8 ms·

This article seems highly misleading in its conclusions. For example, quoting, "initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices" without any of t

This article seems highly misleading in its conclusions. For example, quoting, "initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices" without any of the context in the e-mail makes it appear far worse than what seems to have taken place. The context for that quote, is that an individual was arrested for Misdemeanor Assault on a federal officer, specifically due to shining laser pointers at their eyes. Upon physical search of the individual, it was found he was, "carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly". Lastly, and likely most importantly, the individual consented to his phone being searched. Now, to the original quote: "CTD is sending Fly Team Agents to cover the interviews of individuals arrested during the night and early-morning hours this weekend. They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying. These Agents may uncover a situation like the one described in the previous paragraph...". There is nothing in here that implies they intended to search the phones without a search warrant of consent. Law enforcement officals do not make it a routine matter to specify, "They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying once they have a search warrant or consent from the individual". That would be equivalent to me saying to a SWE, "I need you to go and complete X task", then qualifying it with, "and make sure you do x, y, z, a, b, c task that I already know you know and were taught to do". The title of this article should really read, "FBI Team Sent to 'Exploit' Criminal's Phones in Portland". The fact that the individual(s) also happened to be protestors, is really irrelevant and highly connotative. There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives someone the right to threaten and/or carry out actual violence against another individual, nor should it allow for that. Not to mention, there are specific Federal statutes regarding assault against federal officials. Frankly, if I was a protestor exercising my First Amendment rights, I'd be pissed that someone was carrying what appears to be a pipe-bomb to what was supposed to be a peaceful protest.

