Considering new data

I went on record yesterday as being unopposed to the Boston lockdown, but Bruce Schneier linked me to an excellent argument against:

Third, keeping citizens off the street meant that 99% of the eyes and brains that might solve a crime were being wasted. Eric S Raymond famously said that “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow”. It was thousands of citizen photographs that helped break this case, and it was a citizen who found the second bomber. Yes, that’s right – it wasn’t until the stupid lock-down was ended that a citizen found the second murderer.

In other news, Clark also points out that if it was dangerous enough to tell everyone to stay home, why are donut shop staff immune from harm? (Notably, I heard yesterday that Dunkin’ Donuts was providing free food to police. I hadn’t heard the police asked them to stay open, and it didn’t occur to me that this was happening despite the lockdown.)

OTOH, my theory was the lockdown was to prevent crowds forming that would be a tempting bombing target. That would allow for small numbers of people at Dunkin’. But it would also be nice if anyone other than me had stated this theory, such as the Boston PD.

3 thoughts on “Considering new data

  1. Pingback: The Vast Jeff Wing Conspiracy

  2. It’s worth noting that people were not REQUIRED to stay in their homes. The police REQUESTED that people remain in their homes. IMHO, there’s a huge difference…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *