14 ms·

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 opposi

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.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
>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.
- FilterSweep 6y ago
  it’s more of a "surveillance for thee, not for me" sort of deal on HN.
  - gruez 6y ago
    HNers only object to surveillance on themselves?
  - jniedrauer 6y ago
    I think it's more that human nature lets you justify a lot in the act of self-preservation. When it advances your career, it's so easy to say "if I wasn't writing this code, then it would just be the next programmer in line behind me."
- arminiusreturns 6y ago
  "Notably, Epstein, who was known for his interest in obtaining blackmail through the sexual abuse of the underaged girls he exploited, also claimed to have “damaging information” on prominent figures in Silicon Valley. In a conversation last year with New York Times reporter James Stewart, Epstein claimed to have “potentially damaging or embarrassing” information on Silicon Valley’s elite and told Stewart that these top figures in the American tech industry “were hedonistic and regular users of recreational drugs.” Epstein also told Stewart that he had “witnessed prominent tech figures taking drugs and arranging for sex” and claimed to know “details about their supposed sexual proclivities.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-interview.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-...
  - toofy 6y ago
    I hope we’ve reached a point where aside from pedophilia or coercive sex practices, sexual proclivities and drug use would not be enough to blackmail anyone today. The religious right and their “moral majority” have been hamstrung both through the courts and through culture moving on. Prior to the first tech boom wider society also believed not wearing a suit was a reliable indicator that a person was stupid. We’ve progressed past these ridiculous ideas. I know plenty of exceptional performing individuals who both like sex and occasionally use drugs. If we’re backsliding into the right’s moral majority tyranny again, someone let me know as my filter bubbles may have me blinded. Either way, none of the high profile Silicon Valley people I know would care that someone knows they have sexual desires.
    - arminiusreturns 6y ago
      I would agree, but it's rather interesting to see how the evolution of social acceptance has changed the blackmail game. So in intelligence circles, just being gay int he mid-20th century was enough to blackmail a person, but because most people, even conservatives, have adjusted to it, it no longer serves as enough of a blackmail. This is why in the blackmail world it moves progressively towards more repulsive actions. Honestly an analysis of Epstein shows he was more trying to get his foot in the door in SV (as his backing of a few tech ventures confirms) but it lends me to believe he didn't have "the real dirt" on SV. When you look at which intelligence agencies were running Epstein though, it becomes more clear that they certainly already have a huge presence in SV, and they are certain to have deployed the blackmail networks for quite some time. So yes, aside from those things you mention, we should be relatively ok with whatever... but the problem is the blackmail system will move towards those things if they know that, and they do so. I've tried to explain this progression to others, and it applies across the board to politicians, businessmen, etc. Bribery comes first. Then comes blackmail. It starts with the after-after party, and the target is in the back room doing drugs. Got it on video. Next it's a prostitute. Next it's an underage prostitute. Next is abuse... and it progresses into places most people on HN wouldn't want to know. If you do want to know more, lookup the Dutroux scandal, aka the Belgian X-files. I would venture most of SV doesn't have to progress past the bribery stage, and that includes manipulations of national identity (national security).
colordrops 6y ago
Because the political class has demonstrated repeatedly that they are mostly corrupt and will take advantage of the data illegally, just like with echelon and prism, and what they are now trying to do with the EARN IT act.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  The people here only understand that there's a political class aiming to control them when it doesn't align with their political views. The media, social media, your favorite political party, all part of the political class. Which presidential candidate voted for the Iraq war again? The Wall Street Bailouts? Who do that person represent?
golemiprague 6y ago
What you missing is that most people in the silicon valley are leftist and therefore everything is derived from this political point of view. If it was a right wing demonstration they would be all for it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
davmar 6y ago
How about you give us your best "for" argument?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The "for" argument is outlined by Dataminr in the article. If someone with one of those old-timey "press" hats went down to the protest and started publishing information about where it is, how it's going, how many people there are, most people would consider that to be simple and non-problematic journalism. Dataminr doesn't think their behavior is any different.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  Disclaimer: I don't have a settled opinion either for or against this surveillance. I really don't think I've heard all of the relevant facts or perspectives yet. The main "pro-surveillance" argument that comes to mind is that sometimes these protests devolve into illegal looting and destruction of private/public property. I think my ideal would be for police to have only the surveillance needed to prosecute those crimes, and nothing else.
