U.S. police struggle to uncover threats on social media

 

SAN FRANCISCO/LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - U.S. law enforcement agencies are a long way from being able to effectively track threats of the kind a gunman posted on Instagram before his execution-style murder of two New York City policemen last weekend.

Police need more data analytics and mining software to monitor social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter , as well as trained personnel to make sense of what could be a deluge of data, say law enforcement officials and security experts.

"You can buy all the technology you want, but if you want to figure out clever stuff, you better have smart people able to use it," said Christopher Ahlberg, co-founder of Recorded Future Inc, which helps clients analyze social media feeds. The company is partly backed by In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm that serves U.S. intelligence agencies.

According to the New York Police Department, Ismaaiyl Brinsley posted anti-cop slurs on the Instagram photo-sharing site hours before walking up to two officers in a parked squad car in Brooklyn and shooting them dead on Saturday.

Baltimore police said they discovered the Instagram posts after Brinsley shot and wounded his girlfriend earlier that day. But the NYPD did not learn of the posts - which included a photograph of a silver handgun and the message "I'm Putting Wings On Pigs Today. They Take 1 Of Ours...Let's Take 2 of Theirs" - until it was too late.

Monitoring social media for out-of-the-blue threats may be beyond the capabilities of most police forces including even the New York Police Department, which has a relatively extensive and aggressive intelligence operation, experts say.

Analysts at the New York and Los Angeles police departments routinely crawl through social media to keep tabs on individuals on their radar, such as gang members, or to prepare for high-profile events. But in an era of shrinking or stagnant budgets, buying high-end software and hiring trained data analysts can be costly.

Many police departments utilize fairly rudimentary tools. The NYPD uses common search engines, experts say. It is possible to program an algorithm to pick up threatening messages, but the sheer volume of data and the potential number of "false positives" would impede its effectiveness.

"It is like trying to take a sip from a fire hydrant," the non-profit Police Executive Research Forum said in a 2013 report.

TOO MUCH INFORMATION

In monitoring social media, most local police forces lag U.S. intelligence agencies, which despite their vast surveillance networks still struggle to prevent attacks such as the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.

The National Security Agency had raw intercepts pointing to a person matching the 2009 "underwear bomber's" description, but failed to stop him from boarding a plane.

The Department of Homeland Security monitors about 100 social media sites, but there are restrictions that keep their agents from sharing all the information that they collect directly with local law enforcement.

Social media monitoring by police tends to be reactive: analysts hit the Internet when someone phones in a tip. Investigators use social networking sites to identify victims, look for witnesses and perpetrators, generate leads or search for evidence in the aftermath of a crime.

"Most of the stuff, honestly, we get is when people send it to us," said Los Angeles Police Department spokesman, Commander Andrew Smith.

That's not to say there have not been some successes. The LAPD, which employs around 40 people to monitor social media manually, uses software from a startup called PredPol Inc, which stands for predictive policing. The software analyzes LAPD and other internal police databases to identify crime-ridden areas and determine the best times to patrol.

PredPol marketing manager Benjamin Hoehn said crime dropped around 20 percent within 10 months of deploying the system in Modesto, California, in January.

The LAPD is also exploring the use of Geofeedia Inc, which incorporates user-location data as it crawls through sites from Twitter and Facebook to Google Inc's YouTube and Yahoo Inc's Flickr.

PRIVACY CONCERNS

Sophisticated services provided by the likes of Palantir Technologies Inc, which aids intelligence agencies in counter-terrorism, can track a person's movements, identify anonymous messages from writing patterns, or establish an individual's daily routines based on social media activity, experts said.

Ahlberg said Recorded Future can predict areas where social unrest will erupt with a high degree of accuracy, based on online commentary and other data, offering a glimpse of what may be possible.

Rights organizations have criticized the increasing use of social media crawling by law enforcement as a potential violation of privacy. Others argue anything posted on social media is fair game.

"You can call it infringing on their Frist Amendment rights but these are the 21st century tools available," said ex-FBI agent Kenneth Springer, who runs investigations outfit Corporate Solutions Inc.

Source

Read More

Dozens arrested as NYC protests Eric Garner decision

Demonstrators block the West Side Highway during a protest against the grand jury decision on the death of Eric Garner, in New York December 3, 2014.(Reuters / Adrees Latif)

At least 30 people were arrested by the New York Police Department on Wednesday evening, as thousands of protesters flooded city streets after a grand jury declined to indict an officer for killing a Staten Island man via chokehold.

