24 ms·

The Capitol Attack Doesn’t Justify Expanding Surveillance

326 points by jimmy2020 6y ago

bane 6y ago
What's really interesting in the Capitol attack is how the terrorists ended up simply surveilling themselves, posting their videos and pictures onto their own social media with their own identifying information attached. You don't need a police state when the enemy is this stupid.
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  That tells me that they didn't think what they were doing was something to hide. Definitely stupid, but also probably not an attempted coup if that's the case. That is, I don't think the protestors themselves were attempting a coup.
  - ben509 6y ago
    A coup is when state actors illegally overthrow other state actors. Most coups are pulled off by militaries, e.g. how Pinochet got into power. This would be an uprising; it's being called a "coup" because uprising sounds sympathetic.
    - AnHonestComment 6y ago
      The reaction here is not about “what” — we’ve seen far worse happen this year, in cities across the country. It’s about “who”: people with power have finally been impacted by the craziness they foster. Welcome DC, to the crazy the rest of us have dealt with for a year!
    - DangitBobby 6y ago
      I still think it's possible someone was attempting a coup but that the protestors were not in on it.
      - beerandt 6y ago
        If so, I struggle to see what the desired outcome would have been at the capital. But people need to be careful, because by saying it was a coup, it normalizes the concept for those who saw Wednesday as a good faith protest march, regardless of what it's now perceived as. Changing/ shifting the definition of words has behavioral consequences.
      - ben509 6y ago
        I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them had some kind of underpants gnomes plan to snatch a Senator. But, really, it was a protest. The point was to engage in drama and theatrics. Why break into the Capitol? Even more drama. Now people are dead, it's managed to tar even Trump's public image, and they're going to get hit with federal charges.
  - TT3351 6y ago
    They didn't think they had anything to hide because police organizations and state AGs helped incite the event. This is a typical characteristic of right-wing, white militants. They do not see their actions as vigilantism because they earnestly believe their actions carry the weight of law. Veterans and police officers were among the insurrectionists in the Capitol.
  - gumby 6y ago
    Of course they were, they just didn't believe they'd see significant resistance because they believed the vast majority of people agreed with them.
- bra-ket 6y ago
  one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter".
- o_p 6y ago
  Its a really big stretch to call a mob of unarmed people who took a bunch of selfies a terrorist attack. It was just a riot
  - bane 6y ago
    They were armed.
    - mcv 6y ago
      And they terrorised people. They forced their way in, shouted the names of politicians they were looking for, forced their way through barriers. A mob doesn't need guns to be a threat.
- stogxx 6y ago
  Since when is a shut-in an act of terrorism? As far as I'm aware these protesters at the Capitol didn't kill or attempt to kill anyone. Yes, they damaged government property. Many will face prosecution for this. Supporters of BLM have committed far worse acts in recent years but they are not labelled as terrorists. The only people that died at this event were the protestors - one at least was unarmed and murdered by a police officer. The whole thing is on video.
  - bane 6y ago
    They killed a police officer.
  - mcv 6y ago
    Not "murdered" by a police officer. The officer was defending an area that contained the politicians this mob was looking for.
zepto 6y ago
I think we’ll find that there was plenty of surveillance to detect the attack. Just no emphasis on the threat.
- almost_usual 6y ago
  Or motivation to stop the threat. I’m truly worried about more armed uprising and no enforcement.
  - newguy1234 6y ago
    Law enforcement/FBI have never been good at stopping terrorist attacks. The only ones they stop are the ones where the attacker is being stupid obvious like openly talking about it online. Most of the time they let them go through because "they need to build a case".
pjc50 6y ago
This is very good. Not more policing, but better policing. Turning a blind eye to this or pardoning certain crimes but not others is just as much an injustice as over-policing. And someone needs to have a deep inquiry into what happened with calling in reinforcements.
_0ffh 6y ago
True, but when has the truth ever stopped a politician?
exabrial 6y ago
Nor does it justify closing public discussion with those you disagree with.
smshgl 6y ago
While the events of 1/6 are hardly justifiable, I find it deeply troubling that the same crowd who was calling for the abolition of the police a few months ago is now earnestly encouraging informing on their own friends, family, and neighbors because they deserve to be punished and most importantly, humiliated. I hardly believe the FBI needs any assistance in locating anyone, but I fear this is settling a troubling precedent that has not been seen since 20th century Europe. In the months and years to come, we must try to not forget that the government exists solely for the benefit of its constituents, not the other way around. The ruled class, red and blue, does not want freedom from oppression, they want to be the oppressors.
