10 ms·

US Government Tracking Journalists and Immigration Advocates

196 points by vinnyglennon 8y ago

Areading314 8y ago
Duplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19325302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19325302
RandomTisk 8y ago
Government tracks people breaking the law. Backhanded activism at its finest, this article is.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- alistairSH 8y ago
  So, photojournalism and practicing law are illegal now?
- untog 8y ago
  > One photojournalist said she was pulled into secondary inspections three times and asked questions about who she saw and photographed in Tijuana shelters. You're going to have to point out to me where the lawbreaking is here.
  - Wohlf 8y ago
    Not that I support this, but it's not unreasonable to ask for information to stop illegal immigration or human trafficking. Some advocate groups have been an accessory to and/or aiding and abetting these crimes.
    - lallysingh 8y ago
      Then they go through the witness interview process, not the criminal interview process.
      - AckSyn 8y ago
        Accessories to criminal behavior get the criminal interview process. It's not hard to grasp.
      - genericone 8y ago
        Aiding and abetting a criminal is itself a crime, following that reasoning leads to a criminal interview, regardless of whether you think the original crime should be considered criminal.
        renholder 8y ago
        >Aiding and abetting a criminal is itself a crime... Bold move there, Cotton, got anything to back this claim up? As far as anyone's aware, these are just reporters who were reporting on the story.
        genericone 8y ago
        Bold move there cotton? I've heard the phrase before, but could you explain what it means in this context? I didn't say anyone was a criminal or what is a crime, what I am saying is that if you follow this particular train of thought: 1) You consider the action of Person A to be a crime. Note: The situation at hand at the border is so controversial, that many people DO consider it a crime, and many people consider their act as a RIGHT. I'll let you decide whether it is a crime or a right. But lets say you consider it a crime for the sake of this thought exercise. 2) You consider that the actions of Person B has aided Person A in the act in ANY way. 3) You reason from this that Person B has taken a partial role in the criminal act in 1) based on the legal doctrine that is Aiding and Abetting, which means: "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" So can we agree that a person who believes it is a crime, and believes that journalists HELP the ones performing the acts, that that someone would also reason that those journalists are committing a crime?
    - creaghpatr 8y ago
      Journalism is one of the most popular covers for intelligence operations, because of the obvious overlap of responsibilities and the 'moral' cover of being a journalist.
      - everybodyknows 8y ago
        >intelligence operations ... This dodges the point: The journalists were suspected of political activism, not of intelligence gathering for a foreign power.
    - cloudsinthesky 8y ago
      > not unreasonable to ask for information It is unreasonable to state that being asked for information is the exact same thing as being accused of a crime and found guilty. OP comment stated unequivocally that these journalists are criminals. That's just False as far as we can tell. Being asked for information has nothing to do with actually being a criminal, but you are conflating the two.
    - Frost1x 8y ago
      I feel that its unreasonable to demand such information, however, asking is an entirely different story. If an otherwise innocent citizen's movement out of the country is being restricted (as described in the report) for no evidenced reason, I view that as an infringement of their personal liberties. When people re-enter the country, I can see it as a bit different and investigation could be more warranted, but I still don't agree with it. The fact these border zones are not considered US soil and you, as a citizen, immediately have some subset of rights is absurd and I doubt the founders of this country would agree with as being legal at all. I understand how such measures are justified through the idea of increased security, but it does so at the cost of liberty, which is never a good trade off. Frankly, the US immigration services I've interacted with at the airport make you really feel like you're entering a police state when you return. Japan for example was a breeze and not at all intimidating and they have far stricter immigration policies than the US.
