Remember the twitter Robin Hood airport thing?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Slindsay, Jan 30, 2012.

  1. Slindsay

    Slindsay All violence is necessary

    The FBI thing is a terrible/brilliant idea, discerning meaning from Natural Language/ Social Media posts is an exercise in futility. There are too many complexities starting with the fact that people will simply state the exact opposite to their view point.

    However, catching on to large scale events like a riot happening is actually pretty easy because you have the weight of averages through word frequency on your side. However, this is almost trivially easy to do with twitter's api and keyword searching so lord knows why the FBI are advertising the fact they want someone to develop a system for them. Twitters trending topics basically does it already.
     
  2. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    Put yourself in the shoes of the other guy. Let's just say your guys come across that same tweet, and figure "Aw, he looks like a nice enough fellow, he's not going to do anything" and just ignore it. Maybe this time he is some kind of terrorist and actually manages to successfully pull off a terrorist act in the US. Do you really want to be the one explaining to the American public that you thought his threat wasn't serious enough to stop?

    Like anyone else, these guys have a job to do and have to respond accordingly. Just like most cops know, just because someone calls in and claims say John Smith standing on the corner is carrying a gun doesn't necessarily mean it's actually true. However, when we go and contact that individual, we're going to treat him like he's carrying a gun until we determine otherwise. Because it'll always be the time you ignore it when it turns out to be true. Overzealous on their part, maybe, but look at all the other flack celebrities are getting from stupid tweets. It's like yelling FIRE in a movie theater and wondering why people aren't getting the joke.
     
  3. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    Back in April 2009, one of the main cities in my state, Pittsburgh, had a shootout with a deranged fellow by the name of Richard Poplawski. He was a gun nut, thought the Obama administration was going to seize his guns, a neo-Nazi, and thought Zionists were taking over America. He ended up shooting and killing three Pittsburgh police officers after ambushing them with an AK-47 and other firearms while wearing a bulletproof vest. The officers were responding to his house over a domestic call in which his mother wanted him to leave the house because his dog was peeing on the floor. After four hours, he finally gave up. This was the second worst attack on law enforcement since 9/11. Afterwards they discovered Poplawski had been posting on numerous Internet forums and social media sites about his beliefs and hinting at taking violent action. The simple fact is you never know.
     
  4. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    In which case you shouldn't let anyone in. That blond school teacher mother of three - she could be a terrorist too. Sure, the probability of that being true is 0.0001%, but screw the odds, you don't want to be the one explaining to the American public that you thought her threat wasn't serious enough to stop. And don't get me started on her kids. Little bundles of fanatical rage, all three of them.

    The chances of these kids really being terrorists was microscopic.
     
  5. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    That is sooooooo far removed from this situation that I'm a little stunned you would try to pull it off.
     
  6. Ben Gash CLF

    Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

    Yeah, these people haven't made ANY sort of threat whatsoever. This is the equivalent of you saying you're going to tear it up on a weekend in London and being questioned about your planned vandalism :rolleyes:
     
  7. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    If she had posted the same Twitter messages and was not a US national, it would be a different story. Children have been used as a ploy by terrorists before, it wouldn't be the first time.

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070320203409.spj83omw&show_article=

    If you don't want to get hassled by Homeland Security, don't post stupid stuff like that. It's simple, really.
     
  8. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    Not as far removed as you might think. Just because someone claims they made it as a joke and never did anything yet, it's somehow different? Common sense would tell you if you were visiting Buckingham Palace, it would probably not be in your best interest to joke around about blowing the place up, am I right? Don't say stupid things in the first place and you won't have a problem.
     
  9. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    But it is not provocative in the context that it was written, and DHS must have known that. Do they not have access to Urban Dictionary?

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Destroy the town

    So, if I write a Facebook status that says 'I could kill an American Cheeseburger right about now' the next time I try to enter the US, I'm going to get interrogated about my burgercidal tendencies? Do we all have to act in an uber literal way to avoid getting a rectal exam from an American customs official?

    If that's the country you want to live in, fine, but the rest of us might start vacationing elsewhere. I hear North Korea's nice this time of year.
     
  10. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    Is it? Because things people write on the Internet are never taken out of context, right? And because they really knew everything about this fellow's entire life enough to know he's "not a bad guy", right?

    So in regards to what I said before about Buckingham Palace: You don't think it would be a bad idea for someone to joke about blowing that place up while they were visiting?

    And North Korea? Please. It's not like they put him on the terrorist watch list. Look at the paperwork. He's just considered a Visa Waiver Program refusal, which means he needs to apply for a tourist visa to visit the US. Big deal.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2012
  11. Ben Gash CLF

    Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

    As you appeared to miss it the first time

     
  12. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    Like I just said, so nothing's ever been taken out of context? For what it's worth, I've never heard of the term "destroy" as what its meaning is being stated here. holyheadjch recommended UrbanDictionary.com, but interestingly enough this definition is the 11th one, the first 10 up to that point are a lot more negative.

    And again, it's not like he's on the terrorist watch list. They made him have to apply for a tourist visa now. Big deal.
     
  13. Ben Gash CLF

    Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

    It's an anglocentric usage. Stuff can be taken out of context, but a simple explanation should usually suffice :rolleyes:
    He was refused entry to the states which is a HUGE deal. For starters they're maybe $2000 out of pocket, getting a tourist visa for the US is a serious pain, and having already been refused entry to the US makes it very difficult to get.
     
  14. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    The context was clear to anyone with an IQ of more than 90. If he'd tweeted that he was going to tear up the dance floor, is it a reasonable inference that he was planning on actually tearing up the floor boards of the dance floor? Or is it more likely that he is using it in an alternative well worn, well recognised alternative form?
    That's not a valid comparison.

    A valid comparison would be if someone tweeted something like 'I'm going to Buckingham Palace next month - can't wait to try on the crown jewels'.

    Only an utter imbecile would think that the person who tweeted that had any intention whatsoever of touching the crown jewels.
    Once you've been refused entry to a country, your chances of ever being granted a Visa are about...0.01%.
     
  15. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    And we're 100% sure he's completely blameless? Perhaps they just stopped him and wanted to ask him what he meant by his comments, to give him a chance to explain himself, and he was such a tool that they decided to refuse him entry.
     
  16. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    Actually, from where I'm from, a lot of young kids say they're going to "blow the place up" when they aim to have a good time. So it's actually exactly the same thing.

    Sorry for me not thinking it's a huge loss.
     
  17. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    On the link I provided, it should be the only definition.

    Destroy the town:
    To have fun at a level where it should be considered illegal. It in no way, shape, or form, involves literally "destroying the town."(Unless you want to take it to that extreme)

    Yes, it is a big deal. Having a refusal mark on a passport also makes gaining entry to other countries difficult. What do you think is going to happen if he rocks up in Sydney next year, and when they ask him why he was refused entry he says 'they thought I was a terrorist'?
     
  18. Ben Gash CLF

    Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

    Maybe, but that's not the evidence presented to us and that's not the argument you were making.
     
  19. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    Then I would expect our immigration officials to verify that usage, consider your criminal background, and permit you entry.
    Sure. Tourism only contributes $120bn+ dollars a year into your economy. Not a huge loss at all.
     
  20. Kuma

    Kuma Lurking about

    My argument still stands: If you say something stupid and get questioned for it, it's nobody's fault but your own. Apparently they did not think his answers were suitable as they denied him entry. If his comments stood up to their inquiries, he would most likely have been allowed in.
     

Share This Page