The head of the FBI believes that a spike in violent crime in many cities may be due to officers' fears of showing up on Internet videos confronting suspects.
FBI Director James Comey told reporters Wednesday that a "viral video effect" is leading to less aggressive policing that "could well be at the heart" of an alarming increase in murders in many cities, according to an account recorded by the New York Times.
"There's a perception that police are less likely to do the marginal additional policing that suppresses crime -- the getting out of your car at 2 in the morning and saying to a group of guys, 'Hey, what are you doing here?'" he told reporters.
Comey's remarks came after he was briefed on rising crime rates in more than 40 cities during the first quarter of 2016. The director did not reveal specific statistics, and the FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
James Comey, welcome to the panopticon you dragged the rest of us into. It's rather a double-edged sword, isn't it?
Related Stories
James Comey has been asked by President Trump to stay on as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Comey is three years into a ten-year term.
News at NYT (which broke the story), USA Today, Washington Post, CNN, and The Hill.
Here's the bulk of our extensive past coverage of FBI Director Comey's career (oldest first):
2014:
FBI Director Concerned about Encryption on Smartphones
F.B.I. Director Calls "Dark" Devices a Hindrance to Crime Solving
To FBI Director Comey: You Reap What You Sow!
2015:
F.B.I. Has No Doubt that North Korea Attacked Sony, says Director
FBI Chief Links Video Scrutiny of Police to Rise in Violent Crime
2016:
Apple Ordered by Judge to Help Decrypt San Bernadino Shooter's phone
FBI Unable to Decrypt California Terrorists' Cell Phone
FBI vs. Apple Encryption Fight Continues
New York Judge Sides with Apple Rather than FBI in Dispute over a Locked iPhone
Apple Lawyer and FBI Director Appear Before Congress
FBI Error Locked San Bernardino Attacker's iPhone
FBI's iPhone Hack Only Works on 5C and Older
Washington Post: The FBI Paid "Gray Hat(s)", Not Cellebrite, for iPhone Unlock
FBI Director Blames 'Viral Video Effect' for Spike in Violent Crime
FBI Recommends No Prosecution for Clinton
FBI Chief Calls for National Talk Over Encryption vs. Safety
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @08:08AM
Crooked LEOs are afraid to illegally beat up and murder civilians! This problem must be fixed!
(Score: 3, Funny) by mcgrew on Friday May 13 2016, @03:26PM
Crooked LEOs are afraid to illegally beat up and murder civilians!
Well, if their orbits are crooked they'll fall out of orbit, but all but the biggest will burn up on re-entry. But what's Low Earth Orbit got to do with viral videos and the FBI?
Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(Score: 5, Insightful) by quintessence on Friday May 13 2016, @08:37AM
The head of the FBI believes
That's peachy. Fuck science, fuck criminology, fuck statistical analysis. This man believes!
More interesting article about reducing crime that's evidence based:
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/12/how-gentrification-and-immigration-could-help-fight-crime/7824/ [citylab.com]
Cue sensible debate over firearms ;)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @10:28AM
That's peachy. Fuck science, fuck criminology, fuck statistical analysis. This man believes!
The encryption "debate" has already made it perfectly clear that neither Comey nor the rest of the administration are especially fond of things like "facts", "proofs" and "reality".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by quintessence on Friday May 13 2016, @10:52AM
It's not just Comey.
As a society, we frequently employ the "[activity I find loathsome] causes [newest moral panic]" argument. It's just a step away from "burn the witch".
We've been down this road about a billion other times with comic books, D'n'D, heavy metal, video games, etc. that someone who doesn't have a peer reviewed study in front of him should probably be ridiculed. And the head of the FBI should be relieved of duties (not even kidding) for bringing scientific woo into a matter as grave as law enforcement.
This is televangelist grade idiocy here (the other article makes clear treating people with more respect reduces crime).
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 13 2016, @10:23PM
that someone who doesn't have a peer reviewed study in front of him should probably be ridiculed.
The social sciences are a joke, so even if you do have a peer reviewed study, it means very little. But I suppose they could at least wait until the study has been replicated many times and there's actual scientific consensus; that would be a bit better.
