Police surveilled protests with help from Twitter-affiliated startup Dataminr • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by FilterSweep » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 11:37 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #49

pstuart wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, being that the KKK is a domestic terrorist organization. One citation of many possible regarding police malfeasance: https://theintercept.com/2020/06/02/history-united-states-go...

There is no such thing as a 'domestic terrorist organization'. It is illegal to classify any domestic organization as terrorist. That's why the KKK isn't one, and it's why Antifa isn't one either, Trump's blustering about it notwithstanding.

Antifa is considered a domestic terrorist organization to the trump admin.

Even though being antifa is simply being against fascism.

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

#52

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 11:38 PM UTC

pstuart wrote: post #50

darawk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that they are both engaged in protected activities of free association and speech. If the standard is that the government should not surveil people engaged in those activities, then the KKK would have to be exempted too. Or, alternatively, you could formulate a more nuanced criteria for when the government should or should not surveil people.

The KKK was designed to be a terrorist organization.

[deleted]

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

#53

Post by darawk » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 11:38 PM UTC

titzer wrote: post #42

darawk wrote: post #35

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? There are lots of things that are protected activities that I would like surveiled. Militias. The KKK. Neo-nazis. I certainly hope the FBI and other law…

> that I would like surveiled This part of your comment really, really rubs me the wrong way. Your personal inclinations absolutely cannot direct the apparatus of state on a whim. Either those groups are suspected of criminal activity or conspiracy to commit criminal activity, which is probable cause for surveillance, or they aren't.

> This part of your comment really, really rubs me the wrong way. Your personal inclinations absolutely cannot direct the apparatus of state on a whim

Last I checked, we lived in a democracy. A democracy is composed of the collective whims of the citizens. I'm simply registering mine. You're free to oppose if you so desire. My point though is simply to illustrate the ideological contradiction latent in the comment I was referring to.

> Either those groups are suspected of criminal activity or conspiracy to commit criminal activity, which is probable cause for surveillance, or they aren't.

Indeed. So, you are opposed to government surveillance of neo-nazi groups that eschew violence, then?

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

#54

Post by rapind » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 11:38 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #35

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…

> 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? There are lots of things that are protected activities that I would like surveiled. Militias. The KKK. Neo-nazis. I certainly hope the FBI and other law…

Think deeply about what you're proposing.

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

#55

Post by FilterSweep » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 11:40 PM UTC

pstuart wrote: post #48

FilterSweep wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

theyre not classified as a terrorist group, antifa (a far more ambiguous group) which was at the protests is . the inaction toward the KKK is implicit consent toward their activities. I’m not certain how you could draw a connection given the two groups respective statuses.

"antifa" is boogeyman designed to spook the cattle. It's at best a label, and on its face, a noble label.

This is naive.

Their labeling of antifa as a terrorist organization sets the precedent that ANYONE engaging in antifascist activities or in opposition of fascism is a terrorist.

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

#56

Post by FilterSweep » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 11:46 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #47

FilterSweep wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

theyre not classified as a terrorist group, antifa (a far more ambiguous group) which was at the protests is . the inaction toward the KKK is implicit consent toward their activities. I’m not certain how you could draw a connection given the two groups respective statuses.

My point is that they are both engaged in protected activities of free association and speech. If the standard is that the government should not surveil people engaged in those activities, then the KKK would have to be exempted too. Or, alternatively, you could formulate a more nuanced criteria for when the government should or should not surveil people.

Are Racial lynchings a protected activity?

To be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were

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

#57

Post by darawk » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 11:46 PM UTC

FilterSweep wrote: post #51

darawk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as a 'domestic terrorist organization'. It is illegal to classify any domestic organization as terrorist. That's why the KKK isn't one, and it's why Antifa isn't one either, Trump's blustering about it notwithstanding.

Antifa is considered a domestic terrorist organization to the trump admin. Even though being antifa is simply being against fascism.

It's not though. Not in any legal sense.

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

#58

Post by darawk » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 11:47 PM UTC

rapind wrote: post #54

darawk wrote: post #35

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? There are lots of things that are protected activities that I would like surveiled. Militias. The KKK. Neo-nazis. I certainly hope the FBI and other law…

Think deeply about what you're proposing.

I am thinking about it. Think about what you are proposing. Do you really want to take the position that the government cannot monitor any group until it commits a crime?

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

#59

Post by darawk » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 11:48 PM UTC

FilterSweep wrote: post #56

darawk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that they are both engaged in protected activities of free association and speech. If the standard is that the government should not surveil people engaged in those activities, then the KKK would have to be exempted too. Or, alternatively, you could formulate a more nuanced criteria for when the government should or should not surveil people.

Are Racial lynchings a protected activity? To be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were

Of course not. But not every racist group has engaged in lynchings. Do you think the government should refrain from surveilling racist organizations until they do their first lynching?

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

#60

Post by darawk » Thu, Jul 09, 2020, 11:49 PM UTC

pstuart wrote: post #50

darawk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that they are both engaged in protected activities of free association and speech. If the standard is that the government should not surveil people engaged in those activities, then the KKK would have to be exempted too. Or, alternatively, you could formulate a more nuanced criteria for when the government should or should not surveil people.

The KKK was designed to be a terrorist organization.

I'm not saying that the KKK is not a terrorist organization. I'm just saying that they are not legally classified as one, because of the first amendment. The courts consider it unconstitutional to label any domestic organization as a 'terrorist organization', in the legal sense.