- jMyles 6y ago
  > I find it deeply troubling that the same crowd who was calling for the abolition of the police a few months ago is now earnestly encouraging informing on their own friends Uhhh, is that actually happening? I think I have my finger pretty firmly on the pulse of one center of today's abolitionist movement, in Portland (where I was in the streets getting gassed many times this summer), and I don't know of anybody who holds the contradictory viewpoint you're describing. I don't think most abolitionists care enough about the Capitol in the first place to get enraged about this.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  “Defund the police” (in general) doesn’t mean “don’t stop any crimes”. It means things like “maybe we don’t need armed people to give tickets to drivers with a busted headlight” and “if we put more funds into mental health crisis teams we won’t have to send as many cops to violent incidents”. There are full-on police abolitionists, but they’re far fewer in number.
  - zpeti 6y ago
    That’s an interesting clarification as I’ve never heard this take before, especially from the press who’s supposed to speak for the left. They seem pretty happy with just plain: let’s defund the police, full stop.
boxmonster 6y ago
We need to crack down on performative speech. Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson shouldn't be able to hide behind the legal arguments that their words aren't meant to be taken seriously because they are performative.
- stogxx 6y ago
  Carlson cuts right to the truth. I can see why many on the left dislike him.
  - boxmonster 6y ago
    "You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers" https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-...
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Interesting development: Alex Jones just threw Trump under the bus and claims he received direct orders from Trump.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Given that he claims lizard aliens control the government, it doesn’t seem like it would be hard for him to be discredited about this.
- newguy1234 6y ago
  So get rid of freedom of speech? Got it.
  - boxmonster 6y ago
    I didn't say get rid of it. How about requiring a warning label on these shows? I mean the lawyers for Jones and Carlson have already argued they aren't meant to be taken seriously. I think a label run on their shows would be enough.
jacquesm 6y ago
Of course it doesn't, the perps were discussing this openly and in plaintext on various websites which are still in the air. Who needs surveillance. What you do need is to react to available intelligence, but this isn't the first time in history that that doesn't happen. They are also presently discussing their next day-out for rednecks in the form of another insurrection and coup attempt on the 17th of January. Let's hope that this time some people will take notice because while everybody seems to be happy that this effort failed from the perspective of the perps it looks like a major victory: they took the bloody capitol with such ease that 10 minutes more planning would have had them hold house or senate members or even the VP or the speaker hostage. Or worse. This isn't over yet.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- spamizbad 6y ago
  Not only that, but multiple people were taking screenshots, linking authorities to posts, even sharing doxxed information with law enforcement prior to the event. They ignored it!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    Do you have a source for that?
- tolbish 6y ago
  The problem isn't that we don't have the tools to fight these terrorists. The problem is that many of our politicians and police are siding with the terrorists, or at the very least sympathetic to their cause. This isn't a new phenomenon either. This has been documented [0] time and time again [1]. [0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-i... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/27/white-supremacists-militias-infiltrate-us-police-report https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/27/white-suprem...
Orou 6y ago
HNers: Are you anticipating any sort of 'pendulum effect' where we over-correct for our present situation in the new Democratic executive and legislature, specifically in the area of surveillance and privacy? What changes do you expect to have happen in the next year or two in this area? Are you taking any steps regarding your own privacy based on your predictions?
- rconti 6y ago
  It doesn't seem they needed any additional surveillance to stop this. Just adequate security staff for a pre-planned rally of very angry people that they already knew about. They plan for this kind of thing all the time. This time, they failed. I see the most likely initiatives of the new administration to revolve around reining in the powers of the presidency.
  - gred 6y ago
    No administration ever "reigns in" the powers of the administration. This is always a priority and talking point of the party out of power, regardless of party. As soon as you are in power, you exploit and expand on the precedents set by the previous administration. The only very small exception I can even think of was Trump's one-in, two-out regulation policy [1]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2018/10/23/trump-exceeds-one-in-two-out-goals-on-cutting-regulations-but-it-may-be-getting-tougher/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2018/10/23/trump-exc...