jtxx 6y ago
I do think most people protesting are of the sentiment you note in your last paragraph
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
B4CKlash 6y ago
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
gowld 6y ago
> Lastly, and likely most importantly, the individual consented to his phone being searched. No, the individual did not. This is a police-state lie that needs to stop. There is no way to "consent" to anything requested by someone who has a right to kill you at any time if they feel you might be a threat, and who is allowed to lie to you about your legal rights.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  It does seem quite... incredible.. that such a person in such a circumstance would consent to a search. Can the government prove they had consent, or is this just their claim?
trhway 6y ago
>The title of this article should really read, "FBI Team Sent to 'Exploit' Criminal's Phones in Portland". The fact that the individual(s) also happened to be protestors, is really irrelevant and highly connotative. irrelevant? does FBI usually send such a team to exploit "criminal's" (until proven guilty blah-blah-...) phones? https://www.fbi.gov/image-repository/fbi-counterterrorism-fly-team-training.jpg/view https://www.fbi.gov/image-repository/fbi-counterterrorism-fl... "The team brings the FBI’s strategic and tactical counterterrorism capabilities to bear in partnership with other U.S. government agencies and foreign partner-nation entities in critical overseas locations to detect, penetrate, and disrupt terrorist networks."
- bladegash 6y ago
  Yes, it's irrelevant. Again, there is nothing in this article nor in the e-mail included in the article that suggests they aren't being sent for the purposes of being present upon a search warrant being issued or consent being given to search the individual's property. This journalist just decided to take the worst possible interpretation of the e-mail and state it as fact. You may not like the FBI, but to assume that they are malevolent actors or are intent on trampling on people's rights disingenuous and unhelpful. I'm all for bringing government misconduct to light, but this article is trying to make legal conduct seem illegal by distorting facts and selectively quoting information to fit a preconceived narrative.
  - trhway 6y ago
    >nothing in this article nor in the e-mail included in the article that suggests they aren't being sent for the purposes of being present upon a search warrant being issued or consent being given to search the individual's property. sorry, man, the "initial exploitation" language is pretty clear: "CTD is sending Fly Team Agents to cover interviews of individuals arrested during the night and early-morning hours this weekend. They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying." It is pretty clear that there is no specific probable cause, no search warrant, no consent, just a fishing net. That is exactly the process you'd want and expect the tax dollar funded FBI to perform in case of exigent circumstances. It is just these days the protests seems to fall into exigent circumstances category. Or as one of these emails says "I can help, though their definition of exigency will be different than ours..."
philwelch 6y ago
The FBI defines “domestic terrorism” as follows: > Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. Let’s compare that to your description of the suspect’s behavior here: > ...an individual was arrested for Misdemeanor Assault on a federal officer, specifically due to shining laser pointers at their eyes. Upon physical search of the individual, it was found he was, "carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly” So by the definition already established, either this person was just a criminal who was engaging in this premeditated, violent, criminal behavior for purely antisocial reasons, or he was a domestic terrorist. Maybe you could argue that the definition of domestic terrorism is overly broad, but at that point you’re basically splitting hairs to pick and choose which forms of political violence are acceptable.
- bladegash 6y ago
  Agreed, 100%. The challenge with using the criminal statues related to "domestic terrorism" (and even "foreign terrorism") has to do with intent. Because there is a legal element requiring behavior that is in furtherance of "ideological goals", there is a pretty high bar to meet from a legal perspective. This individual's criminal defense could easily argue the individual had no stated ideological goal they were promoting (unless there is specific evidence to suggest otherwise, such as leaving a manifesto explaining rationale). It's much easier to demonstrate probable cause and/or prosecute via other criminal statues.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    There’s no federal statute, at least, against “domestic terrorism”. Domestic terrorists are usually prosecuted for the actual crimes they commit. For instance, Dylann Roof, who murdered black people in a black church, was prosecuted for murder and for a number of federal civil rights offenses, including hate crimes and violent obstruction of the free exercise of religion. However, from an investigative and enforcement standpoint, it’s useful to have certain distinctions even if those distinctions have no statutory power. If you rob a jewelry store because you, personally, are greedy, that is investigated differently than if you rob a jewelry store in order to fund your anarcho-communist militia or in order to persuade the jewelry store across the street to sign up for your gang’s protection racket. It’s still robbery all three ways, but it could be terrorism or organized crime in addition, which would also imply certain other crimes (e.g. conspiracy).
maerF0x0 6y ago