But really, even if [activity] is proven to cause [bad thing], that doesn't mean that we as a society should ban the activity. That's what a lot of these people fail to understand. How we choose to react to the data is entirely up to us, and the science has nothing to say about that. We can choose to not be authoritarians.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday May 13 2016, @12:07PM
7. Collect DNA from everyone. Using DNA evidence to aid investigations has been shown to be cost-effective, and expanding databases will only increase that effectiveness. It also has the potential to create a more just system. For example, if you are concerned that minorities are disproportionately coming in contact with the criminal justice system, expanded DNA databases will increase the pool of potential suspects beyond minorities currently over-represented in the system.
Yeah, I'll ignore that page then.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by AndyTheAbsurd on Friday May 13 2016, @01:34PM
Rather than merely ignoring the page, you should provide a rational counter-argument to the point made in the section you quoted. The author has provided an argument for collecting DNA from everyone, you can provide an argument against that policy.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by devlux on Friday May 13 2016, @04:33PM
Well here's the actual problem with that idea.
It doesn't work.
People like to think that DNA is some sort of 100% perfect match, but it's really not. It's a fuzzy match system like any other biometric.
The more people you have in a database like that the more false positives you're going to have.
Consider a really great system. One which is 99% accurate. Sounds great right?
But if you have 100 samples you're going to, on average see 1 false positive.
So with a population of 250,000,000 you're going to have at least 250,000 potential suspects.
DNA is only useful for ruling out, not ruling in, i.e. this person shares traits with that person.
FYI this is already well understood and has a proper name. It's called the Prosecutors Fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by devlux on Friday May 13 2016, @04:35PM
Correction...
DNA is only useful for ruling out, not ruling in, i.e. this person does not share traits with that person.
Sorry about that, not sure what's up with my English skills lately.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday May 13 2016, @06:45PM
Consider a really great system. One which is 99% accurate. Sounds great right?
Yeah, except for the part where it's built right into the system that the 1%-ers get off scott-free!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @04:49PM
Well, this may be an anecdote masquerading as a counter-argument, but look at how close one man was to being convicted of rape [mlive.com] because a lesbian decided to lie her ass off. Well, to be fair to her, all that she lied her ass off about was that she had been raped (claimed not to know who her rapist was since she just wanted to save face with her girlfriend--or possibly the Michigan womyn-born-womyn community, who knows). The police did the dutiful DNA legwork to locate the guy.
That is one lucky man that the detective he spoke to wasn't a white knight who holds the irrational and demonstrably false feminist belief that cisfemale hunnies never lie about rape.
Something else to think about: I could not find that story using Google. DuckDuckGo found it as the first hit. My search terms were "site:mlive.com rape accusation dna hotel wife" on both sites, just based on a vague recollection of some keywords that might narrow it down from every other time a man has been falsely accused of rape. Lizard people manipulating search engines so as to present a reality where it's unpossible that a cisfemale hunny could lie about rape or that there could be any harm done to liberty and justice by letting cops consult a huge database of DNA samples willy-nilly? Better not use search engines like Google that are controlled by the lizard people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @10:08PM
Google = feminist fucks.
Same reason they delisted 8chan.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 13 2016, @10:33PM
Because collecting everyone's DNA is unethical and a blatant violation of their freedoms (privacy). We may not understand all the ways that this will be abused (ways that DNA can be abused are already known, but as technology improves, the abuses will likely get worse and become much more sophisticated), but the government makes it its job to find ways to destroy innocent people, and their dedication usually produces a result eventually. The fact that normal people can't imagine the current or future implications of this means nothing. Suggesting that the government have everyone's DNA is extremely authoritarian.
It's rather sad that so many people are only or almost only concerned with the practical benefits that something brings, rather than principles, freedom, and ethics. You would think this would be different in countries that supposedly strive to be free, but it really isn't. I still see people arguing solely about the efficacy of mass surveillance, as if that's the main issue with it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Saturday May 14 2016, @05:48AM
Sure. For one, it is coercion, this DNA information are being taken involuntarily. The creation of a compulsory database is to say "if you don't give us your DNA, we will kill you". Are you really willing to kill someone who does not accept having their DNA information taken? In the real world, death is the final argument for all law enforcement, and you better keep that in mind for every single law proposed.
Furthermore, most requests for a DNA database assume that only government employees would have access to it. Or would you be willing for everyone to have access to everyone else's DNA information? If not, then you are assuming government employees are more trustworthy than the general populace. And again, who is going to maintain this database? Whoever does will be effectively immune to any DNA based prosecution. The creation of a DNA database assumes that there exists a group of overseers who deserve the trust and authority to forcefully take and store biological data from every person. It's an absurd suggestion.
