NY Police Chief Ray Kelly Says The Boston Bombing Takes Privacy 'Off The Table'

from the not-that-there-was-much-left-on-table... dept

In light of the recent Boston bombing, NYPD Police Chief Ray Kelly is now restructuring some sort of nonexistent deal with New Yorkers, issuing a clawback on their civil liberties. According to Kelly, the Boston Marathon bombing means privacy has been "taken off the table."

“I'm a major proponent of cameras,” Kelly said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “I think the privacy issue has really been taken off the table.”

Some of you may take issue with Kelly's assumption that the privacy "offer" has been rescinded (or that it's truly his to rescind). Well, guess what. Your opinion means nothing, at least not to the chief of the NYPD.

“The people who complain about it, I would say, are a relatively small number of folks, because the genie is out of the bottle,” Kelly said. “People realize that everywhere you go now, your picture is taken.”

Ray Kelly doesn't care much for civil liberties. He's already been questioned about the NYPD's "anti-terrorism" efforts (aided by the FBI), largely comprised of various (failed) efforts to infiltrate the Muslim community. While it's failed to produce any terrorists, it has managed to tread all over the community's civil liberties. During that discussion, a Brooklyn councilman bluntly stated that the counterterrorism efforts looked to be based on "profiling" rather than on any "real leads."

He's also been queried about the notorious "stop and frisk" program, something that largely targets young minorities (87% of all stops are non-white) while failing to produce much in terms of results (only 1 in 10 stops result in a summons or arrest; weapons are only discovered in 0.2% of the stops).

Kelly has defended these two programs with a pair dubious claims. On the anti-terrorist side, he proudly states that the city has not been attacked by terrorists since the 9/11 tragedy. Considering the average person is 8 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist, this claim is nothing more than Kelly attempting to take credit for a statistically improbable event not happening. It's about as meaningless as claiming no one has been struck by lightning twice while under his watch.

As for the "stop and frisk" program, Kelly claims the reduction in crime speaks for itself. But as NYCLU Director Donna Lieberman pointed out, there's precious little evidence this program did anything more than tag along for the ride as crime decreased across the nation.

Kelly nevertheless claims the program has saved thousands of lives during the last decade by reducing violent crime, an assertion that Lieberman calls "demonstrably false." She notes that homicides were already falling in New York before Kelly launched the stop-and-frisk program in 2003 and that since then they have declined more quickly in other big cities.

Speaking of "speaking for itself," this quote is allegedly Ray Kelly's goal for "stop and frisk."

According to [State Sen. Eric] Adams, Kelly "stated that he targeted or focused on that group because he wanted to instill fear in them that any time they leave their homes they could be targeted by police."

So, we already know Kelly's general attitude towards the rights of the citizens under his care control. It appears his view on privacy is just more of the same. The question is, how much more surveillance does he feel is justified? New York already rivals the capital of Knife Crime Island Great Britain in terms of camera usage. London's "Ring of Steel" is an Orwellian construct (even the nickname conjures thoughts of Soviet Russia's surveillance of its own citizens) that funnels drivers into areas populated by thousands of unblinking law enforcement eyes. Kelly has openly expressed his pride in NY's emulation of London's surveillance system.

Kelly acts like increased surveillance is a forgone conclusion after the Boston bombing. The investigation's most useful images and video were captured by individuals and private businesses, not by PD cameras, something surveillance advocates like Kelly keep conveniently forgetting. He claims only a few will complain and the rest will just fall in line. But where is he hearing this cry for more police and government surveillance?

As far as I can tell, there's been no public outcry demanding that the police, FBI, etc. do something to prevent another tragedy. The only voices I've heard are a variety of self-contained echo chambers who hear only the reverberations of their preconceived notions.

Kelly certainly likes hearing "privacy is off the table," even if the words had to originate from his own mouth. He said it because he truly believes it. But it serves a secondary purpose as well, something I'm sure Kelly is fully aware of. Making this statement as the resident police chief in the nation's largest city sends the message to like-minded law enforcement entities that now is the time to expand surveillance efforts. After all, who's going to stop you? A "few complainers?"

Filed Under: boston, nypd, ray kelly

Private Security Contractors Try To Shut Down Journalist Using Legal Threats And Claims Of Harassment

from the plausible-deniability:-ur-doing-it-wrong dept

Post-Boston bombing, everyone's talking about surveillance and privacy. Those doing most of the talking seem to think we need more of the former and less of the latter. And there's no getting these legislators and law enforcement officials to shut up about it, either. It almost as if they believe repetition converts false presumptions into incontrovertible facts.