Following the decision, demonstrations began popping up throughout the city. Protesters disrupted traffic by blocking numerous streets – including the West Side Highway – marching into Times Square, and taking over the area near Rockefeller Center, where the annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony was taking place. Streets and sidewalks were blocked, with police telling people they could only pass if they had passes to the ceremony.

Protestors gather in New York Grand Central Station on December 3, 2014.(AFP Photo / Timothy A Clary)

Demonstrators also poured into Grand Central Station by the hundreds, where they staged a “die-in” and spread their bodies across the floor. Numerous protesters told RT they wanted to “shut down” the city as a result of the decision, and traffic jams were subsequently reported at Lincoln Tunnel and Robert F. Kennedy Bridge, as well as other areas.

Approximately 30 people were arrested, according to NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton, though more have been reported since he spoke around 10 p.m. So far, police have not reported any violent incidents or injuries.

While the protests were not previously planned, momentum for them began building soon after the grand jury’s decision was reported. The case involved 43-year-old African American Eric Garner of Staten Island, who was placed in a chokehold by Officer Daniel Pantaleo for allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes. Garner was taken to the ground with the help of several others. Despite repeatedly complaining that he couldn’t breathe, Garner ended up going into cardiac arrest and dying.

People take part in a protest against the grand jury decision on the death of Eric Garner in midtown Manhattan in New York December 3, 2014.(Reuters / Eric Thayer)

People take part in a protest against the grand jury decision on the death of Eric Garner in midtown Manhattan in New York December 3, 2014.(Reuters / Eric Thayer)

The July incident was caught on video by a civilian bystander and ruled a homicide by the city medical examiner, but the grand jury did not indict Pantaleo on any charges.

The decision was met with fierce criticism immediately after it was revealed, drawing condemnation from all over the political spectrum. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said it was “a very emotional day for our city,” adding that Garner was “a man who should be with us, and now isn’t.”

Soon afterwards, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Justice Department is opening a federal civil rights investigation into the incident, one that would include a “complete review” of the evidence collected during the local investigation.

However, this news didn’t quell outrage among residents, many of whom also protested last week’s decision by a St. Louis County grand jury not to indict a white officer for killing a black teenager. People marched through the streets chanting slogans such as “I can’t breathe,” referring to Garner’s last words. They also yelled, “No Justice, no peace.”

Following the decision, Pantaleo issued an apology for what occurred back in July.

"It is never my intention to hurt anyone and I feel very bad about the death of Mr. Garner," Pantaleo said."My family and I include him and his family in our prayers and I hope they will accept my personal condolences for their loss."

Protesters against the Staten Island grand jury's decision not to indict Daniel Pantaleo, the NYPD officer involved in Eric Garner's chokehold death, walk together December 3, 2014 in New York.(AFP Photo / Yana Paskova)

Speaking alongside Rev. Al Sharpton, Garner’s widow, Esaw Garner, said she did not accept Pantaleo's apology.

"I couldn't care less about his condolences," she said. "He's still working, he's still feeding his kids. And my husband is six feet under and I’m looking for a way to feed my kids now. Who’s going to play Santa Claus for my grandkids this year? Who’s going to do that now?"

"I am determined to get justice for my husband because he shouldn't have been killed in that way,” said Esaw Garner.“My husband’s death will not be in vain. As long as I have breathe in my body I will fight the fight.”

Meanwhile, Sharpton announced that there will be a march against police brutality in Washington, DC, on December 13.

Source

Read More

Free speech and social media little to 'like'

FIGHTS over free speech in America don’t always produce the loveliest poster children. Gone are the days when intellectuals had to turn to the first amendment as a shield against prosecution for distributing anti-war pamphlets or publishing socialist tracts. In recent decades, fights over the boundaries of protected speech have been waged mainly by racists, anti-Semites, pornographers, dogfight videographers, cross-burners and their kin.

The most recent crusader for free speech makes some of these characters look rather tame. Anthony Elonis, whose case the Supreme Court took up on Monday, is challenging his 2011 conviction and prison sentence for a series of Facebook posts a jury determined were “true threats” against his estranged wife, which are not considered protected speech. (As Garrett Epps explains at the Atlantic, the court's conception of a "true threat" isn't a warning that necessarily materialises but an act that has the potential to cause panic or disruption, whether or not the person intends to carry out the threat.) In one post, a 27-year-old Mr Elonis wrote:

If I only knew then what I know now...I would have smothered your ass with a pillow. Dumped your body in the back seat. Dropped you off in Toad Creek and made it look like a rape and murder.

