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

61–70 of 261 posts

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

#61

Post by mardifoufs »

zo1 wrote: post #34
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…

Because the likelihood of protests turning violent and damaging property is high? I really don't see how we can say that protesting is a "protected activity" and yet not allow people to have an actual say in how things should be run. Almost as if we want people to think they can have a say (by protesting - yay, it's "protected"!), but not really give them an avenue to do so that is meaningful and likely to change thi…

>For all we know, we're hearing the vocal minority of people, instead of the actual voices that need hearing.

Yes, and they have the right to protest too if they feel like their own voices aren't being heard. That's the beauty of freedom.

You can't seriously be against people protesting simply because you don't want to do it too. It's like arguing against voting because some (or even most) people don't vote and those who do are usually more "vocal" or political. It's a very dangerous mentality

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

#62

Post by daseiner1 »

zo1 wrote: post #34
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…

Because the likelihood of protests turning violent and damaging property is high? I really don't see how we can say that protesting is a "protected activity" and yet not allow people to have an actual say in how things should be run. Almost as if we want people to think they can have a say (by protesting - yay, it's "protected"!), but not really give them an avenue to do so that is meaningful and likely to change thi…

“peaceful protest” is an oxymoron

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

#63

Post by [deleted] »

elliekelly wrote: post #38
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…

I would agree, with the giant caveat that I would like those activities to be surveilled only upon a showing of probable cause and with judicial oversight. The government shouldn’t have carte blanche to “investigate” citizens who are not suspected of committing a crime.

[deleted]

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

#64

Post by craftinator »

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.

He's more than welcome to voice his desire to have them surveiled. Just as I can voice that he would make an awful public official or officer with that attitude.

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

#65

Post by aspenmayer »

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.

Actions that prevent fair and free exercise of civil rights are against the law. The designation of the groups under the law is not relevant to the actions of the KKK already being illegal if they interfere with the above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Enforcement_Act

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

#66

Post by FilterSweep »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #46
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 get the sense that most HN commenters are against having police surveil this kind of event in the U.S. Look to your left and right. The people building this dystopia are right here on this site.

it’s more of a "surveillance for thee, not for me" sort of deal on HN.

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

#67

Post by slg »

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…

In my opinion, this goes because just surveilling a legal protest. These protests were specifically against the police's abuse of their power. This resulted in a police response that was much more adversarial than a traditional legal protest would face. Aiding the police in surveilling protesters allows police to further abuse their power and target protesters for retribution. Providing this monitoring isn't that different than providing them with tear gas or rubber bullets. It is actively contributing to violence against people simply using their constitutional rights.

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

#68

Post by aspenmayer »

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.

The actions of the KKK are not legal if they prevent free exercise of civil rights.[1] The Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue and found the actions of the KKK to be in violation of the law if they impede protected activity, such as protesting or voter registration.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Enforcement_Act

Edit: It should be noted that this statue only applies to actions of representatives of the government[2]. It does not necessarily apply to the general public; the context of this comment chain is vague but implies a context that at least could include the public. I don’t mean to misrepresent the law. I am not a lawyer.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor

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

#69

Post by craftinator »

Avicebron wrote: post #28
morsch wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ouch. When anecdotal cherry-picking goes wrong.

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

#70

Post by manigandham »

daseiner1 wrote: post #62
zo1 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the likelihood of protests turning violent and damaging property is high? I really don't see how we can say that protesting is a "protected activity" and yet not allow people to have an actual say in how things should be run. Almost as if we want people to think they can have a say (by protesting - yay, it's "protected"!), but not really give them an avenue to do so that is meaningful and likely to change thi…

“peaceful protest” is an oxymoron

No it absolutely isn’t. Lack of violence against people and harm against property is expected, and not hard to achieve.
Post reply on HN