Ryan Gallagher, writing for Slate, finally found someone (actually, several of them) with affinities towards increased surveillance that not only don't want to talk about the issue, but also don't want Gallagher talking about it either.

Gallagher was putting together an article on the upcoming reopening of the Statue of Liberty after its extended post-Hurricane Sandy closure. More to the point, he was curious about the updated surveillance equipment (including state-of-the-art facial recognition software) that would be making its debut at the same time.

A few weeks ago, those involved seemed willing to discuss the new system and point out its impressive features.

In March, Statue of Liberty superintendent Dave Luchsinger told me that plans were underway to install an upgraded surveillance system in time for the reopening. “We are moving forward with the proposal that Total Recall has come up with,” he said, adding that “[new] systems are going in, and I know they are state of the art.”

But when Gallagher attempted to gather a few details about the new facial recognition software (FaceVACS, made by German firm Cognitec and deployed by surveillance contractor Total Recall Corp.), no one seemed willing to provide any clear answers.

“We do work with Cognitec, but right now because of what happened with Sandy it put a lot of different pilots that we are doing on hold,” Peter Millius, Total Recall’s director of business development, said in a phone call. “It’s still months away, and the facial recognition right now is not going to be part of this phase.” Then, he put me hold and came back a few minutes later with a different position—insisting that the face-recognition project had in fact been “vetoed” by the Park Police and adding that I was “not authorized” to write about it.

That's a rather odd statement. Millius may not be authorized to talk about it, but I highly doubt private security contractors can claim a journalist is not authorized to write about it. They can react to what's written via comments or statements, but telling a writer they can't write about something pretty much guarantees it will be written about.

Millius' bizarre "order" was followed up by an email from Cognitec's marketing manager Elke Oberg. Oberg told Gallagher one day earlier that Cognitec's software would be implemented at the Statue of Liberty. The email he received a day later contained both a denial... and a threat.

Now, Oberg had sent a letter ordering me to “refrain from publishing any information about the use of face recognition at the Statue of Liberty.” It said that I had “false information,” that the project had been “cancelled,” and that if I wrote about it, there would be “legal action.”

Gallagher also received a nearly identical email from Total Recall Inc., again warning him against publishing any information on the software's on-again, off-again deployment. Even more bizarrely, Millius claimed he would pursue charges of harassment against Gallagher if he persisted in seeking answers to his questions. Representatives for the National Park Service also refused to confirm or deny any software installation.

There's a one-way street in effect here and it's being paved with discarded privacy and civil liberties. These security contractors (and their employers) want to gather as much info as they can, but when pressed for details on their software and devices they respond with diversionary tactics and threats.

The great irony here, of course, is that this is a story about a statue that stands to represent freedom and democracy in the modern world. Yet at the heart of it are corporations issuing crude threats in an attempt to stifle legitimate journalism—and by extension dictate what citizens can and cannot know about the potential use of contentious surveillance tools used to monitor them as they visit that very statue.

That's the problem -- one of many -- with the growing surveillance "culture" in America. Lots of private corporations are landing lucrative government contracts to, in essence, spy on American citizens. These companies, and the legislators and law enforcement officials that support them, deploy more and more surveillance technology and expect US citizens to hand over their dwindling privacy without offering any more of a guarantee than a "you're just going to have to trust us" statement. And yet, they provide example after example of how they cannot be trusted with this power.

Furthermore, should surveillance this sensitive really be handled by companies whose reaction to a few questions is to attempt to silence the questioner with legal threats and implausible statements about what he is or isn't "authorized" to write about? What we certainly don't need in this country is another opaque layer of "security" surrounding our public places, especially one created and serviced by two companies with some serious control issues.

Filed Under: boston, ryan gallagher
Companies: slate

Sen. Dan Coats On The Boston Bombing: You Know Who We Need To Keep An Eye On? Loners.

from the because-constant-surveillance-makes-the-unsocial-more-sociable dept

In the right hands, an attack like the Boston Bombing can make terrorists of us all. All it takes is a "type." Columbine turned trench coat ownership and Marilyn Manson fandom into signs of impending, shotgun-toting DOOM. (Or rather, "doom." Sorry.) 9/11 turned anyone with darker features and a copy of MS Flight Simulator into a suicidal zealot. Newtown turned Call of Duty players into ticking time bombs. (Mass Effect players already were ticking time bombs, but often exploded harmlessly into walls of text in Kotaku comment threads.)