  - enilakla 6y ago
    Funny thing is surveillance probably doesn't prevent looting and/or property damage, lol Not arguing with your post, as you mention prosecution not prevention; I agree. Ultimately, we'll be trading more liberty for 'security' I imagine.
NoInputSignal 6y ago
I don't know what your reasons against are, but a big one for me is an infringement on one's right to assemble. I know it doesn't sound like much, but for a lot of communities (especially ones that may already be "targets" for law enforcement at all levels [local, state, and federal]), surveillance may keep them from feeling safe protesting. For example, imagine being undocumented and wanting to protest. You may second guess going to a protest (even if it benefits you to do so), because you learned law enforcement is tracking the communications and movements of protesters.
stefan_ 6y ago
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 is similarly an infringement on those rights, and certainly take a very dim look on any sort of surveillance of political activity.
- slg 6y ago
  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.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    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-compiles-list-of-victims-of-recent-riots/ 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 people are against the police catching the violent criminals who undermine the message of the many peaceful protesters.
    - thekid314 6y ago
      In Boston I was standing beside the police as the let looting occur. There were only about 5 shops broken into and only 1 that I saw looted, but the police were standing 10 feet away from one and didn't do anything about it.
Ar-Curunir 6y ago
Because handing more power to an over-militarized, violent, racist institution will inevitably result in retribution and harm to protestors and activists. For example, incidents like this: https://www.thedailybeast.com/norman-oklahoma-councilwoman-alexandra-scott-fears-police-doxxing-led-to-neighbor-being-raped https://www.thedailybeast.com/norman-oklahoma-councilwoman-a...
- TeeMassive 6y ago
  Your argument would be more credible without emotion-base political accusations. If you want to look what a really "over-militarized, violent, racist institution" looks like than look at China. This doesn't even compare.
  - Ar-Curunir 6y ago
    I mean, police in both countries can be over-militarized, violent, and racist. That's literally the origin of police in most countries: to coercively enforce the will of the state, usually against working-class and otherwise minority groups (Also, you must really be willfully blind to think that militarization of American police is an "emotional" statement. It's been happening for decades and has been documented by every newspaper you could care to look at.)
  - sleepinseattle 6y ago
    Look no further than the rampant white collar crime that goes un-prosecuted in the US. No one is being held accountable for PPP corruption. Of course being anti-racist is emotional. How can you not feel very upset when contemplating the racial inequities in this country?
shpongled 6y ago
Because history has shown time and time again that governments cannot be trusted to do what is in the best interest of the people.
- refurb 6y ago
  How does that jive with the overwhelming propensity for big government on HN? “I don’t want the gov’t to know I was at a protest, but I’m more than happy to give them all my medical data and work for a nationalized company.”
  - shpongled 6y ago
    I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. A cursory glance over my comments would show that I don't have a desire for big government. I think we should immediately abolish the IRS, ATF, DEA, and NSA
    - refurb 6y ago
      My comment was not directed at you, but more broadly what I read on HN. There is a very strong anti-gov't stance when it comes to privacy and surveillance, but a very strong pro-government stance when it comes to solving issues like healthcare, capitalism, R&D, housing, food, etc. I don't see how those two can jive.
      - areeh 6y ago
        I'm curious what you see as the fundamental conflict here? Looking at my own European country, these are things we work on optimising at the same time, and I think we often do better at both than the US. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by anti gov't though, I just mean having laws and mechanisms that protect privacy
nimbius 6y ago
