The desperation of some entrepreneurs is actually quite scary (especially now), and when it's mixed with transparent access to the gatekeepers and power players — it seems only a matter of time before an wantra/entrepreneur takes rejection and/or failure out on someone else.
"Is your family protected? Maybe someone close to you is an entrepreneur ready to burst. Concerned parents should avoid letting kids play in the vicinity of start-ups and other gang related entrepreneurial areas, such as Santa Clara"
How many delusional entrepreneurs have you met? How many have you met that have poured their life savings and dreams into an idea? I've met a quite a few in the few years I've been doing this, and sometimes the stress will make a person break. Entrepreneurs with big exists have been glamorized in the media like rock stars, and therefore startups (and the dream) have become popularized. Maybe John Lennon can write the soundtrack to the entrepreneurs worse nightmare.
While I wish I could agree with your mockery about this, I think you're undermining very real threats that sadly exists in this day and age. It's even scarier when you consider location-aware, real-time social services... It won't surprise me if you see more of this behavior as the economic squeeze unfolds.
Not trying to sound like a CNN report, just saying there are valid reasons for concern and caution.
Sorry man, it wasn't my intention to ridicule a valid concern about people who get stressed out beyond imagination.
I think there is reason for entrepreneurial people to be more open about the negative effects of the emotional roller coaster that starting a business is.
Please stop associating this with Arrington. Arrington was likely the "victim" of someone disgusted with his anti-Europe rhetoric (which makes you wonder why he was back there in the first place). This, on the other hand, could be something far more serious - we will never know.
I notice most of the commenters here assuming, based on the description of the attacker, that it must have been some guy who wanted to sneak into the conference, or something of that matter. As I have a bunch of friends who work in the world of defense contracting, I am lead to a different image in my head; the description closely matches what my friends tell me to watch out for in would-be kidnappers. You see, there's a real industry in high-end kidnappings/murders/etc., and with our crap economy the incentives just become greater with every passing day. You will never hear about it in the news, but kidnappings of high profile people and their family members is rapidly increasing.
We are at the dawn of a new era of organized crime. Be vigilant.
Crime is an inevitable result of division and exclusivity through monetary means.
In this case, TED is keeping knowledge exclusive. It's a shame really. Why don't they just live broadcast the presentations to the world?
With all their presenations and lectures on benevolence and making the world a better place, why don't they share the content with the world immediately? How much better would the world be if they had access to the information at TED? There's a lot of good stuff there, why hoard it all for the intellectual and wealthy elites who are invited and can afford it?
No one would go if it was all freely broadcast. If no one went it wouldn't be an event. If it wasn't an event there would be nothing to freely broadcast.
Their putting hundreds of lectures up for free online is already a great deal, I don't see a need to complain.
I'm pretty sure most of the presenters at TED haven't been keeping their ideas secret until presenting them at TED. Most of the people are prominent in their field and have surely already done a lot of publicly available work.
Duncan had to make a quick decision and I'm glad to learn that is doing fine now. However, I can't help but think that giving up the badge may have led to the attacker's arrest, if he ever attempted to enter TED with it. I think I would have given up my badge for that reason alone.
But you see that is the very thing Duncan thought of in retrospect. It's easy for any of us to say we would have done this or that, but until you are actually placed in a like situation you have no idea what you would actually do.
Well, he did a right thing at the moment. His instinctive decision was completely understandable, and fortunately he read the situation correctly: The guy was obviously nuts, but not murderously nuts.
It could, however, have been different. The guy could have killed him. Crazy people should not be underestimated. Or the guy could have kneecapped him or dislocated his shoulder, sent him into PT or even surgery. Even losing a tooth wouldn't be worthwhile over a TED badge, for all the reasons which Davidson now understands in retrospect.
And there is something you can do about these things: instincts can be trained. You can rehearse situations, mentally or (better yet) physically, with actors standing in for muggers. And you can helpfully tell others so that they can rehearse and prepare, as Davidson has done. Thanks to him, I have a whole new retinue of tips I might follow:
Don't wear my conference badge outside the conference.
Don't store stuff that I can't afford to lose with my conference badge if that badge cost me thousands of dollars.
Travel in groups when possible, stay in the light, move quickly when approached, yadda yadda yadda. Pack as light as possible. Don't wear shoes that prevent me from running at a decent speed.
Get around to this project: Pack up a decoy wallet to carry around in the city, containing $20, some kind of old expired ID, and a bunch of expired credit cards. When mugged, drop that wallet and run. If that doesn't work, hand over the real wallet and run.