> consented to his phone being searched. He consented to it being searched once, not permanently exploited without his knowledge.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  That’s what exploited means in this context. It’s not a permanent backdoor. It’s fed speak for “accessed.”
- bdowling 6y ago
  > not permanently exploited without his knowledge. You may be thinking of the narrow use of exploit in relation to computer device exploits, which may or may not grant permanent access. In general, to exploit something means simply to take advantage of or utilize it. For example, to exploit natural resources or to exploit a weakness in the other team's defense.
phobosanomaly 6y ago
I suppose you'd have to find a good argument for why the protester isn't exercising their Second Amendment right alongside you exercising your First Amendment right. I'm not going to be the guy who says it's ok to bring a pipe-bomb to a peaceful protest, but there are plenty of people bringing semi-automatic rifles and handguns out to the protests and for better or worse, that's legal depending on local law. I'm not sure what the legality of a pipe-bomb is. For example, in some states Tannerite is perfectly legal for ordinary folks to possess and carry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannerite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannerite
- refurb 6y ago
  Big distinction there provided by the National Firearms Act. Pipe bombs are classified as "destructive devices" and would require submission of Form 1 to the ATF, along with fingerprints, etc and a $200 tax stamp. And that's just federal law. State law may have other restrictions. So bringing a legal rifle to a protest might be legitimate (though not exactly prudent), but possessing an unregistered pipe bomb will get you prison time even if you don't bring it to a protest. Tannerite is exempt as it's a binary explosive which apparently has special rules.
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    So, let's say it's a Tannerite pipe bomb. Someone could be wandering around the protest exercising their 2nd amendment right with a Tannerite pipe bomb. I don't want to be anywhere near that guy because he's probably a little unhinged, but it's not something that would raise my eyebrows these days if I saw it on the news.
    - sbierwagen 6y ago
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845 >The term “destructive device” means (1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellent charge of more than four ounces, (D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (E) mine, or (F) similar device; I would argue that packing tannerite into a capped pipe turns it into a grenade or bomb, and thus a destructive device.
newacct583 6y ago
> carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly All items that can plausibly be weapons, and used dangerously. As others have pointed out, though, had he been carrying a .223 rifle with a 30 round magazine (an objectively more dangerous object) I can't imagine you reaching the same conclusion. Why is a guy with a fused (but apparently not filled?) pipe bomb presumptively a "criminal" but a guy with a rifle not? Doesn't that have something to do with expression? Shouldn't that distinction be presumptively respected by law enforcement?
- refurb 6y ago
  There are very different laws for firearms and what the ATF calls a destructive device (which include pipe bombs). Ignoring the protest entirely, you will do jail time if the ATF catches you with an unregistered destructive device.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  You can use a rifle to defend yourself (which is how Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't murdered by the angry mob), you can't use a destructive device to defend yourself, just to cause destruction.
  - Jotra7 6y ago
    After he already murdered one person, you turd.
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  There are often more restrictive laws against weapons that are not firearms because the 2nd amendment has been held to concern firearms, not weapons in general. E.g., in Seattle any fixed blade is illegal to carry. Even chefs have to take special precaution if they want to carry their knives to and from work. Same for hunters/fishermen (fillet knives) heading to or from the wild. In Oregon (and probably most states), it is illegal conceal most knives, except pocket knives. Often, the same laws restricting knives cover brass knuckles, clubs, etc. "any person who carries concealed upon the person any knife having a blade that projects or swings into position by force of a spring or by centrifugal force, any dirk, dagger, ice pick, slungshot, metal knuckles, or any similar instrument by the use of which injury could be inflicted upon the person or property of any other person, commits a Class B misdemeanor" https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.240 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.240
pjc50 6y ago
One of those "I wish you could tie a news event to follow ups" moments: does the alleged pipe bomb ever appear in court as evidence? What happened to the arrestee? The entire point of the protests is to complain about the willingness of the police to lie and fabricate evidence to cover their misconduct.
bluescrn 6y ago
It’s worth remembering that some of these powerful green ‘laser pointers’ you can buy online can cause permanent eye damage or blindness in a fraction of a second. Sometimes even diffuse reflections of the beam can be hazardous. They’re a real danger to the genuinely peaceful protestors as well as the police that they’ve been aimed at. If it was a war (some argue that the unrest may be the start of a civil war), using lasers as blinding weapons is actually a war crime.
pnw_hazor 6y ago
Sounds like a generic search subsequent to arrest. Well within the law and normal.