There are a lot of things we could do to make law enforcement easier. We could eliminate warrants, legal representation, no self incrimination, double jeopardy, ex post facto stanards, many things. You should be more afraid of police than burglars though. Burglars are friendly and harmless compared to what idle police will do.
Finally, anyone who says "oh because racism" is a troll who doesn't deserve a response in the first place. The "reason" quoted was stupid and doesn't deserve a counter argument. The proper response to "because racism" is derision.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 14 2016, @09:25AM
you can provide an argument against that policy.
The 9th Amendment says I don't need to if somehow the 4th Amendment doesn't apply here.
On the other hand, may I get a copyright to my DNA and fingerprints? I would be glad to license my intellectual property to law enforcement at the rate of $10,000 per week.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday May 13 2016, @08:48AM
Surely, the poor economic situation and the "survival" attitude it triggers in people have absolutely now correlation with increased violence, how could that be?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by dltaylor on Friday May 13 2016, @08:55AM
I've got a bridge for sale down in San Diego; great cash flow.
The man is a professional liar.
(Score: 1) by Osamabobama on Friday May 13 2016, @06:46PM
Regarding toll bridges in San Diego, it may be interesting (for potential buyers) to note that the Coronado Bridge stopped charging tolls in 2002. Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org] that it was the last bridge in California to collect tolls. For your misinformation needs, here is the official government page on the subject, still stuck in 1999: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/tollbridge/Coronado/Corofacts.html [ca.gov]
On the other hand, there is a pedestrian bridge [crossborderxpress.com] to the Tijuana Airport from San Diego that charges $12 to cross. I'm not sure what the cash flow looks like for that one, but it's only been open since December 2015, so its track record is limited.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 3, Touché) by captain normal on Friday May 13 2016, @10:34PM
From the link to Wikipedia that you posted: " On June 27, 2002, it became the last toll bridge in Southern California to discontinue tolls,...". There is a hell of a difference between "Southern California" and the other 2/3 of California. In the San Francisco bay area there are at least 6 bridges that still charge tolls.
The Musk/Trump interview appears to have been hacked, but not a DDOS hack...more like A Distributed Denial of Reality.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheReaperD on Friday May 13 2016, @09:03AM
I'm sure he has no ulterior motive for saying this such as wanting police and FBI to be unaccountable to the public and pushing for laws that ban recording or 'interfering' with police for any reason. <sarcasm>That can't be the reason for his position.</sarcasm>
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @09:12AM
One reason - though this cannot account for the total increase - is that LEOs are being charged with assault, attempted murder and murder when they treat "civilians" they way the LEOs are encouraged (and previously allowed) to treat them. LEOs are also being charged more frequently with other crimes like attempted rape, sexual assault and rape.
Remember kids, if your crimes aren't being whitewashed then you're (finally) part of the problem.
(Score: 3, Funny) by mcgrew on Friday May 13 2016, @03:31PM
LEOs are being charged with assault
Pssst... officer, this is a nerd site. LEO is low earth orbit here. The three letter non-acronym word you're searching for is "cop". Substitute LEO and we know you are one, your AC isn't keeping that secret. Fool!
Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday May 13 2016, @09:20PM
For the record, I'm not a cop. I also use the term LEO quite liberally to refer to Law Enforcement Officers. It shouldn't be that strange to you man, it's still three letters like CIA/NSA/FBI/ATF/DOD :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday May 14 2016, @02:00PM
Why are you using a three letter acronym for a three letter word (cop)? That's plain stupid.
Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(Score: 3, Touché) by devlux on Friday May 13 2016, @10:10PM
Psst. Let me give you a new word to add to your vocabulary.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/context [dictionary.com]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday May 14 2016, @01:56PM
No, I stand by the comment. Here, LEO means Low Earth Orbit. Calling a cop an LEO says something about the poster, like maybe he IS one, and he's certainly not a nerd. Maybe a marketer but certainly has no interest in science or technology.
I have a bias against acronyms anyway. When there's a three letter WORD that is synonymous with your acronym and the acronym has more than one use, using the acronym is brain-dead STUPID. FBI? That's okay, the full thing is unwieldy, but LEO for "cop" is dumb, dumb, dumb.