Don't carry anything that you're not willing to hand over in a mugging. Which is to say: Program yourself to understand that it's not worth fighting over your things. You may have to struggle (or not -- you kind of have to play it by ear) to avoid being raped or kidnapped or shot or stabbed, but when someone demands a thing the proper default response is to drop it and run. Credit cards can be replaced. Cash can be replaced, even $1000 worth of cash. Expensive cameras can be replaced. Even passports can be replaced. Your body cannot be replaced. And street fighting is not as easy as it looks in the movies.
A life of fear is not worth being lived. I don't think all this overhead of "preparing" for those unlikely scenarios is worth it, especially since being in the situation it's likely you'll forget all your "preparation" and you'll screw up anyway.
Also a very good point. I don't live a life of fear. I just gaily lose possessions from time to time.
On my second trip to Europe I had my $400 digicam pickpocketed in a touristy Paris metro station [1]. That made me sad, so I decided to stop carrying around $400 digicams in touristy places. On my third trip to Europe I carried a $10 disposable film camera in a day bag that I had gotten for free as a donation gift. The bag was stolen (from behind the desk at a museum, where I had checked it) on the second day of my trip. And I laughed a lot (the most difficult part of the whole thing was convincing the despondent museum staff that I wasn't badly hurt by the loss and didn't want to accept a cash settlement from an obscure but interesting museum) and I had a lot of fun shopping for a new disposable camera and a nice new cheap bag which I use to this day.
---
[1] Montmartre. Home of some fine pickpocket talent -- back then, at any rate.
Maybe this (or a worse) attacker would have killed him or knocked him out or something so he could better pose as them once he had the badge. Hard to say.
a friend of mine goes to conferences for free using all sorts of trickery. he finds out the name of guests at hotels by lying to the front desk, he get conference badges and alters them with his name and picture. he sleeps in bathroom stalls and lobby sofas and the like. i don't think he'd every hurt someone---more of the civil disobedience type. it's amazing what he can do in a "wow i'm free" kind of way.
TED probably has better access control, but I've gotten a press badge to a conference simply by filling out a web form and saying I was a "photographer from the Economist." Another conference, similar to "Foo Camp", I just went to the event site and walked in. Nobody ever asked why I didn't have a badge, etc.
My sense is that the karma police have about a ten-year backlog at this point. They're going to have to burn through the thus-far uncaught real criminals before bothering with the harmless guy who lies his way into an elite conference.
I sure hate to "blame the victim", but unfortunately, what happened to him can happen to anyone, anytime, anywhere. Each of us must take personal responsibility to keep our wits about us and take the proper steps to protect ourselves before anything happens. By the time OP was accosted, it was too late; he had already made his mistakes.
A TED badge might as well be a bullseye. Just like an expensive bag, electronics, flashy jewelry, or a bulge in a back pocket. Walking alone in a secluded area is never a good idea.
People in urban areas have always known this. Looks like the rest of us have to now. Glad to hear OP is OK. It could have been a lot worse.
Yes, there is always a risk to anything. Walking alone at night can lead to all manner of unpleasant things.
Never the less, I think living in a state of fear is the wrong way to go. It depends on the exact situation but just because there's a risk to something doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
Fringe areas are places "in between." And it is here that criminals usually operate. This is where you are most likely to be attacked, mugged or raped.
It isn't until you begin to consciously look for them that you begin to see how many you pass through each day. A fringe area is not inherently dangerous, which is why we don't normally notice them. There is no reason to fear them; it is what lurks there that you need to fear.
Fringe areas are usually places that you pass through on you way to and from the crowd. In the middle of the crowd, there are too many people for the criminal to operate safely. Too far from it, there is nobody for him to attack. At the fringes, there are enough people going through that the criminal can find victims, but not enough to effectively hinder him.
The main thing to remember is any fringe area is transitional. It is a place that we pass through on our way to something else
Davidson had positioned himself for violent victimization by walking alone in such a fringe area.
I was walking back to my hotel, the Hilton, down Ocean Boulevard. It's a 3/4 mile walk. Not a big deal, even with a backpack full of camera gear on my back. It wasn’t pleasant on feet that were sore from the day, but not bad. Mostly, I thought of if as a good way to unwind after a very full day.
As I walked under the trees by the civic center, I was grabbed from behind.
Any place that attracts large numbers of people is usually safe. Leaving such a place, however, is often dangerous . It is not uncommon for criminals to position themselves along the walkways to and from such areas. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that people leaving an establishment will usually head towards the closest parking lot.