i could argue dataminr is just a fun way for the government to sidestep the fourth amendment but there are toilet paper brands with more resilience than the fourth amendment these days. The reason you do not surveil protestors is because it encourages the government to intervene and acts as an engine for parallel construction. some US cities actually profit from incarceration, and the opportunity to fill a jail cell is all too enticing. It also makes it almost impossible to defend against the argument that the state is acting to punish political dissent, or that police arent reacting as a defensive organism instead of a public safety agency. Police and governments are meant to build trust with their citizens, so when surveillance tactics make themselves public (and they always do, its just great PR for dataminr) citizens rightly feel targeted, vulnerable, and bullied. surveillance erodes trust, which leads to more fervent protests. Surveillance does little to keep people safe during a protest. Its mainly a tool to write negative narratives about protestors, or used as a tool to help infiltrate protests and break them up from inside.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf says that for CONUS (domestic) Civil Disturbance, US military doctrine is/was to operate with limited intelligence: B-34. Strict limits are placed on collecting information related to a civil disturbance in order to protect the civil rights of people and organizations not affiliated with the DOD. Civil disturbance plans and materials must not include lists of groups or people not affiliated with the DOD. Information on civilians and civilian organizations can be collected only with specific authorization from the Secretary or the Under Secretary of the Army. ...
roughly 6y ago
I think there are interesting theoretical arguments to be had for and against this, and then there's the world we actually live in. In this world, stuff like this happens: https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/13/18253848/eric-garner-footage-ramsey-orta-police-brutality-killing-safety https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/13/18253848/eric-garner-foot...
SN76477 6y ago
It’s quite simple. If it is valid then you can go to a judge and get a warrant.
FilterSweep 6y ago
but they keep writing software for them wait until AI is used in hiring.
cortesoft 6y ago
If you do a lot of surveillance, you are going to see a lot of things worth at least investigating. Most will be false positives, but you will still need to investigate... there will be a huge backlash if something happens and it becomes known you had intelligence that something might have been going on and you didn't investigate. So you investigate a lot of people. If you are good at your job, you will exonerate all the innocent people. So no harm, no foul, right? Except being investigated really sucks, even if you are found innocent. You might have to answer questions, and knowing a wrong answer could land you in real trouble is stressful and scary, even when totally innocent. Sometimes it is hard to explain context of things when investigators only see parts of it. The more surveillance you do, the more likely innocent people are going to suffer this stress of investigation. This will lead to people being less likely to want to participate in social movements because of the added risk of having to be investigated.
badrabbit 6y ago
The right to assemble and air grievances against government are core fundamental rights. Police exist to enforce the law, police monitoring a protest means they believe a crime will result out of the protests and they need to prevent it,or it means they don't like the protests and they are interfering with the free excercise of rights. As someone that has used Dataminr first hand, I can confidently tell you it is being used to monitor for threats. And as such and based on observed law enforcement response, I can confidently say anti-mask/lockdown protests where protrstors brandished weapons in public were not monitored this way. Plenty of care was taken to protect those people's rights. The fact that the protests are against specifically police and the fact that police used cleat and absooutley unwarranted violence against both protestors and even journalists and also how white people had to form a human shield to protect black protestors should tell any observer clearly that the police see the blm protestors as a threat, simply for protesting and for airing their grievances against government in public. Dataminr, palantir's excellent tools and many other products of the tech center were abused in racially motivated retribution against blm protestors. In other words, while normally the police are a just arm of the executive branch that enforces laws(and they mostly are in few places in the US), most US police departments are technically a rogue insider threat against americans constitutional rights, they are enemies of the people taking sides in a culture war designed to tear apart the west. If you ask me, this isn't a domestic law enforcement issue. I remmber in ecuador or somewhere in south america soldiers were protecting protestors against police violence (very similar to blm protests). The US military should show they take their oaths seriously and interfere, maybe this has been considered and they simply need judical or congressional authorization. Although given the nature of the protests and america's ironic disunity, soldiers may take cops' side. A very unpleasant situation. You are not being paranoid if you are afraid if a civil war breaking out. Suddenly all the tech in the world becomes scary when used in a war against our neighbors.
ashtonkem 6y ago
The problem with arguments for surveillance is that they’re usually made by the people asking for more power, and such powers never seem to go away once whatever emergency necessitated them is over.
jhayward 6y ago
It is a very, very bad sign when the police start making lists of people who are trying to reform abusive police departments.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

