101–110 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
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…
Twitter is a private platform. You have no free speech rights on Twitter. You have no rights at all, other than the Terms of Service. The Bill of Rights protects you from the government. Twitter is not the government.
Not that that will limit the creation of ethically dubious firms like ClearviewAI or Palantir.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I agree in spirit here, but in practice in order to get probable cause of criminality or criminal intent, you need to do a little bit of surveillance/monitoring first. And it seems to me that a good compromise is "monitor publicly available media, like twitter to look for evidence of criminal intent, and then use more invasive tactics if you find it".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 dif…
At least 17 people were murdered during this time and a few more since this was posted: https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/06/03/twitter-user-compile... The posts are public and the police cannot go after anyone for simply engaging in protected speech, but they can and have identified looters and murderers who have tried to discredit the fact that black lives matter with their actions. So I'm not clear why so many peo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
It's rather surreal to watch this all happen -- the gaslighting, the racists crawling out from under their rocks, the blatant corruption, and the fomenting of hate amongst the populace. I think things are going to get a lot uglier before November, and after the election to get even worse.
We live in perilous times.
It is much more effective at making lists of people willing to lawfully and peacefully stand for the human rights or others, -- "potential subversives", as the parties monitoring might call them.
Imagine, instead, if law enforcement were to stand outside of a marijuana-legalization rally and collect the sort of data effectively collected here: name, address, duration of involvement. They'd end up in court immediately, and it would likely be found that their actions had a chilling effect which created a prior restraint on the public's constitutionally protected speech.
Yet online this kind of data collection amasses more data and is more chilling due secretive nature since you never know when you're not being tracked.
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.
Equating the antifa group and it's loose "members" with just an anti-ideology is a cop-out that isn't helpful to differentiating a desirable mindset (anti-fascism) with the undesirable tactics that many "members" of Antifa use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that was the general idea, yes. Or at least, before they have strong indication that it’s likely to commit a crime.
How should they determine when a group is about to commit a crime though? Usually that's done via pre-emptive surveillance. If they are not allowed to surveil groups that they merely suspect might one day commit crimes, it will be very hard for them to know anything about their activities before the crimes actually get committed. It's certainly possible that this is just the price of freedom. But I think its a rather…
Even if they were able to catch every crime before it started, ala minority report, they, based on past behavior, would most likely seriously abuse that power hence the strong opposition here to having them even come close to posessing that power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FBI doesn’t appear to do a great job at preventing white supremacist domestic terrorism, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
Relative to what? We have no idea how much terrorism there would be without the FBI.