NO CONTEXT IS NEEDED IF YOU KNOW THE LANGUAGE. And if you're using the coefficient of performance acronym, use upper case.
Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @10:27PM
GP AC here. I use LEO instead of "cop" because the problem is more that just "cops". It's also correction officers, sheriffs, state troopers, detectives and even some of the brass.
BTW, I'm just a programmer with no history or affiliation with law enforcement. Nice troll though.
(Score: 3, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Friday May 13 2016, @05:18PM
You left off robbery.
A friend of mine was robbed by NYPD cops in broad daylight a little over a month ago. They stopped him for no reason other than they didn't like that a brown dude was driving a nice BMW around at 2PM in a "brown" neighborhood. Six white cops tossed his car while threatening him with jail demanding he tell them where his guns and drugs were. Because, you know that is the only reason why a brown guy can afford a BMW. Never mind the fact that he has a masters degree in business and works in Manhattan. They even threatened they were going to tow his car. In the end four of the cops left and the remaining two went into his car, disconnected his dash cam and removed the SD card. They then took his wallet, removed $220 in cash and told him to fuck off.
Why was he driving around at 2pm? He took the day off to go the the casino at Aqueduct with his cousin who he was picking up. The money was for gambling and food. Took him over a week to even admit it happened as he felt violated and dehumanized. The NYPD motto: CPR or courtesy, professionalism and respect. What a joke. The sooner we get these bums out, the better.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday May 13 2016, @05:43PM
You mean like the rah-rah column in The Boston Herald supporting the pummeling of a fleeing suspect [bostonherald.com]?
I don't know why if this guy was a suspect for days in chases why he wasn't on the receiving end of an overnight SWAT raid, like minor drug dealers are?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 13 2016, @09:06PM
Overnight raid, sure, but why does SWAT need to be involved?
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @11:16AM
Well, at least we've moved on from blaming video games for societal mayhem. Let's start an office pool to wager on the next bogeyman.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 13 2016, @05:03PM
I've got my wager on "people who disable tracking on their tech devices".
(Score: 1) by Osamabobama on Friday May 13 2016, @06:55PM
Here's a recap, so we're all starting with the same info going into this pool. (Please help with the details...)
1. Communists
2. Drugs
3. Dungeons and Dragons
4. Video Games
5. Drugs
6. ???
7. Profit
8. Mexicans
9. Terrorists
10. Muslims
11. Encryption
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 14 2016, @12:25AM
You left out rock and roll and jazz music!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 13 2016, @11:41AM
There are all sorts of problem with his argument:
1. All available public data says that the last few years have been the lowest crime rates we've seen in approximately 50 years, as crime has dropped about 20% in the last decade and about 40-50% in the last 25 years. If you're going to make policy based on an alleged spike in crime, the first thing you have to do is demonstrate a spike in crime, and he's utterly failed to do that.
2. The idea that an officer should approach a group of people at 2 AM and say "What are you doing here?" is simply the wrong approach, because (a) there are perfectly legitimate reasons for a group of people to be hanging out at 2 AM, and (b) walking into a group, alone, sounding suspicious, is a recipe for violent confrontation if these guys really are bad guys. If an officer approaches a group of people at 2 AM, the question shouldn't be "What are you doing here?" but "Hi, how are you? Everything OK?" all friendly-like, and then the officer accepts an answer of "Yup, we're all just fine here." and continues on his way. That presents the police as looking out for the people who odds are is a bunch of law-abiding people enjoying themselves outside after the bars close.
3. He assumes that all the videos of police that go viral will be videos of bad stuff they've done. My suspicion is that videos of everyday police work would also show many officers behaving downright heroicly to save lives and prevent bad guys from getting away with their crimes. In fact, I'll bet you could make a TV [wikipedia.org] shows [wikipedia.org] showing the police doing their job well that would get enough public support to be worth keeping on the air.
4. He believes that if ordinary citizens have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from surveillance. Well, that's true of cops too, and unlike ordinary citizens, cops who are working are public officials acting in their official capacity and thus have no right to nor expectation of privacy whatsoever.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Friday May 13 2016, @01:38PM
comey does not represent the will of the people or the best interests of the same.
he should be removed from office immediately.
after that, stripped of all govt perks.
after that, taken to court and sued for crimes against america. ie, he's a textbook case of what traitor really is. he has sold us out to foreign interests whether he planned to or not, by doing ALL HE CAN to weaken citizens' security. he actively works against the true interests of his country.
in the wild wild west, I dare say what would have happened to such a man who showed such contempt for his fellow citizens. I doubt he would enjoy a wild west justice, but I can certainly dream, can't I?