>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.

FilterSweep 6y ago
it’s more of a "surveillance for thee, not for me" sort of deal on HN.
- gruez 6y ago
  HNers only object to surveillance on themselves?
- jniedrauer 6y ago
  I think it's more that human nature lets you justify a lot in the act of self-preservation. When it advances your career, it's so easy to say "if I wasn't writing this code, then it would just be the next programmer in line behind me."
arminiusreturns 6y ago
"Notably, Epstein, who was known for his interest in obtaining blackmail through the sexual abuse of the underaged girls he exploited, also claimed to have “damaging information” on prominent figures in Silicon Valley. In a conversation last year with New York Times reporter James Stewart, Epstein claimed to have “potentially damaging or embarrassing” information on Silicon Valley’s elite and told Stewart that these top figures in the American tech industry “were hedonistic and regular users of recreational drugs.” Epstein also told Stewart that he had “witnessed prominent tech figures taking drugs and arranging for sex” and claimed to know “details about their supposed sexual proclivities.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-interview.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-...
- toofy 6y ago
  I hope we’ve reached a point where aside from pedophilia or coercive sex practices, sexual proclivities and drug use would not be enough to blackmail anyone today. The religious right and their “moral majority” have been hamstrung both through the courts and through culture moving on. Prior to the first tech boom wider society also believed not wearing a suit was a reliable indicator that a person was stupid. We’ve progressed past these ridiculous ideas. I know plenty of exceptional performing individuals who both like sex and occasionally use drugs. If we’re backsliding into the right’s moral majority tyranny again, someone let me know as my filter bubbles may have me blinded. Either way, none of the high profile Silicon Valley people I know would care that someone knows they have sexual desires.
  - arminiusreturns 6y ago
    I would agree, but it's rather interesting to see how the evolution of social acceptance has changed the blackmail game. So in intelligence circles, just being gay int he mid-20th century was enough to blackmail a person, but because most people, even conservatives, have adjusted to it, it no longer serves as enough of a blackmail. This is why in the blackmail world it moves progressively towards more repulsive actions. Honestly an analysis of Epstein shows he was more trying to get his foot in the door in SV (as his backing of a few tech ventures confirms) but it lends me to believe he didn't have "the real dirt" on SV. When you look at which intelligence agencies were running Epstein though, it becomes more clear that they certainly already have a huge presence in SV, and they are certain to have deployed the blackmail networks for quite some time. So yes, aside from those things you mention, we should be relatively ok with whatever... but the problem is the blackmail system will move towards those things if they know that, and they do so. I've tried to explain this progression to others, and it applies across the board to politicians, businessmen, etc. Bribery comes first. Then comes blackmail. It starts with the after-after party, and the target is in the back room doing drugs. Got it on video. Next it's a prostitute. Next it's an underage prostitute. Next is abuse... and it progresses into places most people on HN wouldn't want to know. If you do want to know more, lookup the Dutroux scandal, aka the Belgian X-files. I would venture most of SV doesn't have to progress past the bribery stage, and that includes manipulations of national identity (national security).

colordrops 6y ago

Because the political class has demonstrated repeatedly that they are mostly corrupt and will take advantage of the data illegally, just like with echelon and prism, and what they are now trying to do with the EARN IT act.

linuxftw 6y ago
The people here only understand that there's a political class aiming to control them when it doesn't align with their political views. The media, social media, your favorite political party, all part of the political class. Which presidential candidate voted for the Iraq war again? The Wall Street Bailouts? Who do that person represent?

golemiprague 6y ago

What you missing is that most people in the silicon valley are leftist and therefore everything is derived from this political point of view. If it was a right wing demonstration they would be all for it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

davmar 6y ago

How about you give us your best "for" argument?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The "for" argument is outlined by Dataminr in the article. If someone with one of those old-timey "press" hats went down to the protest and started publishing information about where it is, how it's going, how many people there are, most people would consider that to be simple and non-problematic journalism. Dataminr doesn't think their behavior is any different.
DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
Disclaimer: I don't have a settled opinion either for or against this surveillance. I really don't think I've heard all of the relevant facts or perspectives yet. The main "pro-surveillance" argument that comes to mind is that sometimes these protests devolve into illegal looting and destruction of private/public property. I think my ideal would be for police to have only the surveillance needed to prosecute those crimes, and nothing else.
- enilakla 6y ago
  Funny thing is surveillance probably doesn't prevent looting and/or property damage, lol Not arguing with your post, as you mention prosecution not prevention; I agree. Ultimately, we'll be trading more liberty for 'security' I imagine.