It is a simple feat to position oneself along that route in a way where you can successfully mug someone.
There is another way to look at this. Maybe the OP just decided he wants to live in a world where people can't just grab badges off the street and enter conferences. The same way we, collectively, decide we don't want a world where having an expensive phone means you can't use it on the street at night. We take the chance it'll backfire, but we still prefer the risk to the alternative.
Yea common sense these days: Don't look like a tourist. If you're walking down the street with a backpack, moonbag, camera and a tag around your neck you're just looking for trouble.
James Duncan Davis' description of assault at TED2009 is harrowing, because it could have ended much worse and because it wasn't associated with a particularly risky behavior on his part. One single person rabid enough about getting into TED that he would manhandle and persist in trying to get Davis' TED badge despite vigorous struggle and loud screaming... also makes you aware Davis was at much greater risk if it had been two assailants or a knife/gun weilding one.
Really a shame that common strategies such as walking in groups after dark (always urged at LA conferences I've been to) are important in Long Beach and at "A place where great thinkers and optimists gather." Sure glad his person, wallet & photog gear as well as his TED badge ended up safe. Not pleased that the crazed attacker was not apprehended and may not have learned a lesson from his unsuccessful attack.
>Really a shame that common strategies... are important in Long Beach
Long Beach is only a short half-hour drive from downtown LA, and I can't imagine that advice is any different anywhere else. Of course, I'm overly sensitive to this because I'm female and young and everyone around me has hammered in that whole rape scenario before...but that is good advice no matter what.
> ...and at "A place where great thinkers and optimists gather."
Well, you'd never encounter these assaults at most conferences...too many people in too tight of a space. But I can see someone mugging for a TED badge for the access it could provide. Or any other conference, outside of wherever the conference is located.
Let me just finish off with the idea that people should be taking off badges as they exit a conference as well, even if it's only for a short lunch or something. Sometimes I get lazy or convinced I'm going to lose it, but I've come across the realization that lots of people around me treat me differently, or could find out more information about me than I care to let know if I leave the badge on, even partially hidden under a jacket.
Somewhat related. Remember reading about a semi-famous blogger being approached at a soccer game or such and being asked 'how their kids' illnesses were'. She didn't know him. She stopped blogging and/or put up a walled garden.
Seems like a new nature of crime which is rising. Last was the attack on Michael Arlington.
In this case as speculated it could be for access from a very normal guy, not terrorists not criminals. Is it a indication of losing patience, values and rise of intense rage and i-dont-care attitude among general public?
Success is earned, no one is entitled to it. The difference between a "normal" person and a criminal is all in his actions. Maybe the attacker wasn't a habitual criminal but now he is a criminal nevertheless. Those who are willing to work hard and wait for success may have a chance at it. The few who opt for illegal shortcuts are criminals, even when they don't look like ones.
"There were questions in my head as well. Questions like why didn’t he want my wallet? Or the camera gear on my back? Who the hell tries to mug somebody for a badge to a conference?"
All I know is that he didn’t want money. He wanted access.
Which is why I would tend to sympathize with this crime if it weren't for the dangerous and unpredictable nature of such stunts. The physical nature of the attack makes it repulsive, but I would've cheered it on if it were a "let me into TED or I out <X about you> to your family" type "crime", or infinitely better yet, some sort of subversive and victimless hacking. Access to an event like TED or Davos is worth playing an occasional red card, and a person with such an opportunity is right to take it.
This is definitely a sign of a new era. Although the crude physical nature of the attack is repulsive and damnable, I'm glad to see that a new and flatter shape of society shall soon emerge, because the will is there.
Threat-of: sure. No harm done. The real criminals who make up 95% of society's leadership ("power elite" if you choose to use incendiary language) do worse on a daily basis. Gate-crashing is small potatoes.
The degree of corruption in modern society is so high that such a "crime" would be a blip on the radar. Of course, if you got caught, you'd still be strung up quite badly, since the upper crust want to keep "the likes of you" out.
The reason it's a good thing to do something like this is that such a "crime" changes the shape of society by force, but by nonviolent force.
Subversive methods such as hacking the guest list or bribing a gatekeeper are a lot better, though. I don't think I could bring myself to blackmail someone, even if I knew I wasn't going to follow through.
Actually following through and ruining the guy's life: No. Not acceptable. Doesn't do any good for anyone.
I think we have a rogue entrepreneur running around, driven mad by trying to get his product off the ground.