordered him sent to a psychiatric hospital." ok possibly here but again won;t that stigmatize the mentally ill and stop them from seeking treatment?

again most of the posts are would have, could have, should have, a few are a little more substantial...

This is not a secret and is already being done, but the purpose of the data-driven analytic is not searching for shooters ... just terrorists (that's not really a difference, IMHO). In the same way the NSA and CIA score mobile and social media to identify trends in terrorist activity and act on it, the same assessment could be done to identify potential shooters. This is the same thing public companies are doing to score the internet for information on drugs (e.g., adverse events), automobiles, politics, etc.

Big data is the future and I see no reason not to apply it to detect mass shooters. How many mass shootings were, at least somewhat, predicated on electronic media? All of them?

Yup, exactly. Treat the prevention of mass shootings the same way we try and prevent terrorist attacks.

There needs to be vmore stories like this:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0QS0Z320150823" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Instead of stories like last week.

[Mister Moose]

I don't see the difference. Police Officers use social media all the time to catch perpetrators. Are they breaking the law?

I see a difference between using social media (or any public speech) to:
collect information on everyone and keep and use that information for evaluation purposes,
vs
collecting information on a specific individual that has been legitimately identified as a threat.

Big data as I understand it, collects events, not content. Who called who, how often, what patterns are observable. This is far different than watching, reading and keeping written or spoken content. Are there similar patterns in social media that would be worth tracking, ie a sudden burst of multi-site broadcasting? I'm not a fan of 'National Secret Files' on everyone. Which means me. And you. Well, except for Highway Star and Humpty.

[XtremeJibber2001]

What correspondence across internet, e-mail, chat, and other "private" correspondence do you expect privacy? I think what you're really trying to say is, across certain media, you expect some of your communication to be confidential. I would argue privacy and confidentially are not the same.

I do not agree you should have the expectation your communications on facebook and IM should be confidential. Your text messages, phone calls, etc. absolutely.

I see a difference between using social media (or any public speech) to:
collect information on everyone and keep and use that information for evaluation purposes,
vs
collecting information on a specific individual that has been legitimately identified as a threat.

Big data as I understand it, collects events, not content. Who called who, how often, what patterns are observable. This is far different than watching, reading and keeping written or spoken content. Are there similar patterns in social media that would be worth tracking, ie a sudden burst of multi-site broadcasting? I'm not a fan of 'National Secret Files' on everyone. Which means me. And you. Well, except for Highway Star and Humpty.

Collection and retention is another topic in it's entirety and I would expect it to come up once someone has determined this type of assessment would provide value. I would agree there should be limits on retention. I think this is no different than when a police officer writes a report about an incident that resulted in no arrests - it's still a record of an event that can be access later. Perhaps we treat electronic media in a similar fashion? Limiting any retention to data flagged for investigation ... same way NSA/CIA does it today and how many Fortune 100 / defense companies monitor their network for trends, vulnerabilities, etc. It's a complicated task and not one I could articulate here and there would certainly need to be pervasive controls across the process, maybe even independent oversight.

Yes, big data is generally event driven, but Artificial Intelligence is changing that. My employer employs big data to assess habits of potential customers using social media to send out targeted adds to increase brand awareness, sales, etc. It's not event drive, it's driven by algorithms applied to an individuals behavior. No different than what I'm proposing above.

Twitter posts, message boards, youtube, etc. activity that's associated with something like "mass shooting" would be an event/occurrence and trends/algorithms would be built based on data gathered over time. At a minimum, why not get MIT or someone, in agreement with FB, youtube, twitter, etc. to search the internet over the last 15 years to see if there's a trend that leads to a shooting? It would be quite interesting to see if there's a process, similar to what the FBI/CIA/NSA has done with terrorists.

[madhatter]

I agree freeski, hence why I said in my very first comment on the subject that I feel that such intelligence gathering for when the sick tip their hands should fall under the jurisdiction of the ATF. Further education in schools sounds like a great idea as well. I'm fine with more armed security too.

Never said I want a gun ban. Think what you want.

so you want a secret police force to monitor correspondence of americans ( free speech) and then you want to use info gained during monitoring that is deemed in appropriate to be used to take away a right guaranteed by the constitution? gee what could go wrong there?

nearly none of the cases from your nyt interactive post showed any kind of behavior that was illegal or clearly presented a danger until they actually DID do something illegal...some may have but most did not...

"He graduated from the Switzer Learning Center in Torrance, Calif., which teaches students with learning disabilities and emotional issues." you want THAT to be a reason for disqualification?


"Federal officials said Mr. Flanagan bought the gun legally from a licensed dealer. He had not been convicted of a crime or determined to be mentally ill." what is the disqualifier here?

"A judge ordered him sent to a psychiatric hospital." ok possibly here but again won;t that stigmatize the mentally ill and stop them from seeking treatment?

again most of the posts are would have, could have, should have, a few are a little more substantial...

This is not a secret and is already being done, but the purpose of the data-driven analytic is not searching for shooters ... just terrorists (that's not really a difference, IMHO). In the same way the NSA and CIA score mobile and social media to identify trends in terrorist activity and act on it, the same assessment could be done to identify potential shooters. This is the same thing public companies are doing to score the internet for information on drugs (e.g., adverse events), automobiles, politics, etc.

Big data is the future and I see no reason not to apply it to detect mass shooters. How many mass shootings were, at least somewhat, predicated on electronic media? All of them?

Yup, exactly. Treat the prevention of mass shootings the same way we try and prevent terrorist attacks.

There needs to be vmore stories like this:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0QS0Z320150823" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Instead of stories like last week.