    - hector_vasquez 8y ago
      Involuntarily locking up and interrogating someone for 13 hours isn't "asking for information," and yes, it is unreasonable. In the land of the free/home of the brave that is known as an "arrest," and it can only be done if there's a charge. This is simply using passport flagging and ports of entry to persecute the political enemies of the current administration.
      - renholder 8y ago
        Normally, I'd be on the upboat train to upvote town for your comment but there's a caveat that you've overlooked: When you're at a border crossing, the protections that you believe that you have are actually lessened or non-existent.[0] [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception Feck it, have an upboat, anyways, just on principle.
- cloudsinthesky 8y ago
  Nobody here is accused of breaking the law. Are you lying about this or do you have other sources?
  - creaghpatr 8y ago
    The migrant caravan is very obviously being accused of breaking the law (at a minimum, conspiracy to commit a crime) and the journalists have "an alleged role tied to the caravan" Is this hard to grasp? >For each person, the documents show their photo, often from their passport but in some cases from their social media accounts, along with their personal information. That information includes the person’s date of birth, their “country of commencement,” and their alleged role tied to the migrant caravan.
    - cloudsinthesky 8y ago
      > The migrant caravan is very obviously being accused of breaking the law By whom? I've never heard this! > (at a minimum, conspiracy to commit a crime) What crime? What are you talking about? > Is this hard to grasp? Yes, because none of it is true. It looks like it's all made up to me and you have offered no evidence of your claims. You just state that you are "very obviously" right, but I think you are lying. What law is so obviously being broken, that would lead to individual people being very obviously accused of breaking it? Having "ties" to something is not a criminal accusation anyway, so I'm really super confused about this. AFAIK, none of the journalists or activists are accused of committing any crimes, much less convicted of it already as suggested by OP.
      - Consultant32452 8y ago
        I feel like this is mostly a pedantic argument around being a suspect vs being officially accused. The migrant caravans are obviously intending to violate US law by entering the country illegally. Entering the country illegally is itself a crime. It's a misdemeanor, but a crime nonetheless. Participating in the illegal transport of a person from one country to another is called human trafficking. These people are suspected of participating in human trafficking under the guise of journalism, so they are being questioned even though there is not enough evidence to officially accuse/charge them.
- jressey 8y ago
  You do not belong in this place. We perceive reality here.
  - dang 8y ago
    Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't post like this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- carlisle_ 8y ago
  >Government tracks people breaking the law. Backhanded activism at its finest, this article is. Is this the fox news talking point? This exact sentiment is slathered all over those hateful vile Facebook comments at the bottom of the article.
creaghpatr 8y ago
>For each person, the documents show their photo, often from their passport but in some cases from their social media accounts, along with their personal information. That information includes the person’s date of birth, their “country of commencement,” and their alleged role tied to the migrant caravan. Awfully inconvenient of NBC San Diego and/or the leakers not to release the documents so we could see examples of "their alleged role tied to the migrant caravan". Would probably be helpful context.
- cloudsinthesky 8y ago
  > not to release the documents I'm quite certain the crime here would be releasing these documents and doxxing innocent people who are doing their normal, okay, not-illegal jobs.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- sl1ck731 8y ago