Charming, yes. It gets better:

There's one way to love ya, but a thousand ways to kill ya,

And I'm not going to rest until your body is a mess,

Soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.

Hurry up and die bitch.

We should forgive Justice Antonin Scalia for saying to an agreeable Michael Dreeben, the government’s lawyer, that “this language is not worth a whole lot anyway, right?” Freedom of speech is enshrined in the first amendment to facilitate robust debate and discussion essential to democratic self-government. It serves as a bulwark against government encroachment on individual expression. It offers a safe harbour against laws or officials seeking to punish dissenters or silence unpopular views. So it’s hard to fathom what value the Founding Fathers would see in Mr Elonis’s vivid threats. The petitioner’s wife, Tara, certainly did not care for this form of personal expression. She secured a protection-from-abuse order against Mr Elonis in 2010, prompting him to craft still more abusive Facebook posts, against her and against schoolchildren and an FBI agent. This cascade led to the criminal charges, the conviction and 44 months in prison.

In reaching its verdict in the trial, the federal jury was asked to consider whether Mr Elonis’s posts would be viewed by a reasonable observer as serious plans to inflict harm. This is the test in use in most of the country, but two federal districts and some states opt for a subjective standard asking whether the person expressing himself actually intended the statement as a threat to cause another person harm. In his brief to the justices and in the hearing on Monday, Mr Elonis denied ever intending harm. He penned the posts, he claims, as “therapeutic” exercises to handle his angst in the wake of being abandoned by his wife. The missives may have been rather crude and bloody-sounding, but they were just words—harmless and worthy of constitutional protection.

The exchange on Monday was lively, with multiple views bandied about on which characteristics and what level of knowledge should be attributed to a hypothetical "reasonable person". Everyone seemed to be grasping for a definition of what kind of language may be clearly seen as threatening, either through intent or interpretation. Several justices paused to admit confusion about what each lawyer was really arguing. The jurist who stepped in to clearly sketch the possible lines of argument was, as usual, Elena Kagan. Here is her exchange early on with John Elwood, Mr Elonis’s lawyer:

JUSTICE KAGAN:  Mr Elwood,...I'm trying to figure out what exactly the level of intent you want is. So one, the very, very highest level might be I affirmatively want to place this person in fear; that's why I'm doing what I'm doing. All right? There's a step down from that which is: I don't want to do that; I'm just fulfilling my artistic fantasies, whatever you want to call it; but I know that I am going to place this person in fear. All right?  Is that what—which intent do you want?

MR ELWOOD:  The second...That if you know that you are placing someone in fear by what you are doing, that is enough to satisfy our version of—

JUSTICE KAGAN:  How about you just take it a step down more but not get to the government's. How about if you don't know to a certainty, but you know that there is a substantial probability that you will place that person in fear, which is what I take it we would usually mean when we talk about recklessness?

This “recklessness” standard, whereby someone could be convicted as long as he knew that his speech would be frightening, even if he didn’t actually intend it as a threat, garnered little support from either attorney. Mr Elwood said it would offer no protection for mouthy teenagers “shooting off their mouths or making...ill­-timed, sarcastic comments which wind up getting them thrown in jail.” On the other side, Mr Dreeben worried that a recklessness test “basically immunises somebody who makes [a threat] and then can plausibly say later, 'hey, I was dead drunk, I realized that I just called in a bomb threat and the police had to respond and an elementary school had to be evacuated and I knew what I was saying but I was too drunk'” to understand that someone might take it seriously. Samuel Alito was clearly unsympathetic to Mr Elonis’s claims; he called the abusive husband’s I’m-just-venting-and-composing-rap-lyrics defence a “roadmap for threatening a spouse and getting away with it.” But few of the other justices gave a clear indication of how they might vote. 

Late in the hearing, Justice Kagan again offered a clarion explanation of what is at stake in Mr Elonis’s first-amendment challenge:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr Dreeben, you are asking us to go down ­­you know, it's not purpose, it's not knowledge of causing fear, it's not a conscious disregard of causing fear, it's just that you should have known that you were going to cause fear, essentially. And that's not the kind of standard that we typically use in the First Amendment...[W]e typically say that the First Amendment requires a kind of a buffer zone to ensure that even stuff that is wrongful maybe is permitted because we don't want to chill innocent behavior.