Kevin Norton, 18, and James Stumbo, 27, both from Iowa, allegedly made violent threats on social media to attendees at the Pokémon World Championships, cops said.

Stumbo posted the threat Aug. 19 on a Facebook group called "Mayhem Pokémon Crew," with a photo of the shotgun and the rifle on the back of their car.

He captioned the photo: "Kevin Norton and I are ready for worlds Boston here we come!!!"

When a group member wished them good luck, Norton replied, "With killing the competition?"

On Norton's facebook, the teen had a profile picture of himself shooting a pistol.

no one is going to argue w you on that one, they made PUBLIC threats more than once and were caught attempting to carry them out while being in illegal possession of weapons....wasn't much grey area or speculation there...

[madhatter]

What correspondence across internet, e-mail, chat, and other "private" correspondence do you expect privacy? I think what you're really trying to say is, across certain media, you expect some of your communication to be confidential. I would argue privacy and confidentially are not the same.

I do not agree you should have the expectation your communications on facebook and IM should be confidential. really? whats the difference between my chat message to ONE specific addressee vs a letter via snail mail?do you really think that "private messages" shouldn't be private? see below...Your text messages, phone calls, etc. absolutely.

I see a difference between using social media (or any public speech) to:
collect information on everyone and keep and use that information for evaluation purposes,
vs
collecting information on a specific individual that has been legitimately identified as a threat.

Big data as I understand it, collects events, not content. Who called who, how often, what patterns are observable. This is far different than watching, reading and keeping written or spoken content. Are there similar patterns in social media that would be worth tracking, ie a sudden burst of multi-site broadcasting? I'm not a fan of 'National Secret Files' on everyone. Which means me. And you. Well, except for Highway Star and Humpty.

Collection and retention is another topic in it's entirety and I would expect it to come up once someone has determined this type of assessment would provide value. I would agree there should be limits on retention. I think this is no different than when a police officer writes a report about an incident that resulted in no arrests - it's still a record of an event that can be access later. Perhaps we treat electronic media in a similar fashion? Limiting any retention to data flagged for investigation ... same way NSA/CIA does it today and how many Fortune 100 / defense companies monitor their network for trends, vulnerabilities, etc. It's a complicated task and not one I could articulate here and there would certainly need to be pervasive controls across the process, maybe even independent oversight.

Yes, big data is generally event driven, but Artificial Intelligence is changing that. My employer employs big data to assess habits of potential customers using social media to send out targeted adds to increase brand awareness, sales, etc. It's not event drive, it's driven by algorithms applied to an individuals behavior. No different than what I'm proposing above.

Twitter posts, message boards, youtube, etc. activity that's associated with something like "mass shooting" would be an event/occurrence and trends/algorithms would be built based on data gathered over time. At a minimum, why not get MIT or someone, in agreement with FB, youtube, twitter, etc. to search the internet over the last 15 years to see if there's a trend that leads to a shooting? It would be quite interesting to see if there's a process, similar to what the FBI/CIA/NSA has done with terrorists.

Electronic Surveillance and phone records may also be used to gather evidence upon the issuance of a warrant.

But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1976). In general the Court has said that individuals enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own bodies, Personal Property, homes, and business offices. Individuals also enjoy a qualified expectation of privacy in their automobiles.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... of+privacy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

seems pretty clear that correspondence between two individuals that was sought to be preserved as private would be a reasonable expectation of privacy....

[XtremeJibber2001]

really? whats the difference between my chat message to ONE specific addressee vs a letter via snail mail?do you really think that "private messages" shouldn't be private? see below..

Depending on the media being used your exchange between you and another person may be accessible to others, shared, etc. However, if you're communicating via skype to someone and you're both on personal home networks than yes, you should have an expectation the conversation is confidential. Early you grouped FB into this category, which is not the same.

[madhatter]

really? whats the difference between my chat message to ONE specific addressee vs a letter via snail mail?do you really think that "private messages" shouldn't be private? see below..

Depending on the media being used your exchange between you and another person may be accessible to others, shared, etc. However, if you're communicating via skype to someone and you're both on personal home networks than yes, you should have an expectation the conversation is confidential. Early you grouped FB into this category, which is not the same.

FB chat, which is a private message sent to one or more SPECIFIC individuals, not made public or publicly posted... same w AOL instant messenger etc...

[madhatter]

even in the case of FB, Kzone etc, who determines legitimacy? none of you really imagine that when madhatter says he's "going to go out in his yard and start up all his sleds and 2 stroke motors just to make up for the gas he didn;t burn commuting" that he actually does that right?


what about someone who posts about the number of drinks consumed while skiing YESTERDAY, or driving home drunk LAST NIGHT? are those admissions of guilt and thus actionable offenses?...reckless endangerment and DUI respectively...

[steamboat1]

"Good morning, Mr. Phelps. Your mission, Jim, should you choose to accept it. As always should any member of your IMF force be caught or killed, the secretary will disavow all knowledge of your actions. This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck Jim."

[XtremeJibber2001]

or driving home drunk LAST NIGHT? are those admissions of guilt and thus actionable offenses?...reckless endangerment and DUI respectively...

I would think so. Why not?

[madhatter]

or driving home drunk LAST NIGHT? are those admissions of guilt and thus actionable offenses?...reckless endangerment and DUI respectively...

I would think so. Why not?

what was their BAC? was their assessment of whether they were drunk or not accurate? if they said they sat in the parking lot til sober then drove would that be evidence that they really did that? a whole lot of what gets said on the internet is completely inaccurate, never happened or is pure fantasy... who decides?