jtxx 6y ago

I do think most people protesting are of the sentiment you note in your last paragraph

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

B4CKlash 6y ago

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

gowld 6y ago

> Lastly, and likely most importantly, the individual consented to his phone being searched. No, the individual did not. This is a police-state lie that needs to stop. There is no way to "consent" to anything requested by someone who has a right to kill you at any time if they feel you might be a threat, and who is allowed to lie to you about your legal rights.

bigbubba 6y ago
It does seem quite... incredible.. that such a person in such a circumstance would consent to a search. Can the government prove they had consent, or is this just their claim?

trhway 6y ago

>The title of this article should really read, "FBI Team Sent to 'Exploit' Criminal's Phones in Portland". The fact that the individual(s) also happened to be protestors, is really irrelevant and highly connotative. irrelevant? does FBI usually send such a team to exploit "criminal's" (until proven guilty blah-blah-...) phones? https://www.fbi.gov/image-repository/fbi-counterterrorism-fly-team-training.jpg/view https://www.fbi.gov/image-repository/fbi-counterterrorism-fl... "The team brings the FBI’s strategic and tactical counterterrorism capabilities to bear in partnership with other U.S. government agencies and foreign partner-nation entities in critical overseas locations to detect, penetrate, and disrupt terrorist networks."

bladegash 6y ago
Yes, it's irrelevant. Again, there is nothing in this article nor in the e-mail included in the article that suggests they aren't being sent for the purposes of being present upon a search warrant being issued or consent being given to search the individual's property. This journalist just decided to take the worst possible interpretation of the e-mail and state it as fact. You may not like the FBI, but to assume that they are malevolent actors or are intent on trampling on people's rights disingenuous and unhelpful. I'm all for bringing government misconduct to light, but this article is trying to make legal conduct seem illegal by distorting facts and selectively quoting information to fit a preconceived narrative.
- trhway 6y ago
  >nothing in this article nor in the e-mail included in the article that suggests they aren't being sent for the purposes of being present upon a search warrant being issued or consent being given to search the individual's property. sorry, man, the "initial exploitation" language is pretty clear: "CTD is sending Fly Team Agents to cover interviews of individuals arrested during the night and early-morning hours this weekend. They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying." It is pretty clear that there is no specific probable cause, no search warrant, no consent, just a fishing net. That is exactly the process you'd want and expect the tax dollar funded FBI to perform in case of exigent circumstances. It is just these days the protests seems to fall into exigent circumstances category. Or as one of these emails says "I can help, though their definition of exigency will be different than ours..."

philwelch 6y ago

The FBI defines “domestic terrorism” as follows: > Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. Let’s compare that to your description of the suspect’s behavior here: > ...an individual was arrested for Misdemeanor Assault on a federal officer, specifically due to shining laser pointers at their eyes. Upon physical search of the individual, it was found he was, "carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly” So by the definition already established, either this person was just a criminal who was engaging in this premeditated, violent, criminal behavior for purely antisocial reasons, or he was a domestic terrorist. Maybe you could argue that the definition of domestic terrorism is overly broad, but at that point you’re basically splitting hairs to pick and choose which forms of political violence are acceptable.

bladegash 6y ago
Agreed, 100%. The challenge with using the criminal statues related to "domestic terrorism" (and even "foreign terrorism") has to do with intent. Because there is a legal element requiring behavior that is in furtherance of "ideological goals", there is a pretty high bar to meet from a legal perspective. This individual's criminal defense could easily argue the individual had no stated ideological goal they were promoting (unless there is specific evidence to suggest otherwise, such as leaving a manifesto explaining rationale). It's much easier to demonstrate probable cause and/or prosecute via other criminal statues.
- philwelch 6y ago
  There’s no federal statute, at least, against “domestic terrorism”. Domestic terrorists are usually prosecuted for the actual crimes they commit. For instance, Dylann Roof, who murdered black people in a black church, was prosecuted for murder and for a number of federal civil rights offenses, including hate crimes and violent obstruction of the free exercise of religion. However, from an investigative and enforcement standpoint, it’s useful to have certain distinctions even if those distinctions have no statutory power. If you rob a jewelry store because you, personally, are greedy, that is investigated differently than if you rob a jewelry store in order to fund your anarcho-communist militia or in order to persuade the jewelry store across the street to sign up for your gang’s protection racket. It’s still robbery all three ways, but it could be terrorism or organized crime in addition, which would also imply certain other crimes (e.g. conspiracy).

maerF0x0 6y ago

> consented to his phone being searched. He consented to it being searched once, not permanently exploited without his knowledge.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago
That’s what exploited means in this context. It’s not a permanent backdoor. It’s fed speak for “accessed.”
bdowling 6y ago
> not permanently exploited without his knowledge. You may be thinking of the narrow use of exploit in relation to computer device exploits, which may or may not grant permanent access. In general, to exploit something means simply to take advantage of or utilize it. For example, to exploit natural resources or to exploit a weakness in the other team's defense.

