Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Tracking Journalists Through a Secret Database • Hacker News Board

Re: Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Tracking Journalists Through a Secret Database

#161

Post by tropo » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #156

tropo wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

International treaties covering asylum seekers require that they apply for asylum in the first safe country. Mexico might not be the most wonderful place, but it is considered a safe country. (the government is not genocidal) It is therefore impossible for a legitimate asylum seeker in the US to have passed through Mexico.

> Mexico might not be the most wonderful place, but it is considered a safe country. (the government is not genocidal) Even in the parts of the country superficially under control of the central government (the parts where the cartels don't openly operate marked patrol vehicles as if they were the government), the cartels operate with virtual impunity and frequently with active, high-level cooperation by the police a…

Well, that isn't how the treaties define a safe country. Mexico is not trying to exterminate anybody from Central America. Mere crime, even highly organized or widespread crime, doesn't disqualify Mexico. The country is safe by the standards of the international treaties.

BTW, about this claim that people are fleeing violence... why should we take that at face value? Could they be fleeing the law? They could in fact be the cause of the violence. We have no way to conduct background checks.

Re: Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Tracking Journalists Through a Secret Database

#162

Post by 18pfsmt » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 8:22 PM UTC

codezero wrote: post #123

18pfsmt wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sharyl Attkisson, the person interviewing Jerome Corsi, author of Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump in this interview? https://www.c-span.org/video/?442260-1/after-words-jerome-co... Or how about this: "Citizens United’s David Bossie and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski argued that Washington bureaucrats are seeking to undermine the presidency of Donald Trump." https://www.c-spa…

Are you saying that if a journalist interviews a controversial figure they lose credibility? Was there something about those interviews that made you determine she is dubious?

Watch the interviews. She does not call them out, no matter how ridiculous or unsubstantiated the claims being made are. It's utterly ridiculous.

An interviewer is supposed to push back when claims are made that contradict reality. Chris Wallace's interview with Stephen Miller for how it's done.

Re: Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Tracking Journalists Through a Secret Database

#163

Post by 18pfsmt » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 8:30 PM UTC

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #122

18pfsmt wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sharyl Attkisson, the person interviewing Jerome Corsi, author of Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump in this interview? https://www.c-span.org/video/?442260-1/after-words-jerome-co... Or how about this: "Citizens United’s David Bossie and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski argued that Washington bureaucrats are seeking to undermine the presidency of Donald Trump." https://www.c-spa…

>Sorry, if I find Atkisson a dubious source of information. Your problem with Atikisson is she interviewed people you disagree with? Atkinson who was illegally spied on by Obama admin, has been excellent in doing real journalism. Her TED talks about fakenews and media bias are excellent. Lara Logan, Tim Pool, Atiksson, and maybe 10 others have shown they can put their biases aside and do work. It’s a sad state of jou…

I linked to the interviews, so you could watch for yourself. I don't exactly have time to re-watch, transcribe, and fact check for you, but I could probably spend some time this evening, if that interests you.

She never pushes back on any claim made, no matter how ludicrous.

Re: Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Tracking Journalists Through a Secret Database

#164

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 8:52 PM UTC

tropo wrote: post #161

dragonwriter wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mexico might not be the most wonderful place, but it is considered a safe country. (the government is not genocidal) Even in the parts of the country superficially under control of the central government (the parts where the cartels don't openly operate marked patrol vehicles as if they were the government), the cartels operate with virtual impunity and frequently with active, high-level cooperation by the police a…

Well, that isn't how the treaties define a safe country. Mexico is not trying to exterminate anybody from Central America. Mere crime, even highly organized or widespread crime, doesn't disqualify Mexico. The country is safe by the standards of the international treaties. BTW, about this claim that people are fleeing violence... why should we take that at face value? Could they be fleeing the law? They could in fact…

> Well, that isn't how the treaties define a safe country

As the grounds for asylum or refugee status (the difference is in where you apply) in both international and US domestic law include both threats from the government and from groups the government is unwilling or unable to control, the fact that the same nongovernment and not-restrained-by-government groups one is fleeing from are operating in and not effectively constrained by the government in another country would make that country unsafe.

> BTW, about this claim that people are fleeing violence... why should we take that at face value

No, we should have a non-rubber-stamp application and review process theat evaluates evidence.

Which, newsflash, we have for asylum seekers (actually, we have two of them—the “affirmative” and “defensive” asylum processes), and that is exactly what the Administration is trying to prevent them from accessing.

Re: Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Tracking Journalists Through a Secret Database

#165

Post by thecynicc » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 8:56 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #159

fredgrott wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

since when do we as a country track people over violence instead of say just oh doing an investigation of just asking wha5t happened? are we suddenly Communist China or Nazi Germany?