NoInputSignal 6y ago

I don't know what your reasons against are, but a big one for me is an infringement on one's right to assemble. I know it doesn't sound like much, but for a lot of communities (especially ones that may already be "targets" for law enforcement at all levels [local, state, and federal]), surveillance may keep them from feeling safe protesting. For example, imagine being undocumented and wanting to protest. You may second guess going to a protest (even if it benefits you to do so), because you learned law enforcement is tracking the communications and movements of protesters.

stefan_ 6y ago

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 is similarly an infringement on those rights, and certainly take a very dim look on any sort of surveillance of political activity.

slg 6y ago
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.
- Natsu 6y ago
  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-compiles-list-of-victims-of-recent-riots/ 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 people are against the police catching the violent criminals who undermine the message of the many peaceful protesters.
  - thekid314 6y ago
    In Boston I was standing beside the police as the let looting occur. There were only about 5 shops broken into and only 1 that I saw looted, but the police were standing 10 feet away from one and didn't do anything about it.

Ar-Curunir 6y ago

Because handing more power to an over-militarized, violent, racist institution will inevitably result in retribution and harm to protestors and activists. For example, incidents like this: https://www.thedailybeast.com/norman-oklahoma-councilwoman-alexandra-scott-fears-police-doxxing-led-to-neighbor-being-raped https://www.thedailybeast.com/norman-oklahoma-councilwoman-a...

TeeMassive 6y ago
Your argument would be more credible without emotion-base political accusations. If you want to look what a really "over-militarized, violent, racist institution" looks like than look at China. This doesn't even compare.
- Ar-Curunir 6y ago
  I mean, police in both countries can be over-militarized, violent, and racist. That's literally the origin of police in most countries: to coercively enforce the will of the state, usually against working-class and otherwise minority groups (Also, you must really be willfully blind to think that militarization of American police is an "emotional" statement. It's been happening for decades and has been documented by every newspaper you could care to look at.)
- sleepinseattle 6y ago
  Look no further than the rampant white collar crime that goes un-prosecuted in the US. No one is being held accountable for PPP corruption. Of course being anti-racist is emotional. How can you not feel very upset when contemplating the racial inequities in this country?

shpongled 6y ago

Because history has shown time and time again that governments cannot be trusted to do what is in the best interest of the people.

refurb 6y ago
How does that jive with the overwhelming propensity for big government on HN? “I don’t want the gov’t to know I was at a protest, but I’m more than happy to give them all my medical data and work for a nationalized company.”
- shpongled 6y ago
  I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. A cursory glance over my comments would show that I don't have a desire for big government. I think we should immediately abolish the IRS, ATF, DEA, and NSA
  - refurb 6y ago
    My comment was not directed at you, but more broadly what I read on HN. There is a very strong anti-gov't stance when it comes to privacy and surveillance, but a very strong pro-government stance when it comes to solving issues like healthcare, capitalism, R&D, housing, food, etc. I don't see how those two can jive.
    - areeh 6y ago
      I'm curious what you see as the fundamental conflict here? Looking at my own European country, these are things we work on optimising at the same time, and I think we often do better at both than the US. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by anti gov't though, I just mean having laws and mechanisms that protect privacy

nimbius 6y ago

i could argue dataminr is just a fun way for the government to sidestep the fourth amendment but there are toilet paper brands with more resilience than the fourth amendment these days. The reason you do not surveil protestors is because it encourages the government to intervene and acts as an engine for parallel construction. some US cities actually profit from incarceration, and the opportunity to fill a jail cell is all too enticing. It also makes it almost impossible to defend against the argument that the state is acting to punish political dissent, or that police arent reacting as a defensive organism instead of a public safety agency. Police and governments are meant to build trust with their citizens, so when surveillance tactics make themselves public (and they always do, its just great PR for dataminr) citizens rightly feel targeted, vulnerable, and bullied. surveillance erodes trust, which leads to more fervent protests. Surveillance does little to keep people safe during a protest. Its mainly a tool to write negative narratives about protestors, or used as a tool to help infiltrate protests and break them up from inside.

