OT: Boston Bombing - CSI Type Stuff

[tuxbailey]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/boston-marathon-investigation-fbi-announce-substantial-progress-probe-170749073.html

"Authorities combed through video footage to find an image of "a suspect carrying, and perhaps dropping, a black bag at the second bombing scene," The Boston Globe reported. CBS News correspondent Bob Orr reported that the video showed a man in a black jacket talking on his cell phone "placing a black bag at the second bomb site outside of the Forum restaurant on Boylston Street and then leaving the area before that explosion." Police used the time stamp on the video to scan all the calls made in the area and track him down."



They may or may not have made an arrest depending on who you are listening too, but this is pretty amazing.

BTW, there is no privacy if the authorities want to track you down....

[saf-t]

demands lots of output.

Which may or may not be accurate. Just sayin'.......

As to the technology issue, yeah- there's all kinds of things they can do to find the guy.

[holliscx]

Haven't followed this story much other than headlines but if the purpose was to maim has there been any speculation as to why the bombs went off when they did i.e. there were far more runners and spectators earlier I assume just curious as this was one of my early thoughts.

[christian]

The majority of marathoners finish within 15 minutes of 4:00 hours. I think the gun time was 4:09 so chip time for those finishers was probably around 3:55 or 4:00. I think the timing was to maximize number of casualties.

[holliscx]

Christian I sent you a PM across the hall re: Deda bars did you get that?

re: Boston finish photos looked like the race was winding down but perhaps there was more public than I realized

[sc53]

Oh man with the CSI headline I thought you had spotted a Serotta being used in the investigation.

[BumbleBeeDave]

BTW, there is no privacy if the authorities want to track you down....

. . . is a surprise?

BBD

[Liv2RideHard]

BTW, there is no privacy if the authorities want to track you down....

Good. If it enables them to catch scum of the earth, like these pathetic worms, then big bro...listen all you want. I got nothing to hide.

[bigflax925]

. . . is a surprise?

BBD

There's no expectation of privacy in a public place.

http://www.lostinthemultiplex.com/images/1984-poster.jpg

[mktng]

enhance. and get that image off that persons eyeball

[holliscx]

Anybody else find the suspect video FBI line suspicious?

If they really had clear video footage wouldn't they release it immediately? Or if they wanted to do something covert they wouldn't announce that they had video so I don't buy their line that they have video of a suspect for either they would want to broadcast that image far and wide or conceal it so they could nab their guy(s)

I played FBI once: a guy "yard jobbed" our front yard driving his car through our yard after a heavy rain - this was popular in Virginia Beach in the 80s - I was twelve or thirteen and rode my bike every afternoon after school to every entrance to our neighborhood and would sit in a tree and watch for the car to drive by because my mom and brother saw the color and make of the car. So after staking out the neighborhood I followed the kid home one day pedaling like a MF on my Mongoose behind his car and then returned home and told my dad where he lived.

[tiretrax]

There is no such thing as privacy in public spaces. As far as the time delay in releasing the video - I'd say two days is fairly normal - it probably took a day to get all the videos and a day to run it through databases. Then, when no matches, ask the public for help.

[Mark McM]

There is no such thing as privacy in public spaces.

And this is especially known in Boston, where the Boston police lost a big civil case after the (false) arrest of someone who was capturing video of police officers very roughly arresting a suspect.


As I described in my June 8 "On Liberty" blog, the case involved Simon Glik, a passerby on the Boston Common who pulled out his cell phone video camera when he saw the Boston police punching a man as bystanders shouted, "You're hurting him."

Rather than walk away, Simon pulled out his cell phone. Standing 10 feet away, he videotaped the incident. Although he never interfered with the officers' actions, the police arrested Simon--handcuffing him and seizing his phone. They charged him with violating a wiretap statute that prohibits secret recording (although police admit that they were aware Simon was not acting secretly), aiding the escape of a prisoner, and disturbing the peace.

A court subsequently threw out all criminal charges against Simon as lacking merit. But the effort to intimidate him was clear.


So Simon and the ACLU filed a civil rights suit to ensure that other innocent people won't be similarly arrested for doing what most people would consider a civic duty--documenting public instances of police misconduct.

On Friday, the First Circuit agreed. In a decision that reads like an ode to the First Amendment as key to both liberty and democracy, the court wrote:

"The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity]. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs."

http://boston.com/community/blogs/on_liberty/2011/08/victory_for_liberty_and_the_ri.html

So not only do private citizens not have an expectation for privacy in public places, neither to government officials.

[yngpunk]

Illinois' eavesdropping law is one of the harshest in the country, making audio recording of a law enforcement officer — even while on duty and in public — a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

However, this law is under a temporary injunction and the US Supreme Court has declined to listen to an appeal by Illinois to remove the injunction. "



And this is especially known in Boston, where the Boston police lost a big civil case after the (false) arrest of someone who was capturing video of police officers very roughly arresting a suspect.




http://boston.com/community/blogs/on_liberty/2011/08/victory_for_liberty_and_the_ri.html

So not only do private citizens not have an expectation for privacy in public places, neither to government officials.