  Yea I don't really see how you can support or dismiss this either way without knowing what the 3 letter agencies think the people in this list are doing. For all we know they could have been in contact with cartel or cartel associates in an official capacity just investigating things which of course might put them on a list.
- untog 8y ago
  Wouldn't that involve releasing people's personal information? I don't think that's a good idea at all.
- rosser 8y ago
  From The Fine Article: > To view the documents, click here or the link below.
- msbarnett 8y ago
  The documents are literally linked to from the article. The roles listed are things like "Journalist", "Media/Photographer", "Organizer", "Instigator", "Unknown", "N/A", etc
jtx22 8y ago
Has to be done.
- RankingMember 8y ago
  Why?
stunt 8y ago
(I’m saying this only by reading the title and first few comments. So I’m assuming this is not a tech related topic.) Absolutely a waste of time to discuss anything non tech related here at HN. There are Reddit channels for it with people who follow and understand better. That’s unfortunate to hear but let’s keep HN tech related. Sorry to say it.
- pfraze 8y ago
  I disagree. We should have conversations about how our software is used, even if it's a divisive topic.
  - pmarreck 8y ago
    You could argue that the divisive topics are those most desperately in need of discussion...
    - at-fates-hands 8y ago
      It’s too bad that even on hacker news, opposing viewpoints are often times downvoted into oblivion so that only one side of an argument is presented. I’ve often found that the people who preach tolerance and say they are accepting of differing viewpoints are in reality, those who practice it the least.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  HN isn't restricted to tech stuff, it's anything that gratifies intellectual curiosity. This doesn't post doesn't qualify.
  - happytoexplain 8y ago
    Why?
    - braythwayt 8y ago
      Click the "Guidelines" link at the bottom of the page --- What to Submit On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. --- So, with respect to politics, is this a new phenomenon? If we think, "No, this has been going on forever," then this story would be inappropriate. But if we think it's something new that is part of a very new phenomenon in the form of the Trump Presidency, then this would seem to be just fine. It's a judgment call.
mlindner 8y ago
If this was true, you wouldn't know about it.
- RankingMember 8y ago
  Oh, so sort of like how all that stuff Edward Snowden revealed wasn't true, huh?
xrd 8y ago
Lots of flagged comments here. :) If I read the assertions of the article correctly, isn't the issue that the border patrol is collecting information (i.e. acting as an intelligence agency) as opposed to its fundamental mission of protecting the border (which is strictly reactionary to breaking the laws). Is the issue that border patrol is shifting into new territory as an agency? Regardless of the obvious issues around any USA based agency collecting information on its own citizens, is the biggest question just whether this is legal for them under their charter? Or, am I misreading the issue under argument here? [edit "USA" to say "USA based agency"...]
- dahdum 8y ago
  Their response gave some light on the action, they say they didn't create the list until after the violence broke out. Seems pretty logical that they would attempt investigate who was there at the time. Not sure it's justified, but logical. "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."
  - TomMckenny 8y ago
    >Seems pretty logical There will always be explanations for such lists. And they will always be criminal activity or terrorism. That no such lists were made in the past is always considered irrelevant. That identical circumstances elsewhere produce no such lists is glossed over. >Lots of flagged comments here...USA collecting information on its own citizens is the biggest question The biggest question is why so many people are perfectly happy with this along side "press is the enemy of the people" and an arbitrary declaration of emergency. Perhaps by questioning and studying why a population suddenly accepts things they never would in the past, other counties will adjust. And it's not really a question, it's really just observing another country following the path of Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Venezuela, Philippines, Russia and India all at various stages along the same trajectory.
- alistairSH 8y ago

