I fear that this is going to be nasty :(

[Morkonan]

...If somebody rational knew about a 'wackjob' group with illegally modified guns then hopefully common sense would dictate that something should have been said to the relevant authorities.

Yes/No/Maybe

It all depends on how well their security services and intel groups communicate. Or, whoever it is that gathers or can potentially gather such information.

For instance, I watched a bit of a documentary/something concerning the Malaysian flight that was "lost." Remember that? We found that it unexpectedly deviated from its flightplan for reasons unknown. However, the kicker is that the Malaysian military was watching it do that the entire time. And, when civilian air authorities were scratching their head and wondering what had happened, the military kept their mouths shut... They didn't say a word. They knew it was off-course and did nothing at all but "watch." They could have scrambled fighters, radio'd, screamed, something. But, they didn't do a thing. (At least, from the short bit I watched in passing.)

In some other countries, that couldn't happen. In the US, today especially, that couldn't happen.

But, in other things, it certainly does happen. There have been several cases where there were "bad people doing bad things" in the US and Intel and Federal Agencies were aware of the habits of such people, just not that they were about to immediately do "bad things." Yet, no attempt was made by intel agencies to contact local authorities about such people.

Countries want to keep their surveillance and intelligence agency's capabililies a "mystery." It's habit, even if they're not under threat of an imminent invasion. So, if New Zealand's various agencies are compartmentalized to a certain degree, one agency may very well have been actively investigating this nutjob without informing any licensing agencies or law-enforcement. It happens in the US and we literally throw truckloads of money and employees at de-compartmentalizing these agencies in terms of internal enforcement. We have an entire arm created expressly for the purpose of sharing intelligence and coordinating efforts. (Department of Homeland Security, created after 9/11.) And... this still happens. /shrug

There's no blame in that. It's not the fault of anyone else that this wacko indulged his crazy notions by killing a lot of people - It's entirely his fault. The question is, though, are there things that we need to be sure are being communicated across law-enforcement and intel agencies that could have helped to prevent this without violating what our cultures consider to be privileged personal information, privacy, and the legal rights of citizens? (I'm certainly not suggesting a knee-jerk reaction of increased surveillance of citizens in terms of "trying to find crime no matter who they're looking at." That's bad.)

[Alan Phipps]

@ Mork: Oh, I see you were considering a possible government inter-departmental conspiracy of silence theory.

Sorry, I was thinking more about acquaintances, neighbours or even local tradesmen maybe hearing about or spotting something glaringly suspicious and dangerous and, you know, actually talking to the police about it. That sort of thing is more likely to happen in some countries than perhaps in others. I would put New Zealand in the former category personally.

[Morkonan]

@ Mork: Oh, I see you were considering a possible government inter-departmental conspiracy of silence theory.

I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy theory" since it's based on common compartmentalization and security principles. There are many cases where lower-level, local, law-enforcement could have benefited from closer relationships with larger, sometimes National Intelligence based, agencies. That disfunction is not a secret or a conspiracy. And, there's some cases where larger agencies completely drop the ball and fail "everything." Like, for instance, the FBI was actively investigating the person who ended up shooting/killing those people in that Florida nightclub. Including, IIRC (and just from memory) something like a dozen reports and alerts on the guy with people calling in tips and scheduled investigative visits/interviews/whatever that were either not conducted or were, with halphazard no-result kind of findings. And, yet, local law enforcement didn't know of the FBI's interest, AFAIK on that last bit. But, that pales in comparison to what larger Foreign Intelligence agencies "know and do." Their efforts, at least in the US, were so compartmentalized we invented the Department of Homeland Security to bring these agencies together. And, to further coordinate efforts, we have the Five Eyes, in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US. for "international efforts." (So they can spy on each other's citizens and get return information on their own so they're not violating their own laws by spying directly... )

Sorry, I was thinking more about acquaintances, neighbours or even local tradesmen maybe hearing about or spotting something glaringly suspicious and dangerous and, you know, actually talking to the police about it. That sort of thing is more likely to happen in some countries than perhaps in others. I would put New Zealand in the former category personally.