    - throwaway2245 6y ago
      It makes quite reasonable sense for this administration to distribute the presidential powers to the congress, since they control both anyway, and have proven to be most harmed by an opposition president.
- eplanit 6y ago
  The over-correction will be terrible. The Left has embraced authoritarianism, so this is a grand opportunity for them. They don't want to (nor now do they have to) negotiate or do anything "incremental". They want radical change, and the powers of the state to enforce it (environmental and social justice will be prominent). The idiots who perpetrated 1/6/21 have put us in an awful place.
mimixco 6y ago
This could be the beginning of the end for anonymous social media. I can see lawmakers suggesting we move to a KYC model like fintech or like China has where a real ID must be associated with each social account. It would certainly help curtail bots and also make it riskier for people to promote violence in a public forum.
- pjc50 6y ago
  The thing is, these protests didn't expect the police to fight or arrest them. They did all this stuff in public under their real names. Someone wore their work ID lanyard to storm the Capitol. It's not risky to promote violence in public forums in the US provided you're not specific about it. Heck, the ringleader was the president; it's not like we need him to submit ID to get his Twitter back.
touchmystereo 6y ago
Of course it does justify expanding surveillance. The Capitol riots caused a mild discomfort in very important Democratic politicians, which basically equates it with 9/11. In contrast, many months long BLM riots, while they resulted in many deaths, made thousands of people unsafe and caused billions of dollars of damage, weren't nearly as important. Why? Because they were controlled by the Democratic establishment and only affected working- and middle-class people, whom those politicians barely consider human. So obviously they didn't see a need for legislation or even condemnation. In fact, they seen the riots as a good thing.
- JarlUlvi 6y ago
  I don't agree. Similar to the Jan 6 Trump event, many peaceful BLM protest marches were conflated with the simultaneous violent riots. We need to make better distinction between peaceful marching, and wholesale looting and arson. Now Antifa has been a violent, murderous group for as long as I can remember, but they've gotten a pass. Because of a complicit media, the antifa DA in Oregon, tacit approval by Democrat pols, and financial/legal aid. They are the shock troops of the Democrats after all.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > The Capitol riots caused a mild discomfort in very important Democratic politicians... https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-extremists/u-s-capitol-siege-emboldens-motley-crew-of-extremists-idUSL1N2JJ0A0 https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-extremists/u-s-... > Reuters photographer Jim Bourg, who was photographing protesters trying to break down doors to the Capitol building, said he heard three older white men in red “Make America Great Again” caps talking about finding Vice President Mike Pence to hang him from a tree as a “traitor.” > Security agents rushed Pence from the Senate chamber after protesters breached the Capitol building. (There's video evidence of the crowd yelling "Hang Mike Pence", incidentally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW718KRYDtU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW718KRYDtU)
  - bebopcowboy 6y ago
    Oh no! Politicians were afraid of their constituents! Meanwhile normal citizens just spent the entire summer having their livelihoods destroyed as the media and corporations cheered on the perpetrators.
b-g-m 6y ago
In 2020 I wanted DC to start looking at smart-city cameras. I have been living in DC for nearly 10 years and watched the crime in the area go up alarmingly during the quarantine. People being robbed in broad daylight, Porch pirates, Arsons, burglary, auto theft - not to mention other threats and hazards in the capital go on without being apprehended. I am specifically interested in the smart-city Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) cameras which could identify sick people, terrorists, gun shots, and all other kinds of hazards, threats and security issues.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  "Defund the police" folks would point out that the increase in crime likely stems from an ineffective safety net during the pandemic and the ensuing economic difficulties it has caused.
- scrose 6y ago
  I spent a brief amount time working with smart city tech. You might be surprised just how many cameras and sensors already exist that are monitoring you at any moment as you walk down the street. The issue usually isn’t that there’s no evidence for crimes, it’s that investigating those mostly petty crimes, outside of secure areas is an extremely low priority for police departments. For example, I’ve had the police reject my video evidence of a hit and run where the driver admitted to it on camera, because they didn’t want to spend resources investigating something that didn’t result in a death. I stopped working with smart city tech because I felt there’s only two realistic directions it can go: Excessive surveillance by the police, or excessive surveillance by people whose only interest is selling whatever data they can collect about you in public spaces to advertisers and other 3rd parties.