196 points by vinnyglennon 8y ago

Areading314 8y ago

Duplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19325302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19325302

RandomTisk 8y ago

Government tracks people breaking the law. Backhanded activism at its finest, this article is.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
alistairSH 8y ago
So, photojournalism and practicing law are illegal now?
untog 8y ago
> One photojournalist said she was pulled into secondary inspections three times and asked questions about who she saw and photographed in Tijuana shelters. You're going to have to point out to me where the lawbreaking is here.
- Wohlf 8y ago
  Not that I support this, but it's not unreasonable to ask for information to stop illegal immigration or human trafficking. Some advocate groups have been an accessory to and/or aiding and abetting these crimes.
  - lallysingh 8y ago
    Then they go through the witness interview process, not the criminal interview process.
    - AckSyn 8y ago
      Accessories to criminal behavior get the criminal interview process. It's not hard to grasp.
    - genericone 8y ago
      Aiding and abetting a criminal is itself a crime, following that reasoning leads to a criminal interview, regardless of whether you think the original crime should be considered criminal.
      - renholder 8y ago
        >Aiding and abetting a criminal is itself a crime... Bold move there, Cotton, got anything to back this claim up? As far as anyone's aware, these are just reporters who were reporting on the story.
        genericone 8y ago
        Bold move there cotton? I've heard the phrase before, but could you explain what it means in this context? I didn't say anyone was a criminal or what is a crime, what I am saying is that if you follow this particular train of thought: 1) You consider the action of Person A to be a crime. Note: The situation at hand at the border is so controversial, that many people DO consider it a crime, and many people consider their act as a RIGHT. I'll let you decide whether it is a crime or a right. But lets say you consider it a crime for the sake of this thought exercise. 2) You consider that the actions of Person B has aided Person A in the act in ANY way. 3) You reason from this that Person B has taken a partial role in the criminal act in 1) based on the legal doctrine that is Aiding and Abetting, which means: "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" So can we agree that a person who believes it is a crime, and believes that journalists HELP the ones performing the acts, that that someone would also reason that those journalists are committing a crime?
  - creaghpatr 8y ago
    Journalism is one of the most popular covers for intelligence operations, because of the obvious overlap of responsibilities and the 'moral' cover of being a journalist.
    - everybodyknows 8y ago
      >intelligence operations ... This dodges the point: The journalists were suspected of political activism, not of intelligence gathering for a foreign power.
  - cloudsinthesky 8y ago
    > not unreasonable to ask for information It is unreasonable to state that being asked for information is the exact same thing as being accused of a crime and found guilty. OP comment stated unequivocally that these journalists are criminals. That's just False as far as we can tell. Being asked for information has nothing to do with actually being a criminal, but you are conflating the two.
  - Frost1x 8y ago
    I feel that its unreasonable to demand such information, however, asking is an entirely different story. If an otherwise innocent citizen's movement out of the country is being restricted (as described in the report) for no evidenced reason, I view that as an infringement of their personal liberties. When people re-enter the country, I can see it as a bit different and investigation could be more warranted, but I still don't agree with it. The fact these border zones are not considered US soil and you, as a citizen, immediately have some subset of rights is absurd and I doubt the founders of this country would agree with as being legal at all. I understand how such measures are justified through the idea of increased security, but it does so at the cost of liberty, which is never a good trade off. Frankly, the US immigration services I've interacted with at the airport make you really feel like you're entering a police state when you return. Japan for example was a breeze and not at all intimidating and they have far stricter immigration policies than the US.
  - hector_vasquez 8y ago
    Involuntarily locking up and interrogating someone for 13 hours isn't "asking for information," and yes, it is unreasonable. In the land of the free/home of the brave that is known as an "arrest," and it can only be done if there's a charge. This is simply using passport flagging and ports of entry to persecute the political enemies of the current administration.
    - renholder 8y ago
      Normally, I'd be on the upboat train to upvote town for your comment but there's a caveat that you've overlooked: When you're at a border crossing, the protections that you believe that you have are actually lessened or non-existent.[0] [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception Feck it, have an upboat, anyways, just on principle.
cloudsinthesky 8y ago
Nobody here is accused of breaking the law. Are you lying about this or do you have other sources?
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  The migrant caravan is very obviously being accused of breaking the law (at a minimum, conspiracy to commit a crime) and the journalists have "an alleged role tied to the caravan" Is this hard to grasp? >For each person, the documents show their photo, often from their passport but in some cases from their social media accounts, along with their personal information. That information includes the person’s date of birth, their “country of commencement,” and their alleged role tied to the migrant caravan.
  - cloudsinthesky 8y ago
    > The migrant caravan is very obviously being accused of breaking the law By whom? I've never heard this! > (at a minimum, conspiracy to commit a crime) What crime? What are you talking about? > Is this hard to grasp? Yes, because none of it is true. It looks like it's all made up to me and you have offered no evidence of your claims. You just state that you are "very obviously" right, but I think you are lying. What law is so obviously being broken, that would lead to individual people being very obviously accused of breaking it? Having "ties" to something is not a criminal accusation anyway, so I'm really super confused about this. AFAIK, none of the journalists or activists are accused of committing any crimes, much less convicted of it already as suggested by OP.
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      I feel like this is mostly a pedantic argument around being a suspect vs being officially accused. The migrant caravans are obviously intending to violate US law by entering the country illegally. Entering the country illegally is itself a crime. It's a misdemeanor, but a crime nonetheless. Participating in the illegal transport of a person from one country to another is called human trafficking. These people are suspected of participating in human trafficking under the guise of journalism, so they are being questioned even though there is not enough evidence to officially accuse/charge them.
jressey 8y ago
You do not belong in this place. We perceive reality here.
- dang 8y ago
  Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't post like this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
carlisle_ 8y ago
>Government tracks people breaking the law. Backhanded activism at its finest, this article is. Is this the fox news talking point? This exact sentiment is slathered all over those hateful vile Facebook comments at the bottom of the article.

