Power and Abuse

I’m a bicycle rider. I’m also an American who believes strongly in the concepts of free speech, peaceful protest, and civil liberties.

Today I participated in an impromptu ride through the streets of New York along with several hundred other riders in an expression of disagreement with the current political convention taking place in our town. I’m sorry to say I was appalled at the way the NYC police handled the situation.

Although some individual police officers were cordial, and a few even offered signs of support (hands raised in a peace sign), the force at large apparently was under orders to disrupt our activities. As the ride rolled along and we got closer to the convention site (Madison Square Garden), we saw helicopters circling overhead, motorcycle cops whizzing into action, big vans with flashing lights hemming us in, and officers on foot with plastic wrist restraints at the ready to make arrests.

When it began to get dicey, I chose to peel off and not take too big a chance on getting arrested (at least 50 other riders were not so lucky). I still had to confront some hostile officers who looked like they would gladly arrest me simply for being there if I offered any provocation at all.

The whole thing strikes me as a massive overreaction, not only a waste of resources (money and law enforcement personnel) but also a frightening challenge to the rights of expression and peaceful protest that we take for granted.

I mention this here on our Responsible Nanotechnology blog not to make partisan political points, but as a cautionary note about what we might face in the future. Before long, molecular manufacturing will enable both civilians and law enforcement professionals to up the ante with far more powerful technology for communications, surveillance, and even stealth weaponry.

It can be argued, persuasively, that escalated threats call for escalated responses. But the risk then is that in trying to thwart the destructive intentions of a very few, many more are made victims of the system. To be effective, power should be exercised sparingly and applied judiciously; greater power also means greater damage when abused.

Mike Treder

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not entirely certain that, in this context, you can recognize when you're making a partisan political point. And leave it at that.

[Mike Treder, CRN]

Brett, no matter which political party is in office, my concerns about the concentration of greatly increased power and the corresponding increased risks of abuse remain the same.

[James Swayze]

Brett wrote: "I'm not entirely certain that, in this context, you can recognize when you're making a partisan political point. And leave it at that."

Brett, are you of the opinion that the current US administration has been entirely good for Nanotechnology development, especially Molecular Manufacturing? I don't and wish them a swift defeat this November.

BTW, protesting their position, while good perhaps for supporting their opposition in the election, is lost on the current administration. I see little evidence that any protest of their largely anti science stance has been changed at all even when made by, as reported, a large number of high profile scientists. The sooner that the current administration and all the policy makers and advisers that they've relied upon and embedded are gone, the better for the US and the world.

James

[Brett Bellmore]

My comment had more to do with the merits of obstructing traffic as a mode of political discourse, and the extent to which it ought to be taken seriously as a law enforcement issue.

[James Swayze]

Brett wrote: "My comment had more to do with the merits of obstructing traffic...."

Understood. Is there a CRN official policy on the merits or lack thereof for the current US administration's handling of Nanotech development, especially Molecular Manufacturing other than pointing out the "hindrance of investigation" and "dearth of funding research [sic]" caused by some of their possible advisors?

James

[Karl Gallagher]

The point of "civil disobedience" protests as I learned about it was to prove how much you cared about the cause by getting yourself arrested. Breaking a law and then running away is just an adolescent prank. I figure the cops should arrest people who are blocking traffic, it's their job. Blocking traffic for a cause doesn't change anything. You want to have a parade, get a permit.

[Brett Bellmore]

Originally, "civil disobedience" involved getting arrested for violating a law you were protesting. Like getting arrested for using the "wrong" drinking fountain, or burning a draft card. Thereby forcing them to enforce it in a way that would offend the public conscience.

In this case, of course, it's not against the law to vote against George Bush, so the aplicability of traditional civil disobedience seems quite limited.

[Janessa Ravenwood]

Funny, I didn't see a lot of conservatives protesting the Democratic National Convention. One COULD draw the conclusion that Republicans think the Democrats have a right to hold their national convention but that the reverse might not be true. Are the protestors suggesting that the Republican party should not have a right to exist?

Mike, you're SERIOUSLY stretching things to twist your little "protest" against the RNC to have anything to do with nanotech.

Go NYPD!

[antinano]

i totally agree with the original post. i hope you don't lose points with your friends because of that. I actually think this is the central issue that needs to be dealt with. and crn is talking about it, damned if i'm not going to end up changing my handle to procrn.

ps. Janessa for President!

[Malcolm McCauley]

About Bush/Kerry

I agree with Janessa.

I am curious though, what either candidate would actually do concerning Nanotech. Under president Bush funding for the NNI, etc has been increased. Granted, the NNI is far from perfect; but it's better than nothing, in my opinion, and can change. Any other things he's done, For or against?

I'm quite willing to hear out any support Kerry has for Nanotech (any form). But I have as yet found no mention of it by him.

About Abuse

I agree that this is an area of concern. The best way to get through the transition, I think, is to try to work within the current government. (talking about the US gov't here, no experience with others.) It's designed to change, and has the ability/possibility to completely change every 4 years. I think anyone supporting Nanotech, and their rights, should try to be politically active on both topics. Is there a Nano-lobby in Washington? Everyone should contact their representatives, advice I admittedly need to follow more as well.