This is the core of the matter. As nasty as Mr Elonis’s Facebook posts may have been, the question is what happens in future cases when the government seeks to punish people for venting or trying their hand at some gangsta rap on their Facebook pages. What, Chief Justice John Roberts asked, distinguishes Mr Elonis’s diatribes from Eminem’s multi-platinum records, in which he speaks in excruciatingly violent terms about what he'd like to do to his wife? The main distinction, according to Mr Dreeben, is that Eminem’s lyrics are delivered “at a concert where people are going to be entertained.”

There is a plausible argument to be made that domestic violence prosecutions would be hindered by a ruling that protects Mr Elonis’s antics, but this isn’t the only consideration the justices must weigh. Why should abusive speech that entertains an audience enjoy constitutional protection while Mr Elonis’s amateurish attempts to mimic Eminem be judged beyond the pale? It is a tough question the justices will speak out on a few months down the line.  

Source

Read More

Social Media: NASA's Not-So-Secret Weapon for Orion Test Flight.

One of the largest social media campaigns in NASA history, centered on this Thursday's (Dec. 4) test launch of the Orion spacecraft, has helped make the space agency's relationship with the public more interactive than ever before.

The extensive campaign has included YouTube videos starring actors from beloved science-fiction TV shows, an option for members of the public to put their names aboard the space vehicle and social events at nine NASA facilities. These are just some of the ways NASA has reached out to the public in anticipation of Orion's launch.

"This is certainly one of our biggest campaigns that we've done," John Yembrick, NASA's social media manager, told Space.com. "We wanted to do something extraordinary for an extraordinary mission." [NASA's Orion Spacecraft Test Flight: Full Coverage]

You can watch the 4.5-hour Orion launch test live on Space.com, courtesy of NASA TV. The webcast will begin early Thursday at 4 a.m. EST (0900 GMT).

The Orion spacecraft was designed and built to take humans farther into space than ever before —potentially to an asteroid and Mars. The mission is scheduled launch  at 7:05 a.m. EST (1205 GMT) on Thursday from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, near NASA's Kennedy Space Center. If all goes well, Orion will orbit the Earth twice and reach an altitude of 3,600 miles (5,800 kilometers) before re-entering Earth's atmosphere and splashing down in the Pacific Ocean. Its target drop zone is approximately 600 miles (966 km) southwest of San Diego, California.

In the months leading up to the launch, NASA executed various activities and advertisements for the Orion mission, including the recent addition of a set of toy "crewmembers" for the spacecraft. Members of the public were also invited to add their names to a list that would be stored on a microchip aboard Orion, and perhaps one day make a trip to the Red Planet. More than 1 million people (and at least one Sesame Street muppet) added their names.

In addition, NASA posted a series of "I'm On Board" videos featuring actors like Nichelle Nichols (famous for playing Lt. Uhura on the original "Star Trek" TV series), Lou Ferrigno (who played The Incredible Hulk on the original TV series) and Colin Baker (the sixth actor to play Doctor Who in the original British TV series). With multiple references to the shows that made them famous, the actors spoke about the features of the Orion spacecraft, the details of its upcoming test flight and the long-term goals it hopes to accomplish.

In what is perhaps NASA's most direct interaction with members of the public, on Wednesday (Dec. 3) the Kennedy Space Center will host a social event, where registered attendees will get a glimpse inside the space agency and the Orion spacecraft test flight. Yembrick said they are anticipating about 130 to 150 guests. Similar events will take place at eight other NASA sites around the United States.

Sesame Street's Elmo shows off a boarding pass for NASA's Orion spacecraft test flight in support of the agency's Exploration Flight Test 1 launching in December 2014. The "I'm On Board" boarding passes were part of a social outreach and media project to spur interest in the mission. Credit: Sesame Workshop via NASA View full size image

Yembrick said the social media team will also be talking to the public through social media sites like Twitter and Facebook during the flight briefings that will be broadcast on NASA TV. That includes a prelaunch briefing on Dec. 3 at 11 a.m. EST (1600 GMT) and live coverage of the launch starting Dec. 4 at 4:30 a.m. EST (0930 GMT), through splashdown.

"Social media has never really been part of a launch broadcast to this extent before, so that's really significant and a real milestone," Yembrick said.

NASA is expecting roughly 30,000 spectators for the launch at or near Kennedy Space Center. That number does not include all of the people who will be able to see the vehicle as it leaves Earth's atmosphere. 

