The Boston Marathon Bombing Shows Why Surveillance State Doesn't Work

[Jefferson23]

One year after the Boston Marathon bombing the ACLU's Kade Crockford questions whether the surveillance practices of law enforcement and an increased militarized police force equals safer streets -

Tuesday marks the one-year anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing, where three people were killed and more than 260 people were wounded. Civil liberties groups have criticized the FBI's inability to stop last year's attacks despite investigating one of the bombers in 2011. They're also critical of how militarized the police response was to the incident.

Now joining us to discuss militarization of the police in cities like Boston is our guest, Kade Crockford. Kade is the director of the Technology for Liberty Project at the ACLU of Massachusetts, where she edits and writes for the Privacy Matters blog.

Thank you for joining us, Kade.

KADE CROCKFORD, DIR., TECHNOLOGY FOR LIBERTY PROJECT, ACLU OF MA: Thanks for having me.

DESVARIEUX: So, Kade, what are the police actually capable of doing now that they weren't capable of doing a decade ago in terms of surveillance and things like that? And can you speak specifically to the FBI's practices in Boston after the bombing? I know at the end of the day people are going to say they got their bad guy, so why does it really matter how they got their bad guy. But I know you're critical, and you call it heavy-handed. Why is that?

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11733

[cbdo2007]

1. We have a highway shooter in Kansas City they can't catch....

shooting at cars on the busiest highway interchange in the city, but I guess they don't have video covering this area?? They make us believe the cameras are out there to protect us...but obviously they are not, they are there to watch us. I know they're watching, you can see the cameras, but they can't find video of these shootings happening in the busiest area of the entire city? Please.

[Jefferson23]

2. In the case of the Kansas shooter, there needs to be a close examination of why this

guy was not closely observed..there were many red flags long before the shooting.

The scope of the surveillance state is huge and inefficient and has been a failure
on many levels..but they continue to defend it.

[JJChambers]

3. The boston bombers were caught because of the surveillance ...

Silly article.

[Jefferson23]

4. Then you missed the point of the OP. n/t

[seaglass]

5. Was that sarcasm? I think the point is catching them before the act. n/t

[JJChambers]

7. Did you read the title of the OP?

It says the surveillance state doesn't work. Clearly it does, as these two were apprehended as a direct result of heavy surveillance, before they could bomb again.

There is no doubt that the FBI dropped the ball during their initial investigation into these terrorists in 2011. But that failure has nothing to do with the surveillance state.

The title of this OP should be changed to 'The FBI is incompetent but the surveillance state is effective'

[seaglass]

11. I read the article. The title was the title of the article, you should take that up with the editor

I suppose it depends on what you mean by does the surveillance state work. My definition is that it is not working when there is as much surveillance as we currently have yet it did not prevent 3 people from getting killed and 260 from being injured.

[JJChambers]

13. You need to adjust your expectations ..

Surveillance is primarily utilized to solve crimes, and occasionally prevent them. It was very effective at it's primary purpose in this case.

[seaglass]

15. Nah, I'm anti-surveillance state. Did you read the article? n/t

[JJChambers]

16. Why?

Why are you against surveillance solving crimes?

[Fawke Em]

6. The "alleged."

I'm growing weary of Americans just accepting what they're told by law enforcement and convicting without trial. Part of our eroding rights.

Dude hasn't been convicted of squat, yet.

It's alleged... for him and every other defendant until proven guilty.

[JJChambers]

9. Lol no

This is a forum, not a courtroom. I've seen the video from and be was apprehended during a shootout. Alleged my ass. This terrorist is guilty and needs to be hung high for what he did to the good people of Boston.

[Fawke Em]

10. You've not seen the video because it's never been released.

People only ASSUME they've seen the video because of the propaganda (BTW, the one on the Nat Geo special was a reenactment. If it was real, then release his ass, because that wasn't taken in front of the Forum or any other place in Boston. It was filmed in Phoenix).

Even Deval Patrick has not seen the video.

And, the right of innocent until proven guilty is an AMERICAN right, not just confined to a courthouse.

On edit: I believe this of anyone accused of any crime, but the jingoism in this case is just a bit too much. And, I LIKE Boston. I'd rather live there than where I do, but don't spoon feed me shit and call it chocolate.

[JJChambers]

14. The shootout was imaginary, too?

Come on man. How much tinfoil do you go through in a month..?

[seveneyes]

8. Maybe someone should have heeded Russian warnings about his potential Islamic terrorism

I don't recall the details, but were we not warned about his dabbling in Jihad and other Islamic terrorism related matters? No need to spy on everyone in the US, just maybe pay attention to those with an axe to grind, or those with a history of terror related activities.

[MohRokTah]

12. I thin it demonstrated how surveillance cameras work to at least capture the terrorists.

In this case, they identified the terrorists via surveillance footage.