Every tragedy creates a new archetype for politicians to focus on, as though suspects could be determined simply by one notable characteristic. If we (as one nation, under surveillance) could just track this one type of person, we'd be terrorist-free for years to come.

Senator Dan Coats has declared his pick for the One Type we should be keeping tabs on. In his appearance on ABC's This Week, Coats selected the Archetype Most Likely to Harm Americans. Of this, he seemed 100% sure, although his grasp on which Tsarnaev brother he is referring to is decidedly more vague, as Daniel Drezner at Foreign Policy points out.

If we go to the transcript, here's his first intervention, on whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be Mirandized:

COATS: I think we should stay with enemy combatant until we find out for sure whether or not there was a link to foreign terrorist organizations.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Even though he's a citizen?

COATS: Even though he's a citizen. There have been exceptions to this before with the public safety issue of course on Miranda rights. But also the fact that he's traveled back to his hometown which is a Muslim area, could have been radicalized back there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That was his brother though.

Now you have to hand it to Senator Coats here -- inside of ten seconds, he makes a dubious statement about the law and a factually incorrect statement. It wasn't like these were obscure facts, either, like the capital of Chechnya or something. So, great prep work, Senator Coats' staff!

Now that the Senator has gotten the "facts" out of the way, it's time to start making generalizations!

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, what do you do though if no connection to a specific group is found? Instead we just find that these young men were inspired by al Qaeda, but not directed. That's almost impossible to find.

COATS: Well it is. And that's the reality of the world we're now living in. Because we not only face terrorism from abroad, that is, planned and coordinated. We face these lone wolves or these others or whoever gathers together that has a vengeance or a demented mind or who has been kind of radicalized through over the internet or through a mosque or whatever. We're going to continue to have to understand that is a threat to America also.

That's why we all need to be engaged in not only looking out for this type of thing, but helping identify and see, whether these loners, is there a kid in the classroom that's just --

RADDATZ: He wasn't a loner. He wasn't a loner (emphasis added).

True, as Drezner offers "in fairness" to the confused senator, it did seem as though the Tsarnaevs were operating without any sort of supporting network (much as Coats seems to be himself). But is this what Coats really wants?

[L]et's skip the preliminaries and get to the more basic point. Is Dan Coats suggesting that high schools profile which kids are loners and put them onto a "possible terrorist watch list"?

"Loner" covers a lot of territory. There are loners who have been ostracized by their peers. There are others who have opted out, so to speak, and prefer a solitary existence. Coats doesn't really seem to know what he's aiming for, but he's obviously not going to let that stop him from dragging "kids in the classroom" into the national debate on terrorism.

If Coats were in charge, the acronymous agencies in charge of our nation's security would be filling their database with all sorts of presumed threats. The weird kids who just don't "fit in." The kids who have no desire to "fit in." Agoraphobics. J.D. Salinger. Sufferers of social anxiety disorder. Some shades of the autism spectrum. Lighthouse operators. Morrissey fans. Former world champion chess players. Florida Marlins season ticket holders.

More seriously, is this what Coats really thinks is a valid method for combating terrorism? Should we (meaning various law enforcement and security agencies) start tracking "loners" at an early age in order to prevent theoretical acts of terrorism? If anyone's concerned that a certain student doesn't have enough friends or participate in enough extracurricular activities, I'm sure additional conversations with school administration, guidance counselors, school psychiatrists and (the now de rigeur) "law enforcement liaisons" should make these troubled youths feel more "normal."

It's quite possible Coats didn't mean for the statement to come across as terribly as it did, especially considering his blissful unawareness of the subject matter at hand, but I'm sure there's an underlying comfort hidden within his moronic suggestion. Terrorists aren't like "normal" people -- they're weird and frightening fringe dwellers who are clearly defined by their stunted social skills and desolate Facebook profiles. Only freaks commit acts of violence, not someone who appeared to be, for the most part, your average foreign exchange student. This sort of "truth" is easier to take. It's just another form of stereotyping -- a very safe option that rarely arouses the ire of the targets and offends no particular group.

