Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police surveilled protests with help from Twitter-affiliated startup Dataminr

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 261 posts

Re: Police surveilled protests with help from Twitter-affiliated startup Dataminr

#21

Post by bzb3 »

stefan_ wrote: post #17
DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #9

I get the sense that most HN commenters are against having police surveil this kind of event in the U.S. Could someone share the reasons for this strong opposition? Personally, I can imagine valid reasons for and against conducting such surveillance. But given how many people feel otherwise, I wonder if I'm missing something.

The first obvious point is that protesting is a constitutionally protected activity, as is any political speech on Twitter, and this is interpreted extremely widely - so why are public institutions in the business of surveilling this legal, ney protected activity? But there is more to it. Courts have long recognized that state activity that can be reasonably construed to chill exercise of ones constitutional freedoms…

Practically all activities that are legal and protected are surveiled in one way or the other precisely to make sure they stay within the confines of legality.

Re: Police surveilled protests with help from Twitter-affiliated startup Dataminr

#22

Post by nimbius »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #9

I get the sense that most HN commenters are against having police surveil this kind of event in the U.S. Could someone share the reasons for this strong opposition? Personally, I can imagine valid reasons for and against conducting such surveillance. But given how many people feel otherwise, I wonder if I'm missing something.

i could argue dataminr is just a fun way for the government to sidestep the fourth amendment but there are toilet paper brands with more resilience than the fourth amendment these days.

The reason you do not surveil protestors is because it encourages the government to intervene and acts as an engine for parallel construction. some US cities actually profit from incarceration, and the opportunity to fill a jail cell is all too enticing. It also makes it almost impossible to defend against the argument that the state is acting to punish political dissent, or that police arent reacting as a defensive organism instead of a public safety agency. Police and governments are meant to build trust with their citizens, so when surveillance tactics make themselves public (and they always do, its just great PR for dataminr) citizens rightly feel targeted, vulnerable, and bullied. surveillance erodes trust, which leads to more fervent protests.

Surveillance does little to keep people safe during a protest. Its mainly a tool to write negative narratives about protestors, or used as a tool to help infiltrate protests and break them up from inside.

Re: Police surveilled protests with help from Twitter-affiliated startup Dataminr

#23

Post by behringer »

bzb3 wrote: post #21
stefan_ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first obvious point is that protesting is a constitutionally protected activity, as is any political speech on Twitter, and this is interpreted extremely widely - so why are public institutions in the business of surveilling this legal, ney protected activity? But there is more to it. Courts have long recognized that state activity that can be reasonably construed to chill exercise of ones constitutional freedoms…

Practically all activities that are legal and protected are surveiled in one way or the other precisely to make sure they stay within the confines of legality.

And also to arrest the leaders of said protected activities.

Re: Police surveilled protests with help from Twitter-affiliated startup Dataminr

#24

Post by pstuart »

bzb3 wrote: post #21
stefan_ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first obvious point is that protesting is a constitutionally protected activity, as is any political speech on Twitter, and this is interpreted extremely widely - so why are public institutions in the business of surveilling this legal, ney protected activity? But there is more to it. Courts have long recognized that state activity that can be reasonably construed to chill exercise of ones constitutional freedoms…

Practically all activities that are legal and protected are surveiled in one way or the other precisely to make sure they stay within the confines of legality.

That's a charitable interpretation. For example, infiltrating groups with undercover officers goes beyond making sure that said group is "legal".

Re: Police surveilled protests with help from Twitter-affiliated startup Dataminr

#25

Post by morsch »

bzb3 wrote: post #21
stefan_ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first obvious point is that protesting is a constitutionally protected activity, as is any political speech on Twitter, and this is interpreted extremely widely - so why are public institutions in the business of surveilling this legal, ney protected activity? But there is more to it. Courts have long recognized that state activity that can be reasonably construed to chill exercise of ones constitutional freedoms…

Practically all activities that are legal and protected are surveiled in one way or the other precisely to make sure they stay within the confines of legality.

Eh. This is obviously wrong, I must be misunderstanding you. I was cooking dinner earlier, which is a legal and protected activity. In what way was I being surveilled?

Re: Police surveilled protests with help from Twitter-affiliated startup Dataminr

#26

Post by roughly »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #9

I get the sense that most HN commenters are against having police surveil this kind of event in the U.S. Could someone share the reasons for this strong opposition? Personally, I can imagine valid reasons for and against conducting such surveillance. But given how many people feel otherwise, I wonder if I'm missing something.

I think there are interesting theoretical arguments to be had for and against this, and then there's the world we actually live in. In this world, stuff like this happens: https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/13/18253848/eric-garner-foot...

Re: Police surveilled protests with help from Twitter-affiliated startup Dataminr

#27

Post by linuxftw »

colordrops wrote: post #10
DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #9

I get the sense that most HN commenters are against having police surveil this kind of event in the U.S. Could someone share the reasons for this strong opposition? Personally, I can imagine valid reasons for and against conducting such surveillance. But given how many people feel otherwise, I wonder if I'm missing something.

Because the political class has demonstrated repeatedly that they are mostly corrupt and will take advantage of the data illegally, just like with echelon and prism, and what they are now trying to do with the EARN IT act.

The people here only understand that there's a political class aiming to control them when it doesn't align with their political views. The media, social media, your favorite political party, all part of the political class.

Which presidential candidate voted for the Iraq war again? The Wall Street Bailouts? Who do that person represent?

Re: Police surveilled protests with help from Twitter-affiliated startup Dataminr

#28

Post by Avicebron »

morsch wrote: post #25
bzb3 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Practically all activities that are legal and protected are surveiled in one way or the other precisely to make sure they stay within the confines of legality.

Eh. This is obviously wrong, I must be misunderstanding you. I was cooking dinner earlier, which is a legal and protected activity. In what way was I being surveilled?

Your Blue Apron order data was scraped and compiled to determine that you are in fact Vegetarian /s

Re: Police surveilled protests with help from Twitter-affiliated startup Dataminr

#30

Post by jerrybee »

stefan_ wrote: post #17
DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #9

I get the sense that most HN commenters are against having police surveil this kind of event in the U.S. Could someone share the reasons for this strong opposition? Personally, I can imagine valid reasons for and against conducting such surveillance. But given how many people feel otherwise, I wonder if I'm missing something.

The first obvious point is that protesting is a constitutionally protected activity, as is any political speech on Twitter, and this is interpreted extremely widely - so why are public institutions in the business of surveilling this legal, ney protected activity? But there is more to it. Courts have long recognized that state activity that can be reasonably construed to chill exercise of ones constitutional freedoms…

Aren’t the tweets ingested by Dataminr public? I agree this would be problematic if they were using private data, but using data available to anyone on the platform feels like fair game.
Post reply on HN