The recent school shooting in Newtown, CT is proving a watershed moment for American gun control efforts—public opinion is quickly coalescing in favour of stringent regulation proposals while civic leaders scramble to respond to the outcry. But fear not New Yorkers, the NYPD has a plan—wait for potential killers to mention their murderous intentions on Facebook.
According to NYPD Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, the department’s top intelligence officers met Thursday to brainstorm over ways to prevent tragedies such as the Sandy Hook incident. As Kelly explains, this is what they came up with,
The techniques would include cyber-searches of language that mass-casualty shooters have used in e-mails and Internet postings. 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.
Law enforcement personnel would rely on a search algorithm (“cyber-searches,” if you will) to seek out “terms used by active shooters in the past that may be an indicator of future intentions,” Paul. J. Browne, the department’s chief spokesman, told the NYT. The search technique is reportedly similar to that already used by US anti-terrorism forces to pick up on terrorist chatter. The department has reportedly already sent teams to the Connecticut crime scene to collect baseline information.
While the department’s efforts to respond swiftly and decisively to this tragedy are commendable, they seem to be forgetting an important detail. Adam Lanza was a non-entity on the net with no Facebook, Twitter, or other social media accounts to speak of. Such a dragnet may very well miss threats like him but could require broad, invasive access to the emails and other private data of an estimated 19.3 million New York residents. On the other hand, the NYPD has already shown that it can effectively leverage social media in its investigations as demonstrated by the recent bust of Brooklyn’s TBO gang. So, what will it be, personal privacy or proactive protection? Let us know in the discussion below.
[New York Times - Image: zimmytws / Shutterstock]













Listen to New Tunes, Play a Trippy Space Shooter, and Poll the Masses
The Best Places in the World to Snap Photos
How to take better holiday snaps
So they’ll pull people in just for the way they use language online, even if they’re law abiding citizens? Disregard the constabulary.
Minority Report style !
With all due respect, you are a muppet. Didn’t you ever read any Orwell?
No sir strongp.
With all due respect, I have not read any Orwell. Would you kindly please explain why I am a muppet? I really don’t see any statement up there that warrants someone to name call me. I just put a comment through and if you don’t like it, please ignore it. Had it been offensive or otherwise disturbing, the site moderators/editors may have removed it or mentioned it.
Thanking You
Sorry Hulkish Thor Man – I didn’t really intend to offend, but hopefully just open your eyes. I see these proposals as a serious threat to all of our civil liberties, and your comment trivialises this issue in my eyes. In the UK we are fighting a rearguard battle against laws that will let the government store our entire browser history and email activity, and our greatest enemy is apathy amongst the very people these laws will affect.
I would recommend reading 1984 – everybody should read it once if only because it’s a fantastically written story.
I can’t think of a police force that wouldn’t want to have the right to spy on all your internet traffic – in the UK we have the snooper’s charter being formulated right now.
It’s ironic that a couple of days ago there was a press item about the government proposing to spy on job-seekers’ browser history; if they wait until the snooper’s charter becomes law they get to spy on all our browser history. While. We . Do . Nothing.
NTK: They stole our revolution. Now it’s time to steal it back.
Hmm, I’d better get a lawyer…
Here come the Thought Police…
I’m going with SOTT.net’s take on things. Sure quite a large chunk of stuff on their site is utterly ludicrous, but they seem to cover these events from interesting angles. I’m convinced.
More egg nog anyone?
seems like there’s just 2 options to me
1) get rid of guns
2) give a collective shrug whenever there’s a killing spree and say “if you have guns, every now & then people’r gonna get shot”