Filed Under: boston, dan coats

NYC Mayor Bloomberg Thinks Boston Bombing Renders The Constitution Obsolete

from the probably-need-to-hit-CTRL-Z-on-the-Amendments-to,-I-suppose dept

Good news, everyone. The terrorists will win and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to help. Of course, his speech is all about not letting the terrorists win. But he's giving them exactly what they want.

The Boston Marathon bombing was bound to generate this sort of reaction. It's a forgone conclusion that a tragic event like this will lead to political grandstanding and expansions of policies and plans deleterious to privacy and individual freedom. It's been twisted to argue for harsher immigration policies and held up as evidence that surveillance efforts need to be expanded.

But Bloomberg sees something else, something much more malignant than more cameras and fewer immigrants. He sees this attack as an indication that our country has outgrown its founding principles and that we can't be truly "safe" without altering the fabric of the nation.

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

You hear that, citizens? You have a "legitimate worry" and it's followed by a magnificent "but" that leads directly to a call to alter our current laws and the Constitution itself, in order to make us more "secure" than the "olden days." As these two are changed to Bloomberg's liking, I would imagine our "legitimate worries" will be slowly stripped of their legitimacy as Constitutional protections are altered to better fit today's (imagined) realities.

Bloomberg also conjures up the 9/11 attacks to assist in his burial of these pesky formative documents from "olden days."

“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.

Yes, we know there are people who want to "take away our freedoms." The problem is that, increasingly, these people are politicians and legislators -- politicians and legislators who enact laws that enable agencies like the NSA and the DHS to strip away our rights. The terrorists? They only "take away our freedoms" if we let them. And people like Bloomberg seem more than willing to capitulate to the implied demand.

Oh, but Bloomberg is worried that one aspect of the post-Boston bombing might result in curtailed rights. His one concern? That we, the people who "need" more "security" than rights, might take this recent attack to paint the Muslim religion as a hotbed of terrorism.

“What we can't do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms,” he said. “You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is. And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That’s not true … That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do.”

When we add this all up, this is what we get. Bloomberg is concerned about branding a certain religion as a terrorist breeding ground, something his police department has been doing for years. That's what's troubling to Bloomberg: some sort of lazy racism taking root. Reconfiguring the Constitution to fit his conception of the modern age? Rewriting current laws and drafting new ones to meet an exaggerated threat? Curtailing freedom and privacy in the name of "security?" This doesn't phase Bloomberg at all.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Bloomberg is in a hurry to give up your liberties. Many other politicians and legislators are more than willing to do the same. After all, these changes won't affect them nearly as much as they'll affect their constituents. But they'll be able to coattail-ride any foiled terrorist plots or relatively smooth post-attack investigations as "victories" and hold them up as "evidence" that they were right to carve up the Constitution in the name of safety and security.

Filed Under: boston, michael bloomberg, nyc

Rep. Peter King, Mayor Bloomberg Agree: Boston Bombing Shows We Desperately Need MORE Surveillance

from the several-CCTV-contractors-nod-in-sage-agreement dept

You knew it was coming. Former DHS official Stewart Baker got the ball rolling with his atrocious attempt to portray the ACLU and the EFF as hacker-and-terrorist sympathizers. A few politicians bravely read the tea leaves (while the tea was still brewing!) and declared the Boston bombing to be Exhibit A in the argument for tougher immigration laws.

Now it's time for those who love surveillance cameras to stand up and claim a piece of this tragedy as their own. An article in the Wall Street Journal collects a few quotes from some political camera enthusiasts who believe this successful manhunt justifies increased surveillance by law enforcement.

"They had to piece together I don't know how many thousands of videos," said Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican who is on the House Committee on Homeland Security. "I think CCTV [closed-circuit television] cameras are much more needed in urban areas."

The FBI and police already had "how many thousands of videos," and yet it's still not enough. More cameras are "needed." King continues this line of thinking in an interview with MSNBC.

So, I do think we need more cameras. We have to stay ahead of the terrorists and I do know in New York, the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, which is based on cameras, the outstanding work that results from that. So yes, I do favor more cameras. They're a great law enforcement method and device. And again, it keeps us ahead of the terrorists, who are constantly trying to kill us.

Constantly? That's an interesting ridiculous take on reality. (The odds of an American being killed by a terrorist attack are effectively zero.) King must spend plenty of sleepless, terrorized nights chatting with Mike Rogers, whose fear of hackers prevents him from catching any shuteye. Either that or he's been chatting with the FBI and the NYPD who it seems can barely go a week without creating and shutting down another terrorist "plot."