"If you look back at the Apollo days, at Gemini and Mercury, the public really was an observer of what NASA was doing," Yembrick said. "They would sit around their televisions, and Walter Cronkite would tell them what was happening. Walter Cronkite would go down on the pad and talk to the engineers.

"Now, NASA is talking directly to the public," he said. "You can ask an astronaut a question. You can talk to the program managers and really be part of the experience in a much different way than ever before. Social media has really opened up the agency more so than ever before."

Source

Read More

Supreme Court struggles with defining, prosecuting threats on social media.

Jeff Dion of the National Crime Victim Bar Association speaks with reporters after arguments in the case of Anthony Elonis, who was convicted in 2010 of threatening his wife via social media, at the Supreme Court building Dec. 1. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

As the chief justice of the United States name-checked Eminem and speculated about ­rap-
obsessed teenagers, the Supreme Court struggled Monday with how to draw a digital-age distinction between illegal threats and violent speech that is nonetheless protected by the First Amendment.

The court’s first foray into examining speech made on social media featured rap lyrics and Facebook “likes” but relied on ancient legal concepts about intent and negligence.

The justices seemed reluctant to accept the government’s position that a threat exists whenever the speech in question would make a reasonable person fearful. But there did not seem to be a consensus on what more prosecutors should be required to prove.

The attorney for Anthony Douglas Elonis, a Pennsylvania man convicted of Facebook threats directed toward his estranged wife, a kindergarten class and an FBI agent, said his client should not have been convicted without prosecutors showing that he intended for his crude and violent Facebook posts be taken seriously.

That immediately troubled Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at her customary spot on the bench five days after a heart stent procedure.

“How does one prove what’s in somebody else’s mind?” she asked. “This case, the standard was would a reasonable person think that the words would put someone in fear, and reasonable people can make that judgment. But how would the government prove whether this threat in the mind of the threatener was genuine?”

John P. Elwood, representing Elonis, said several states already require such proof, which he acknowledged made prosecution more difficult. In Elonis’s case, Elwood said, his client went out of his way to characterize his postings as “art” and fiction, and not to be taken seriously.

Source

Read More

US woos Chinese tourists with social media, fried dough fritters and a quiz

The US travel industry is rolling out the red carpet to attract a most sought-after commodity – the Chinese tourist.

Some 114m Chinese are expected to travel abroad this year, according to the China National Tourism Administration, making it by far the world’s largest source of outbound tourists and one that is expected to continue growing as the country’s middle class expands.

Many of these travellers are drawn to the United States, which is good news for US hotels, retailers and tour operators, as Chinese tourists offer a fantastic bang for their bucks, spending $7,200 per visit compared to $4,500 by the average foreign tourist, according to the US Travel Association.

Still, the US captured just 1.8m – or less than two per cent – of total Chinese foreign travellers. Eyeing China as a relatively untapped source market, the US tourism industry is striving to find creative ways to reach Chinese consumers and tour operators while offering cultural amenities and intangibles to make visitors feel welcome upon arrival in the US.

Firms such as Marriott and Hilton, the hotel chains, are investing heavily to promote their brands with consumers in China via trade shows and booking agencies such as Ctrip, and have revamped their websites and call centres to make booking and payment easier for Cantonese and Mandarin speakers.

“In every meeting, we think China,” said Apoorva Gandhi, VP of Multicultural Affairs at Marriott International. “We see a huge opportunity to market to and delight those business and leisure guests.”

Brand USA, a public-private partnership, has been active in promoting the US as a global tourism destination. Its focus as of late has been facilitating destination marketing efforts and trade shows for US firms looking to court potential Chinese visitors.

Even state governments are getting in on the act. Last year, California – the preferred Chinese destination in the US – hired the famous actress and model Gao Yuanyuan (seen in an advert for California, left) to help promote the state as a friendly getaway for Chinese tourists.

Gao helped promote the Visit California site on Sina weibo, a Chinese social media network, which included a quiz that promises winners a “VIP Grand Prize” trip to California.

Overall, Chinese travel to the US has exploded in recent years, with arrivals doubling three times in the past decade. China is now the US’s fifth largest source of long-haul tourist arrivals and projects to be the largest by the end of the decade, a transition that should be hastened by an agreement reached between the two countries last month to expand the validity of tourist visas from one year to 10 years.

But getting Chinese visitors to the US is just one side of the equation. Ensuring they feel welcome and enjoy themselves is another challenge.

Seemingly intangible services that help to bridge the cultural barrier, such as offering better language services and traditional Chinese foods and drinks, are now seen as crucial to making Chinese visitors feel at home and keen to return.