phobosanomaly 6y ago

I suppose you'd have to find a good argument for why the protester isn't exercising their Second Amendment right alongside you exercising your First Amendment right. I'm not going to be the guy who says it's ok to bring a pipe-bomb to a peaceful protest, but there are plenty of people bringing semi-automatic rifles and handguns out to the protests and for better or worse, that's legal depending on local law. I'm not sure what the legality of a pipe-bomb is. For example, in some states Tannerite is perfectly legal for ordinary folks to possess and carry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannerite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannerite

refurb 6y ago
Big distinction there provided by the National Firearms Act. Pipe bombs are classified as "destructive devices" and would require submission of Form 1 to the ATF, along with fingerprints, etc and a $200 tax stamp. And that's just federal law. State law may have other restrictions. So bringing a legal rifle to a protest might be legitimate (though not exactly prudent), but possessing an unregistered pipe bomb will get you prison time even if you don't bring it to a protest. Tannerite is exempt as it's a binary explosive which apparently has special rules.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  So, let's say it's a Tannerite pipe bomb. Someone could be wandering around the protest exercising their 2nd amendment right with a Tannerite pipe bomb. I don't want to be anywhere near that guy because he's probably a little unhinged, but it's not something that would raise my eyebrows these days if I saw it on the news.
  - sbierwagen 6y ago
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845 >The term “destructive device” means (1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellent charge of more than four ounces, (D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (E) mine, or (F) similar device; I would argue that packing tannerite into a capped pipe turns it into a grenade or bomb, and thus a destructive device.

newacct583 6y ago

> carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly All items that can plausibly be weapons, and used dangerously. As others have pointed out, though, had he been carrying a .223 rifle with a 30 round magazine (an objectively more dangerous object) I can't imagine you reaching the same conclusion. Why is a guy with a fused (but apparently not filled?) pipe bomb presumptively a "criminal" but a guy with a rifle not? Doesn't that have something to do with expression? Shouldn't that distinction be presumptively respected by law enforcement?

refurb 6y ago
There are very different laws for firearms and what the ATF calls a destructive device (which include pipe bombs). Ignoring the protest entirely, you will do jail time if the ATF catches you with an unregistered destructive device.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
You can use a rifle to defend yourself (which is how Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't murdered by the angry mob), you can't use a destructive device to defend yourself, just to cause destruction.
- Jotra7 6y ago
  After he already murdered one person, you turd.
pnw_hazor 6y ago
There are often more restrictive laws against weapons that are not firearms because the 2nd amendment has been held to concern firearms, not weapons in general. E.g., in Seattle any fixed blade is illegal to carry. Even chefs have to take special precaution if they want to carry their knives to and from work. Same for hunters/fishermen (fillet knives) heading to or from the wild. In Oregon (and probably most states), it is illegal conceal most knives, except pocket knives. Often, the same laws restricting knives cover brass knuckles, clubs, etc. "any person who carries concealed upon the person any knife having a blade that projects or swings into position by force of a spring or by centrifugal force, any dirk, dagger, ice pick, slungshot, metal knuckles, or any similar instrument by the use of which injury could be inflicted upon the person or property of any other person, commits a Class B misdemeanor" https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.240 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.240

pjc50 6y ago

One of those "I wish you could tie a news event to follow ups" moments: does the alleged pipe bomb ever appear in court as evidence? What happened to the arrestee? The entire point of the protests is to complain about the willingness of the police to lie and fabricate evidence to cover their misconduct.

bluescrn 6y ago

It’s worth remembering that some of these powerful green ‘laser pointers’ you can buy online can cause permanent eye damage or blindness in a fraction of a second. Sometimes even diffuse reflections of the beam can be hazardous. They’re a real danger to the genuinely peaceful protestors as well as the police that they’ve been aimed at. If it was a war (some argue that the unrest may be the start of a civil war), using lasers as blinding weapons is actually a war crime.

pnw_hazor 6y ago

Sounds like a generic search subsequent to arrest. Well within the law and normal.