[Peter King worries about terrorists... but only if they're Muslim. He's perfectly fine with white Irish terrorists, seeing as he went on record during the 80s stating his support for the IRA, which notably bombed a shopping center during the Christmas season, killing six and injuring 90. He was very concerned about their civil rights. Those were his kind of terrorists. These ones, not so much.]

New York mayor Michael Bloomberg also feels the bombing in Boston justifies extensive surveillance in New York City... or more than it already has.

"The Boston bombing is a terrible reminder of why we've made these investments—including camera technology that could help us deter an attack, or investigate and apprehend those involved," New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this past week. He added the network now has the ability to "alert police to abnormalities it detects on the street, such as an abandoned package that is left on a corner."

Personally, I could do without the "terrible reminders" and the "investments." Bloomberg claims the tragedy justifies the surveillance, but there's very little effort being made to curtail either sides of this false equation. New York law enforcement seems to spend most of its time hanging out in mosques or shoving non-white male youths up against the nearest wall for a little of the old stop-and-frisk.

There's a chicken-and-egg thing going on here. Apparently, we "need" to increase surveillance because awful things happen. But when awful things fail to happen, no one in the surveillance "community" takes the time to wonder if perhaps the current surveillance efforts might be excessive. Surveillance, like any other vehicle of government control, only expands over time. Various government agencies will once again be asking you to trade privacy for security. The problem is these agencies can't promise security. The only thing they can truly guarantee is "taking" your privacy.

Filed Under: boston, peter king, surveillance

Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea

from the this-is-just-stupid dept

On Friday, while he hunt for Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was still going on (and after his bother, the other main suspect, had already been killed), Senator Lindsey Graham took to Twitter to argue that the US government, if it captures him while he's still alive, shouldn't read Dzokhar his Miranda rights. As you hopefully already know, the Miranda rights are the famous "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in court, and you have a right to an attorney" etc. The requirement for a statement along those lines (and the name of the "Miranda rights") came from a 1960s case, Miranda v. Arizona, and has since been considered a core part of American due process for those being arrested. And this is a good thing.

When Graham made his statement, many got up in arms, and argued that Graham was unfamiliar with the Constitution. While I more or less agree with the basics of that, much of that anger probably should have been directed at the Obama administration, which officially created an exception to the Miranda rules (unilaterally, without court approval) a few years back (apparently in October of 2010, though news about it only came out in March 2011).

And, indeed, after Dzhokhar was apprehended, the DOJ said that it was not reading him his Miranda Rights because it was invoking a "public safety exception" with the argument being that they needed to get him to talk to make sure the public wasn't in danger. As others have pointed out, this is a horrifically short sighted decision that can only backfire.

1. Suspending basic rights and due process out of fear is exactly the kind of thing that people attacking the US want to see. Showing that we can't live up to our most basic rights and principles in the face of a terrorist attack gives those who hate us that much more incentive to keep going. It's not just a sign of weakness, but an encouragement for those who seek to undermine our society. In fact, it takes a step in that very direction by showing that the government is willing to throw out the rules and principles when it gets a little scared by a teenager.
2. The slippery slope here is steep and extremely slick. There are no rules on when the DOJ can suddenly ignore Miranda. It gets to decide by itself. This is an organization with a long history of abusing its power, now allowed to wipe out one of the key protections for those they're arresting, whenever it sees fit. The whole point of the ruling in Miranda is that it should not be up to law enforcement. A person's rights are their rights.
3. The part that really gets me: if anything, this opens up a really, really stupid line of defense for Dzokhar Tsarnaev if he ever faces a criminal trial. His lawyers will undoubtedly claim that the arrest and interrogation was unconstitutional due to the lack of (or delay in) Miranda rights. Why even open up that possibility of a defense for him?
4. The guy has lived in the US for many years -- chances are he actually knows the fact that he has the right to refuse to speak. So, we're violating our principles, basic Constitutional due process, and opening up a massive opening for a defense, to avoid telling him something he likely already knows.

It's been said before and it'll be said again, but turning ourselves into a paranoid police state without basic rights means that those who attack us are winning. We should be better than that, and it's a shame that our leaders have no problem confirming for the rest of the world that we're not. What a shame.