That does happen, but it is all tempered by whatever the laws are. For instance, in the above example, the shooter in Florida was reported to the FBI as potentially being dangerous. But, not much happened there. Others have been reported in one way or another as well, either to social-service type agencies, local law-enforcement, etc.. Some have even been "known risk candidates" and ended up committing their crimes anyway.

The point is that even if we "know someone is a risky candidate" there are limits to "who" can know that and even what can be done about it. At least in regards to local law.

If you call up the FBI and scream into the phone "Morkonan is a valid risk to the safety and security of your cheesecake" you may, in fact, be entirely correct. I am a well-known cheesecake enthusiast and may even have a "This guy has an unhealthy obsession with Cheesecake" entry on somebody's list, somewhere. But what can they do with that information and how far should they go in confirming it?

I haven't had a slice of cheesecake in years... I love it, I just haven't had the occasion to have any.

So, despite the fact that I would obviously be obsessed with the stuff, how far can an agency go in investigating me for a crime I have "not yet committed?" How far can they go without starting to step all over my Rights? And, there's always the obvious - The more someone looks and pries, the more likely they'll "find something," even if it's entirely fictional and circumstantial. They might see a crumb of some nasty piece of pie I was forced to eat and then charge me with unlawfully consuming Cheesecake! (IF you know any good cheesecake recipes, let me know! I seriously want to make some to take over to my neighbors, since they often bring me stuffs like that... except for cheesecake, which they haven't brought over yet. )

So, if you report me for real or imagined cheescake shennanigans, what should the Cheesecake Enforcement Arm of the FBI do with that? Liking cheesecake isn't against the law.

Evidently, having radical racist ideals isn't against the law in New Zealand, right? IOW - There isn't any "thought law" in New Zealand, is there?

Edit:Add - Just to add, this is why Science Fiction can be relevant.



We don't have this technology yet, but there are times when we "think we do." Do we act on "we think so" rather than "we know so?" Where is the line between justice and irrational fear?

[Alan Phipps]

"If somebody rational knew about a 'wackjob' group with illegally modified guns .."

Maybe we and our police would consider information about that sort of thing a bit more ominous and actionable than might be the case in the USA perhaps. I rather think that should apply 'down under' as well, but maybe there was a possible element of 'It won't happen here' as Usenko theorised.

[Morkonan]

... 'It won't happen here' as Usenko theorised.

That's possible. But, I'm reminded of European countries that thought the same thing, too. The Oceana region may think itself somewhat isolated from some of the events of the rest of the world, but "ideas" aren't one of those things. The internet is, good pizza is, spider-free zones are... But, not ideas. And, ideas are the first step of action.

Well, I guess one doesn't have to have an idea to go running around naked and screaming in a bowling alley. Kind of unlikely to happen if one actually thinks about it beforehand. At least that's what I told the judge and he was cool with that...

[RegisterMe]

To the Kiwis out there, I don't think I am going too far when I say that you, your country, and your Prime minister, have earned our respect, our solidarity, and our love, for how your country has behaved and presented itself over these last few days.

It's not that these were lacking beforehand, but how you've dealt with this tragedy has been magnificent, and has provided us all with an example to follow.

[Observe]

To the Kiwis out there, I don't think I am going too far when I say that you, your country, and your Prime minister, have earned our respect, our solidarity, and our love, for how your country has behaved and presented itself over these last few days.

It's not that these were lacking beforehand, but how you've dealt with this tragedy has been magnificent, and has provided us all with an example to follow.

As a New Zealander, I have thus far refrained from any comment on this matter. Sometimes it is better to process in silence. I too am proud of our Prime Minister and also of the unity the New Zealand people are demonstrating in their actions following this tragedy.

Thank you.