- joubert 6y ago
  Crime statistics for DC: 2020 vs 2019 https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-glance https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-glance
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    So most of their claims were wrong. Motor vehicle theft was up 50%. Robbery, burglary, and other theft were down. There were 5 more cases of arson.
etcet 6y ago
The breach of the capitol building is an embarrassment. There's not reinforced glass on the first floor windows? The secured interior is 3 cops in front of a wooden door with plate glass windows? And those cops just kinda slinked away letting a woman breach it and get insta killed? The outside perimeter is just a few cops in front of some fencing? What a fucking failure.
- barbacoa 6y ago
  Imagine if we had a 2008 Mumbai style terror attack with armed and organized gunman. We'd be f'ed.
  - casefields 6y ago
    We have. 5 members of Congress were shot. Jimmy Carter commuted their sentences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_United_States_Capitol_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_United_States_Capitol_sho...
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  Especially on a day when there was a large protest planned for a vote taking place. It's a government building and it should be reasonably open to the public but common sense needs to raise its head at some point. Securing the building for a few hours would not have been unreasonable.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Do you think it should be a fortress? That's sad. It's supposed to be an accessible place where your representatives work, not a military base.
  - etcet 6y ago
    I think it should be reasonably defensible. It's not just a failure of the architecture though. The tactics used were mostly ineffective. Defensive forces were positioned thinly with few real blockades. I saw one instance of police blocking an entrance through sheer mass and it was effective. The cops could have been done the same in the interior hallways instead of giving up their spread out weak positions. This would have prevented the use of firearms. If you can stomach it, I ask everyone to watch the full lead up to the shot. It is an absolute failure of policing. Start at 37:20 on https://banned.video/watch?id=5ff6857e00bac0328da8e888 https://banned.video/watch?id=5ff6857e00bac0328da8e888 and yes it's NSFL (shot at 39:10).
whatsmyusername 6y ago
They don’t need to expand anything. We have all the tools we need to identify, arrest, and incarcerate the perpetrators. Additionally there’s ample ability to deplatform them and their supporters through the agreements they signed with social media companies and payment processors. The free market won’t have trouble deciding that these traitors are done with both public life and making enough money to ever have to pay taxes again. Moreover, we are all well within our rights to practice the conservative principle of not doing business with those we find repugnant.
caseysoftware 6y ago
Of all the pictures and videos from inside the Capitol, has anyone seen any trespassers/protestors/rioters/insurrectionists carrying weapons? I caught some of it live and have been looking since and haven't seen any. Pictures or video would be appreciated.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- newguy1234 6y ago
  A few were but it was a tiny proportion. Think 5 people out of 100,000 that went type of situation.
- johnchristopher 6y ago
  There's a very well documented Google sheet floating around with most of the videos and pictures of the event. I won't link because it contains very graphic videos of the death of one of the participant.
- stogxx 6y ago
  No but I did see an unarmed protestor get shot in the face by a police officer
- beerandt 6y ago
  There were two incidents I've read of, neither inside the capital or even on capital grounds. One was a guy who had two 9mm handguns. No mention of what led to the arrest, but it seems to be a stop and frisk type of encounter. The other is the guy who allegedly had a wagon of molotov's, and was also carrying some type of firearm. Neither seem to be incidents of the people being in the act of using the weapons. Although if the guy had actual molotovs, yeah that's not good.
- mch82 6y ago
  Yes. Early live video showed people who looked like tourists. Things escalated dramatically. Zip cuff guy appears to have a gun on his hip in addition to the body armor & zip ties for taking hostages. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zip-cuffs-capitol-riots/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zip-cuffs-capitol-riots/ We’re now learning of pipe bombs. https://www.businessinsider.com/pipe-bomb-reportedly-found-at-rnc-headquarters-dnc-evacuated-2021-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/pipe-bomb-reportedly-found-a... The killed police officer was attacked with a fire extinguisher, so things other than guns can be used as weapons. Many photos show body armor, riot shields, and staffs. Photos show Members of Congress escorted to safety in CBRN hoods (protection against chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear air pollution). The C-SPAN live feed was cut off for the safety of Congress & the staff at the Capitol. You can watch the moment on YouTube, plus the subsequent audio only broadcast. What do you think? Is that helpful?
newguy1234 6y ago
The tech community has already been hitting the drum beat for stripping our liberties and massively expanding the surveillance programs under the guise of "stopping terrorism". Why do you think Biden was quick to identify the protest as terrorism? It will set the tone for the rest of his administration. Civil liberties will be stripped in the name of security/stopping terrorism.