>are we suddenly Communist China or Nazi Germany? Suddenly? No. This is the inevitable result of the normalization of authoritarianism, militarism and mass surveillance that began after 9/11. I mean, we have a President who outright calls the press enemies of the people, and half the country agrees with him, and most of the rest just dismiss it as Trump being an angry crazy man. That's how far the Overton window has…

[dead]

Re: Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Tracking Journalists Through a Secret Database

#166

Post by zelon88 » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

wbg34 wrote: post #73

danesparza wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect. A criminal investigation would be legal. A quote directly from the article sums up the counterpoint nicely: “We are a criminal investigation agency, we’re not an intelligence agency,” the Homeland Security source told NBC 7 Investigates. “We can’t create dossiers on people and they’re creating dossiers. This is an abuse of the Border Search Authority.”

A quote from the official statement from the Customs and Border Patrol. It was also in the article. "CBP told our colleagues at NBC News that the names in the database are all people who were present during violence that broke out at the border in November. The agency also said journalists are being tracked so that the agency can learn more about what started that violence."

If guilt by association could be attributed to on-duty journalists, practically all journalists would be in jail.

Messing with the press will always be construed as intimidation. Means to an end. And rightfully so. So as the government; just don't do it. Don't even think about it. The press doing their job is the turning point in the feedback loop that makes democracy work.

The first amendment protects the press, as well as the people's right "...to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The whole "keep tabs on journalists to learn more about the violence that journalists didn't contribute too" is a strawman argument, and a fairly obvious boot-licking one at that.

Re: Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Tracking Journalists Through a Secret Database

#167

Post by tdb7893 » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

calvinbhai wrote: post #158

tdb7893 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being sympathetic isn't a crime. Also covering things as a journalist not only isn't a crime but also is protected in many forms by the Constitution. Americans are very very very touchy about possible freedom of speech and freedom of the press violations. I'm not sure what crime these journalists are going to commit that makes us need to track them.

Curious: So, if for some reason, there are journalists that are creating content for groups/regimes that are anti-America (lets say ISIS, Assad, Ahmedinajad or Jong Un), would that journalist never been seen with any kind of suspicion in the US?

The thing is that you really need some specific reason to be suspicious and being a journalist or activist isn't inherently suspicious.

It's not that you can't be suspicious of journalists, you just need an actual reason and there really isn't a clear one here.

Edit: People are also particularly touchy about this because suppression of activists and journalists enables more authoritarian control and human rights abuses to the point where it's a trait of every recent authoritarian government I'm aware of.

Re: Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Tracking Journalists Through a Secret Database

#168

Post by tinus_hn » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 10:21 PM UTC

sehugg wrote: post #8

Not only tracking them, but putting flags on their passports and interrogating them at the border: “They asked about the new caravan and if word had gotten out about how difficult it is to seek asylum in the U.S.,” Drehsler said. “Then before I left, the female agent asked if I rented or owned my home.” This sounds much more like a political intimidation operation than serving a national security purpose.

Probably taken from the playbook of your new comrades.

Re: Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Tracking Journalists Through a Secret Database

#169

Post by cmroanirgo » Thu, Mar 07, 2019, 11:24 PM UTC

sehugg wrote: post #8

Not only tracking them, but putting flags on their passports and interrogating them at the border: “They asked about the new caravan and if word had gotten out about how difficult it is to seek asylum in the U.S.,” Drehsler said. “Then before I left, the female agent asked if I rented or owned my home.” This sounds much more like a political intimidation operation than serving a national security purpose.

Whatever the original altruistic goal of state surveillance, this must stop, because the abuse increases every year and human freedoms decrease, for everyone, no matter your country of origin/ habitation.

Our global political landscape must radically improve for humanity's sake. It seems that every government, particularly the 'western' ones are racing headlong into outright facism: all because of political and corporate maneuvering.

Re: Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Tracking Journalists Through a Secret Database

#170

Post by tropo » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 12:50 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #164

tropo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that isn't how the treaties define a safe country. Mexico is not trying to exterminate anybody from Central America. Mere crime, even highly organized or widespread crime, doesn't disqualify Mexico. The country is safe by the standards of the international treaties. BTW, about this claim that people are fleeing violence... why should we take that at face value? Could they be fleeing the law? They could in fact…

> Well, that isn't how the treaties define a safe country As the grounds for asylum or refugee status (the difference is in where you apply) in both international and US domestic law include both threats from the government and from groups the government is unwilling or unable to control, the fact that the same nongovernment and not-restrained-by-government groups one is fleeing from are operating in and not effectiv…

The review is pretty simple. They were welcomed to apply for asylum in Mexico and refused to do so: case closed. The administration is not trying to prevent them from accessing that offer.

Clearly, it is not asylum that they seek. At best, they are shopping around for the most lucrative benefits. If they just wanted asylum, heading south would have made as much sense as heading north -- and more if Mexico is really so scary. Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia are all safe countries.

You want a review process that evaluates evidence, but how? A person shows up with a coached sob story and forged or missing identity. If it were just one person, perhaps we could have the CIA spend a few million dollars in a possibly futile effort to uncover the person's past. With so many people, that is simply not possible. What you are proposing is that we accept the word of these people, meaning that 100% of them would qualify. That is unrestricted entry.