Filed Under: boston, doj, dzhokhar tsarnaev, miranda rights

Rep. Steve King: Because Boston Bombing May Have Been Done By An Immigrant, We Should Block Immigration Reform

from the or,-you-know,-a-native-born-person dept

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, it's no surprise that various politicians are using it to booster their own political passions. Rep. Steve King is not a fan of immigration. Despite the fact that the country is in desperate need of massive immigration reform, King is now using the Boston Marathon bombings as an excuse to stall immigration reform efforts that finally looked like they had a chance of moving forward. What does one thing have to do with another? Well, he claims that since the bombings might have been done by an immigrant, that should make us put the brakes on reform.

"Some of the speculation that has come out is that, yes, it was a foreign national and, speculating here, that it was potentially a person on a student visa," King said to the National Review's Robert Costa. "If that's the case, then we need to take a look at the big picture."

You know what, some speculation has come out (by me) that it was really someone with the last name "King." And, you know, if that's the case, we really need to take a look at the big picture, and whether or not we should allow people with the last name King to be here, or to serve in Congress.

How is it that we elect people like this to represent us?

Filed Under: bombing, boston, boston marathon bombing, immigration, immigration reform, politics, speculation, steve king

Boston Police Are Catfishing Locals To Bust Punk Rock Shows

from the wicked-hardcore dept

The last time I bothered to read about anything involving the internet term "catfishing", it was to discuss how Deadspin broke the story of Manti T'eo and his fake, but still quite beloved, dead girlfriend. I'll admit I was unfamiliar with the term before that, but I have since discovered that catfishing, the process by which you fool someone online into thinking you are a persona you've concocted, is more common than I had thought. It has even warranted an entire show on MTV, because that network apparently forgot what the M in their name stands for. And, though I am aware that law enforcement officers will occasionally go undercover to infiltrate criminal networks, I hadn't really ever considered that there might indeed be catfishing police out there in the world.

Further on that point, if I had managed to consider that possibility, I wouldn't have imagined the police would catfish to bust up punk rock shows at the residences of citizens. Yet this is exactly what the police in Boston are attempting. Though they're not doing a very good job of it.

A recently passed nuisance control ordinance has spurred a citywide crackdown on house shows—concerts played in private homes, rather than in clubs. The police, it appears, are taking a particularly modern approach to address the issue: They're posing as music fans online to ferret out intel on where these DIY shows are going to take place. While police departments have been using social media to investigate for years, its use in such seemingly trivial crimes would be rather chilling, if these efforts didn't seem so laughably inept. It's a law enforcement technique seemingly cribbed from MTV's Catfish—but instead of creating a fake persona to ensnare the marks in a romantic internet scam, it's music fandom that's being feigned.

It truly is a brave new world, friends, when adult police can ape young punk rockers online. Or it would be, rather, if the police were generally any good at it. Sadly, or perhaps hilariously, those doing the catfishing appear to think the punk rock scene represents little beyond well-traveled young people stereotypes and lingo from the late-nineties.

"Boston Punk Zombie," reads the crudely-scrawled avatar of a green-mohawked punk with the address bostonbeatgang@gmail.com. That name is apparently a generic-brand knockoff of an infamous Boston hardcore gang. Cred achieved. "What's the point" reads the tagline under the profile pic. "Too bad you were not here this weekend," "Joe Sly" wrote. "Patty's day is a mad house I am still pissing green beer. The cops do break balls something wicked here. What's the address for Saturday Night, love DIY concerts."

One's mind revolts at the idea of hardcore, mohawked young man in skinny black jeans and leather, his piercings widening his lobes, drinking green St. Patrick's Day beer. And that isn't even the worst of the bunch.

"Hey there, local P native here," wrote one probable imposter to a local band, (who probably meant to type JP, slang for Jamaica Plain). "What is the Address for the local music show tonight?"

As Slate notes: music show!?! But even beyond the tortured word-choice, you can just tell it's wrong reading it, can't you? As with any carpet-bombing/trolling approach, the police have busted up some shows, and none of this is to say that these do-it-yourself concerts aren't an irritating form of noise-pollution for the local neighbors, but is this really where police should be spending their time and resources? Creating fraudulent social media accounts (don't us regular folk get in trouble for such skilled h4x0r-ing?), filling up the pictures with a couple of stock images of Slayer, and then doing their best cool, young kid impression? I haven't yet been able to visit Boston, but I would hope that a city that size would at least have enough pride in itself to warrant a more substantial level of crime than some kids listening to music.

Filed Under: boston, boston police, catfish, fake profiles, home concerts, police, social media