creaghpatr 8y ago

>For each person, the documents show their photo, often from their passport but in some cases from their social media accounts, along with their personal information. That information includes the person’s date of birth, their “country of commencement,” and their alleged role tied to the migrant caravan. Awfully inconvenient of NBC San Diego and/or the leakers not to release the documents so we could see examples of "their alleged role tied to the migrant caravan". Would probably be helpful context.

cloudsinthesky 8y ago
> not to release the documents I'm quite certain the crime here would be releasing these documents and doxxing innocent people who are doing their normal, okay, not-illegal jobs.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
sl1ck731 8y ago
Yea I don't really see how you can support or dismiss this either way without knowing what the 3 letter agencies think the people in this list are doing. For all we know they could have been in contact with cartel or cartel associates in an official capacity just investigating things which of course might put them on a list.
untog 8y ago
Wouldn't that involve releasing people's personal information? I don't think that's a good idea at all.
rosser 8y ago
From The Fine Article: > To view the documents, click here or the link below.
msbarnett 8y ago
The documents are literally linked to from the article. The roles listed are things like "Journalist", "Media/Photographer", "Organizer", "Instigator", "Unknown", "N/A", etc

jtx22 8y ago

Has to be done.

RankingMember 8y ago
Why?

stunt 8y ago

(I’m saying this only by reading the title and first few comments. So I’m assuming this is not a tech related topic.) Absolutely a waste of time to discuss anything non tech related here at HN. There are Reddit channels for it with people who follow and understand better. That’s unfortunate to hear but let’s keep HN tech related. Sorry to say it.

pfraze 8y ago
I disagree. We should have conversations about how our software is used, even if it's a divisive topic.
- pmarreck 8y ago
  You could argue that the divisive topics are those most desperately in need of discussion...
  - at-fates-hands 8y ago
    It’s too bad that even on hacker news, opposing viewpoints are often times downvoted into oblivion so that only one side of an argument is presented. I’ve often found that the people who preach tolerance and say they are accepting of differing viewpoints are in reality, those who practice it the least.
jessriedel 8y ago
HN isn't restricted to tech stuff, it's anything that gratifies intellectual curiosity. This doesn't post doesn't qualify.
- happytoexplain 8y ago
  Why?
  - braythwayt 8y ago
    Click the "Guidelines" link at the bottom of the page --- What to Submit On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. --- So, with respect to politics, is this a new phenomenon? If we think, "No, this has been going on forever," then this story would be inappropriate. But if we think it's something new that is part of a very new phenomenon in the form of the Trump Presidency, then this would seem to be just fine. It's a judgment call.

mlindner 8y ago

If this was true, you wouldn't know about it.

RankingMember 8y ago
Oh, so sort of like how all that stuff Edward Snowden revealed wasn't true, huh?

xrd 8y ago

Lots of flagged comments here. :) If I read the assertions of the article correctly, isn't the issue that the border patrol is collecting information (i.e. acting as an intelligence agency) as opposed to its fundamental mission of protecting the border (which is strictly reactionary to breaking the laws). Is the issue that border patrol is shifting into new territory as an agency? Regardless of the obvious issues around any USA based agency collecting information on its own citizens, is the biggest question just whether this is legal for them under their charter? Or, am I misreading the issue under argument here? [edit "USA" to say "USA based agency"...]

dahdum 8y ago
Their response gave some light on the action, they say they didn't create the list until after the violence broke out. Seems pretty logical that they would attempt investigate who was there at the time. Not sure it's justified, but logical. "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."
- TomMckenny 8y ago
  >Seems pretty logical There will always be explanations for such lists. And they will always be criminal activity or terrorism. That no such lists were made in the past is always considered irrelevant. That identical circumstances elsewhere produce no such lists is glossed over. >Lots of flagged comments here...USA collecting information on its own citizens is the biggest question The biggest question is why so many people are perfectly happy with this along side "press is the enemy of the people" and an arbitrary declaration of emergency. Perhaps by questioning and studying why a population suddenly accepts things they never would in the past, other counties will adjust. And it's not really a question, it's really just observing another country following the path of Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Venezuela, Philippines, Russia and India all at various stages along the same trajectory.
alistairSH 8y ago