- bebopcowboy 6y ago
  It’s already happening and he hasnt even been inaugurated. It’s also being cheered on by the shills on this website employed by big tech
SubiculumCode 6y ago
That Capitol attack is misnamed: The attack was an attempt to remove an opposing branch of government. Leading to, irrespective of their intentions, a probable dictatorship and end of this American experiment.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  Zero chance any of that would have happened. It certainly could have gotten more ugly than it was. But a loosely organized mob of protestors is not going to achieve that. One SWAT team, or the military if necessary, would have dealt with it easily.
  - SubiculumCode 6y ago
    Zero chance bull. The majority of the mob were not organized, but there was a core of co-operating individuals that came prepared with Kevlar, weapons, specialized restraint zip ties, etc, and appeared trained. Who knows what would have happened if they had breached sooner than the Senators/Congressman could have escaped to safety? And without that branch being able to function, who knows what Trump might try to claim empowered to do? Is this likely? Maybe, maybe not. But I tell you what. There is more danger to under-emphasizing the threat than over-emphasizing the threat. Indeed, fear and control over executive power is at the core of our Constitution and founders' fears. I will not play down what happened, and who instigated it. The general mob could also have quickly instigated a massacre. Chants of "Hang M. Pence."
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Over-emphasizing the threat could have taken the form of five times as many police in riot gear surrounding the Capitol. That would have been fine (hopefully). Or it could have taken the form of police deciding to open fire, which could have killed a large number of people and had enormous and unpredictable political consequences. Over-emphasize isn't enough. It has to lead to the right actions rather than to damaging ones.
stogxx 6y ago
The media pretends that this is unprecendented and willfully forgets the events of last year when antifa forcefully took a federal courthouse in Portland. They also ignore the general carnage of last year - violence and arson directed at business owners and people following the death of George Floyd. When viewed side by side, the double standards shown by the press is staggering
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The media pretends that this is unprecendented It is. > forgets the events of last year when antifa forcefully took a federal courthouse in Portland. A federal courthouse isn't the national Capitol, and the courthouse wasn't targeted specifically because officials were present and inspired in part by public calls to execute particular officials and in part by a direct call by the a defeated candidate as part of an ongoing campaign to reverse election results. > They also ignore the general carnage of last year - violence and arson directed at business owners and people following the death of George Floyd. No, in fact comparison of the events and the law enforcement responses is common in the media, even though the coup attempt is still portrayed as an unprecedented event. So the claim that the events of last summer are “ignored” by the media is simply false.
  - beerandt 6y ago
    Scotus confirmation protests were however, exactly the same, but for the capital police reaction and escalation. The admitted intent was to intimidate senators votes. One event met resistance and and things escalated. The other saw federal agents kneel in support and open the doors.
- stateofnounion 6y ago
  More https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/congress-protests-brett-kavanaugh/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/congress-protests-br...
- tstrimple 6y ago
  Did "antifa" force their way in past police officers while beating them and spraying them with pepper spray? Did they break windows and try to climb across barriers with secret service on the other side with guns drawn? Were they chanting about heads on pikes or about hanging Pence? Are you so completely biased that you think an group of protestors taking over an empty building without force is somehow equivalent to a group of people attacking police and literally breaking into a building occupied by congress while chanting about and actually performing violence?
dragonwriter 6y ago
> The Capitol Attack Doesn’t Justify Expanding Surveillance In the sense of paying a few people to monitor public social media sites so that widespread in-the-open planning of a mass violent attack on the Capitol doesn't result in the FBI having no indication that anything but First Amendment-protected activities are planned, it does justify expanding surveillance. It doesn't justify additional government surveillance powers, or intrusion into privacy, though.
kyrra 6y ago
While what Trump did here was bad, it's also important to know that others were a bit incompetent in this incident. 1) capital police rejects offers for more support before the event. The capitol police chief resigned because of it. https://wjla.com/news/local/capitol-police-to-resign-after-report-that-offers-of-federal-help-were-rejected https://wjla.com/news/local/capitol-police-to-resign-after-r... 2) The sergeant arms for the house and senate also both resigned. https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/senate-sgt-at-arms-resigns-after-rioters-took-over-capitol/ https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/senate-sgt-at-arms-resigns-aft... There have also been much larger protests in the capital where they never breached the capital building. No one properly prepared for this demonstration.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > capital police rejects offers for more support before the event. While I think the demands for th resignations of the various Capitol officials involved were warranted, I suspect that it will turn out that reliance on the FBI intelligence assessment that there was no indication that anything other than First Amendment protected activities were likely played a significant role in this and the other preparation failures.