Elliott Ferguson, head of Destination DC – which promotes tourism in the nation’s capital, says he’s focusing on hiring more tour guides fluent in Mandarin and Cantonese and has Chinese nationals on staff to help build relationships with Chinese tour operators and better welcome host visitors.

Hilton Hotels offers a service at 27 of its US hotels that specifically caters to Chinese travellers. Known as Hilton Huanying – a Chinese word for “welcome” – these properties provide amenities such as Chinese teas and slippers, Chinese television programming and traditional Chinese breakfasts featuring fried dough fritters, dim sum, congee and fried noodles.

The approach has yielded positive results.

“According to Hilton guest satisfaction surveys, Chinese travellers who stay at our Hilton Huanying properties respond with higher scores in terms of overall experience, overall service, property loyalty and overall accommodations,” said Jon Scofield, a senior director at Hilton Worldwide.

In addition to the welcoming gestures, offering new and unique upmarket experiences that venture beyond simple sightseeing is also seen as crucial to keeping the tap of Chinese visitors flowing. Activities such as medical tourism, university tours, high-end shopping, golf and wine-tasting are likely continue to growing in popularity among Chinese tourists as visitation increases.

Source

Read More

Ferguson shooting reaction a study in the growing impact of social media

Sharing sites have done more than bring the fatal shooting in Ferguson to global attention - they also enabled the world to respond. Instantly.

The National Guard patrols outside the Ferguson Police Dept. Photo AFP

The Ferguson shooting is a study, according to one observer, in "how social media make everything everyone's business, whether you want that or not".

Ferguson Democratic committeewoman Patricia Bynes said social media had helped local people share their fears and feelings. "It has kept the conversation going and it has helped inform people about the evidence and circumstances," she said.

Bynes also thinks social media helped export the conflict and meaning of Ferguson to the rest of the world. Ferguson became everybody's business.

On Tuesday night, Ferguson became more than a neighbourhood demonstration over a grand jury decision: It expanded into a national night of protest.

The public was ahead of the media from the outset. According to the Pew Research Centre, more than one million tweets with Ferguson hashtags were traded between August 9, when Michael Brown was killed, and CNN's first prime-time story on Ferguson, on August 12.

In the months since, Ferguson community leaders used social media to urge peace and organise crowd-minders.

"We've seen a lot of creativity in Ferguson, as with other social movement uses of social media," says Mark Lashley, assistant professor of communication at La Salle. "There's a mix of humour and seriousness, as you also see in protests in Hong Kong and Mexico."

According to tracker site Trendsmap, as of Monday morning, the hashtag Ferguson was buzzing all over the world, and from coast to coast in the US, with major spikes in Missouri, but also in Philadelphia and New York, and in Florida and California.

Bynes said that, thanks to social media, "people felt the shock we in this community felt, when they started seeing images of Michael Brown's body in the street uncovered, and it kept being retweeted and people kept seeing it. For others it was images of the mother and stepfather at the scene. They saw the agony happening right there. It's just been a storm ever since, as it should be".

On Tuesday, organised by local and national social media campaigns, largely peaceful protests were launched throughout the country.

In New York, Al Sharpton gave a speech in Harlem, and a large crowd marched from Union Square to Times Square then to Columbus Circle. In Chicago, hundreds marched from the police station through town.

It had its spectacular side. Brooklyn Bridge and the Triborough were briefly shut down in New York, as was Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. In Los Angeles, protesters shut Interstate 110.

And at the White House, Jennifer Bendery tweeted: "At least 200 people chanting 'How many black kids will you kill?'"

As all these things happened, people posted and tweeted. According to the tracking site Topsy, more than 3.2 million tweets using the hashtag Ferguson were posted between Monday and Tuesday afternoons.

Exactly how is this different from the civil rights demonstrations of the 1950s-1970s? Didn't people say, "The whole world is watching" back then? Yes, they did. But as many remarked on Tuesday, today it's in real time.

But the truly new, truly now thing is this: The world could respond. Instantly. And it did. A survey of hundreds of tweets from all over the world suggests that, to these tweeters, the no-indictment decision of the grand jury was yet another racist episode in American history. French justice minister Christine Taubira tweeted: "How old was Michael Brown? 18. TrayvonMartin? 17. TamirRice? 12. How old next? 12 months? 'Kill them before they grow' - Bob Marley".

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as The social media grand jury

Source

Read More