082349872349872 6y ago
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf says that for CONUS (domestic) Civil Disturbance, US military doctrine is/was to operate with limited intelligence: B-34. Strict limits are placed on collecting information related to a civil disturbance in order to protect the civil rights of people and organizations not affiliated with the DOD. Civil disturbance plans and materials must not include lists of groups or people not affiliated with the DOD. Information on civilians and civilian organizations can be collected only with specific authorization from the Secretary or the Under Secretary of the Army. ...

roughly 6y ago

I think there are interesting theoretical arguments to be had for and against this, and then there's the world we actually live in. In this world, stuff like this happens: https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/13/18253848/eric-garner-footage-ramsey-orta-police-brutality-killing-safety https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/13/18253848/eric-garner-foot...

SN76477 6y ago

It’s quite simple. If it is valid then you can go to a judge and get a warrant.

FilterSweep 6y ago

but they keep writing software for them wait until AI is used in hiring.

cortesoft 6y ago

If you do a lot of surveillance, you are going to see a lot of things worth at least investigating. Most will be false positives, but you will still need to investigate... there will be a huge backlash if something happens and it becomes known you had intelligence that something might have been going on and you didn't investigate. So you investigate a lot of people. If you are good at your job, you will exonerate all the innocent people. So no harm, no foul, right? Except being investigated really sucks, even if you are found innocent. You might have to answer questions, and knowing a wrong answer could land you in real trouble is stressful and scary, even when totally innocent. Sometimes it is hard to explain context of things when investigators only see parts of it. The more surveillance you do, the more likely innocent people are going to suffer this stress of investigation. This will lead to people being less likely to want to participate in social movements because of the added risk of having to be investigated.

badrabbit 6y ago

The right to assemble and air grievances against government are core fundamental rights. Police exist to enforce the law, police monitoring a protest means they believe a crime will result out of the protests and they need to prevent it,or it means they don't like the protests and they are interfering with the free excercise of rights. As someone that has used Dataminr first hand, I can confidently tell you it is being used to monitor for threats. And as such and based on observed law enforcement response, I can confidently say anti-mask/lockdown protests where protrstors brandished weapons in public were not monitored this way. Plenty of care was taken to protect those people's rights. The fact that the protests are against specifically police and the fact that police used cleat and absooutley unwarranted violence against both protestors and even journalists and also how white people had to form a human shield to protect black protestors should tell any observer clearly that the police see the blm protestors as a threat, simply for protesting and for airing their grievances against government in public. Dataminr, palantir's excellent tools and many other products of the tech center were abused in racially motivated retribution against blm protestors. In other words, while normally the police are a just arm of the executive branch that enforces laws(and they mostly are in few places in the US), most US police departments are technically a rogue insider threat against americans constitutional rights, they are enemies of the people taking sides in a culture war designed to tear apart the west. If you ask me, this isn't a domestic law enforcement issue. I remmber in ecuador or somewhere in south america soldiers were protecting protestors against police violence (very similar to blm protests). The US military should show they take their oaths seriously and interfere, maybe this has been considered and they simply need judical or congressional authorization. Although given the nature of the protests and america's ironic disunity, soldiers may take cops' side. A very unpleasant situation. You are not being paranoid if you are afraid if a civil war breaking out. Suddenly all the tech in the world becomes scary when used in a war against our neighbors.

ashtonkem 6y ago

The problem with arguments for surveillance is that they’re usually made by the people asking for more power, and such powers never seem to go away once whatever emergency necessitated them is over.

jhayward 6y ago

It is a very, very bad sign when the police start making lists of people who are trying to reform abusive police departments.