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @10:13PM
He seems like a nice guy. Why you hate him?
Wouldn't you hate any FBI director?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday May 14 2016, @07:19PM
Probably. The FBI has been immensely corrupt since it was created, and certainly hasn't changed. J. Edgar Hoover, anyone? Also, it routinely violates the 4th amendment by conducting invasive warrantless searches, uses pseudoscience to gather faulty evidence to help convict people, tries to destroy encryption, goads crazy people into trying to carry out some terrorist attack and then catches them so they can pretend as if they're effective at stopping terrorism, etc. It's a really shady organization.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday May 13 2016, @12:21PM
...don't get the Internets.
compiling...
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @01:30PM
There's also a ton-sh1t-load of youtube "music" videos about how selling woman, buying big cars makes you the top monkey chief and that you should copy this for the greater good of all monkey-kind.
If they don't want police, maybe they should just tell them and then see how the neighborhood goes down the crapper.
every smart person will then pull a syrian refugee and escape the violance and move to a better place. Note to wit: walking is not taxed yet!
If only criminals infest a neighborhood they will probably revert to "cannibalism" and then the problem will solve itself and then
the bulldozers (and police) can move back in with syrian refugees ...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @02:26PM
Huh?
Are you a schizophrenic or short circuiting?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Friday May 13 2016, @03:34PM
He's a cop.
Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(Score: 1) by cmdrklarg on Friday May 13 2016, @06:50PM
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @10:18PM
Spot on. The syrian war is what BLM would have lead to if America were over 50pct black.
It's just what is below the skin in both situations (they syrians just have alot more, percentagewise, to deal with).
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @02:45PM
I've noticed a number of disturbing trends lately. Rising extremism. Increase in male suicide deaths. That guy who thought it was his god-given right to assault a protester at a Trump rally. The other guy who thought it was his god-given right to enter the women's bathroom in order to assault a woman he believe was actually a man. This guy [youtube.com] who attempted to murder two women working in a hotel lobby with his truck over a billing dispute, right in front of a cop's face! Of course, there's always the merry Christmas jihadists but at least we get a reprieve from those until late October.
I wonder if the root cause has something to do with this graph [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @02:56PM
It's the dark side of Metcalfe's Law. Today everyone is on the Internet and has a smart phone and is multitasking much more than folks did 30-40 years ago. The days of three trusted anchors on network TV are gone. Conspiracy theories gain currency rapidly.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday May 14 2016, @02:24AM
Well, when the craziest ones stop being theories and move to facts that's going to happen. You couldn't convince people in the 90's that the government was trying to, or even wanted to, perform mass surveillance.
Thankfully, the powers that be are enjoying their own dog food, that being the complete and utter failure in security they engendered. Heroes like Snowden are whistleblowing more and more. So when there seems to be a constant flow of verified information confirming past conspiracies, and that inequality and injustice are condoned by the top as "design features", the public loses faith in government and their leaders.
We have practically no reason to trust the government, or assign any confidence in the integrity of the process. Why shouldn't I believe a conspiracy theory? In all seriousness, unless that conspiracy has elements like aliens or time traveling Nazi's, I'm inclined to believe it.
Greedy, corrupt, and treasonous buttheads rule over us like Feudal lords. If you present me a conspiracy theory painting our leaders as such, I'm going to see those elements as the ones most likely containing truth, as that behavior has been verified time and time again. Which is not something I felt in my naive youth.
The U.S government couldn't pay PR agencies enough to reclaim its honor, and short of a second civil war changing out government, I will never trust them again.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday May 13 2016, @02:52PM
That's rather ironic, isn't it?
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by captain_nifty on Friday May 13 2016, @03:23PM
I would personally expect crime rates to go up in the spring as compared to the winter, more people out and about = more potentially violent interaction.
Besides "Rising Crime Rates" is not exactly a very quantitative or qualitative statement, and statistics can be fudged to show whatever your agenda requires.
I'm surprised the FBI doesn't blame encryption too while their at it.
(Score: 1, Troll) by captain_nifty on Friday May 13 2016, @04:17PM
DAmn it! "They're"