[michael vassar]

As far as I can tell, funding the NNI is FAR WORSE than doing nothing. It is funding an agency which devotes no effort to MNT and much to denying that MNT is possible or to promoting a confused vision of what MNT means.
I think that participating as a generic participant in an ordinary political protest such as this one is not good policy for a director of CRN. It trivializes your concern with MNT safety to subordinate it to ordinary politics, even for one day. The issues simply are not of comparable importance, nor is Mike Treder's significance as an actor in US politics comparible to his significance as a nano-policy analyst.
OTOH, if the protest is seen simply as fun, a surge of self-rightousness endorphins, and a chance to recuperate emotional energy while gaining potentially useful empathy for ordinary, non-rational primate behavior, full speed ahead.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, please. The guy is entitled to a life.

[Mike Treder, CRN]

Michael, my participation in this or similar events is as a private citizen and not as a representative of CRN.

[michael vassar]

As I said then, full speed ahead, although your decison to post about it here does seem to suggest at least some connection to CRN.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

A moment of clarity here: Did the bicycle ride have anything to do with deliberately obstructing traffic, or civil disobedience, or trying to prevent the republican convention? Or was it simply a means of political expression of a non-destructive opinion, which ought to be welcomed by any government and every citizen of this country?

Mike, did you have any reason to think that riding your bicycle where and when you did would be illegal for any reason, including violating traffic laws?

It's also worth noting that by Mike's account, police cracked down as the riders approached the convention area. That implies that the police were not concerned with keeping the streets safe from bicycles, but with preventing a demonstration near the convention site.

Free speech does not give people the right to disrupt other people. But the government should not be in the business of preventing free speech they disagree with--and that includes excessive limitations on time, place, and access.

By the way, newsday.com quotes an AP report that protesters are being trapped with nets, held behind razor wire, and held more than 24 hours without process.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny-cvn--arrests0831aug31,0,2316928.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

Chris

[Karl Gallagher]

Chris, I think he was part of the protest described here:
http://realpolitik.us/archives/001885.php#001885
(if you don't like conservative rhetoric, just follow his links to the news articles)
That described actions which were making definite problems for innocent bystanders by obstructing traffic. If you don't think that's an accurate description, Mike T., I'll be happy to read your version. But your post above doesn't seem to conflict with the one I linked.

As for connection to CRN--I figure it's your blog, y'all can post about whatever you want, whether that be nanotech, politics, or your cat Fluffy.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Karl: Interesting, the comment at the end of that article about the chain-link fence at the democratic convention. In my previous post, I put in a line about how free-speech zones are bad, but deleted it on the edit for stylistic reasons. So I'll say it here: free-speech zones are bad--it's the same as saying free speech is not allowed anywhere else. It's a major overreaction and suppression. It seems both sides have used free speech zones, and this should worry everyone who thinks free speech is important to keep our government honest and representative.

Chris

[Mike Treder, CRN]

Did the bicycle ride have anything to do with deliberately obstructing traffic, or civil disobedience, or trying to prevent the republican convention?

We allowed traffic to proceed normally, meant to break no laws, and were not attempting to prevent nor disrupt the convention.

Or was it simply a means of political expression of a non-destructive opinion, which ought to be welcomed by any government and every citizen of this country?

Yes.

Did you have any reason to think that riding your bicycle where and when you did would be illegal for any reason, including violating traffic laws?

Absolutely not. The streets are supposed to be for the use of cars, trucks, pedestrians, motorcycles, and bicycles.

It's also worth noting that by Mike's account, police cracked down as the riders approached the convention area. That implies that the police were not concerned with keeping the streets safe from bicycles, but with preventing a demonstration near the convention site.

That is certainly how it appeared.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, as I heard it, the bike riders kind of neglected to get a parade permit, or something of the sort.

I'd have a bit more sympathy, if I didn't know some of what goes on in the name of "political protest" and "civil disobedience" today. It has really poisoned things for people who really DO just want to speak their piece.

[Malcolm McCauley]

On Nano-Politics

What I meant by my post was not a suggestion for CRN to get involved in the political process. I meant simply that individuals should at the very least tell their representatives what they think. Something as simple as "I support molecular nanotechology." would suffice. (Or insert whatever other opinion you have)

On further inspection, I'm not sure how useful a MNT lobby would be. It will be here with or without it.

On Abuse

It sounds like what you did was technically illegal, although not morally wrong. But it does open yourself up to people who want to enforce those technicalities... The law exists for a reason, not to stop protests, but to encourage them to be confined to a certain place, as to not infringe on the rights of the non-protesters. (Not in this specific case, but in general.)

[Tom Craver]

Mike/Chris:

Nice example of what happens when you get too many laws and regulations on the books. Any time authorities really want to, they can find some pretext to negate your "rights". All we now have left, in effect, are "privileges" - granted to us so long as we don't exercise our rights in any way that annoys those in power. Do I need to draw the parallel to giving government too fine-grained regulatory control over nanotech?

[Malcolm McCauley]

I think these kinds of things have to be looked at in a case-by-case basis, as there are good reasons for limiting freedoms when they interfere with the freedoms of others. Most kinds of Nanotechnology, MNT or not, will severely challenge the pre-existing balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of others; Perhaps even to some kind of breaking point. Right now it's impossible to tell what will happen. These are new challenges, with no apt historical parallel. We'll have to see how it's handled by the government. It is quite possible the government will overstep its bounds, and equally possible some individuals will overstep theirs. If you want to influence the government's handling of this issue, I suggest you get involved in making the decisions, or inform those doing so of your views. This includes protesting. But please try to get a permit, they're not very hard to obtain.