  - kyrra 6y ago
    I'm guessing it's going to be more complicated than that. One thing I think I learned during the Trump presidency is that the federal bureaucracy will leak nuggets of information that make them look good or paint the story that they want. But when the full facts and truth of a given situation come out it tends to be far more complicated than far less clear cut than what the initial leaks seem to paint.
mwfunk 6y ago
There's gobs of intelligence on what was about to happen, what was happening, and what might yet be about to happen, all out there in the open on social media. I'm way more worried about the complete and utter lack of using existing intelligence that was served up on a silver platter and continues to be. That completely destroys any argument for expanding surveillance right there, without even considering human rights or legal angles. If they can't even act on what's given to them, or what they already know, maybe that should get the laser focus for the indefinite future.
Arubis 6y ago
In my ideal world, the highly visible use of pervasive, systemic surveillance to rapidly identify, locate, apprehend, and prosecute the scores of folks that casually committed long-minimum-sentence federal crimes both discourages future criminal actions and sparks a debate over whether watching and recording everybody all the time is the way we want to live. I’m not so naïve that I believe that’ll actually happen, though. Tangentially, that pervasive surveillance is “saving” this investigation instead of letting most potential suspects go unidentified is indicative of the general trend of police departments getting lazy about doing actual investigative police work—-increasingly, if it’s not electronically recorded evidence, it may as well not have happened.
rootusrootus 6y ago
Agreed. It does not seem like there was a breakdown in information here, a lot of detail was known both before and after. No justification for a power grab.
3princip 6y ago
Is the talking point in the US that disgruntled Americans are terrorists?! Really? Right, wrong, crazy ... however you see them. Kinda scary calling citizens terrorists, especially on a political basis. Protestors invading government buildings is quite common in the world, but calling citizens terrorists is usually something you see in non-democratic regimes.
- bebopcowboy 6y ago
  Especially after we just had widespread arson and looting in every American city all summer while these same people heaped praise on the perpetrators.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    AFAICT most protestors over the summer were peaceful. There didn't seem to be much sympathy for those destroying property or stealing merchandise. Regardless I'd agree that the Jan. 6 protestors weren't trying to incite terror so much as stop a process they've been convinced was flawed. Hopefully with a change of government the US political culture can mellow and maybe even reconcile a bit.
- mch82 6y ago
  No. The talking point is that the violent extremists who broke into the Capitol chanting “kill [Republican Vice President] Mike Pence”, wearing body armor, armed with guns, pipe bombs, and zip ties for taking hostages are terrorists. Do you disagree?
- rsynnott 6y ago
  > Kinda scary calling citizens terrorists Historically, most terrorists, most places in the world, are citizens of the countries they're doing the terrorism in. > especially on a political basis Terrorism is essentially always politically motivated. > but calling citizens terrorists is usually something you see in non-democratic regimes Eh? No it isn't. Here's a list for Germany, for instance; most are domestic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Germany#List_of_significant_terrorist_incidents_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Germany#List_of_s...
rsynnott 6y ago
Well, obviously not. It was telegraphed beforehand that it would happen on Twitter and Parler by various loons, by the US president, his kids, and his insane lawyer, and no-one did a thing (or, arguably, people did less than the reasonable minimum). And presumably the surveillance that already exists picked up some more than that. The problem was (possibly deliberate) negligence, not a lack of intelligence.
aklemm 6y ago
Protect the Capitol or the point is moot. This is more of a fundamental dilemma that most are admitting right now.
beerandt 6y ago
But censorship / de-platforming leads to communication being pushed underground... and that will be their argument for increased surveillance.
imbnwa 6y ago
One question that comes to mind in all this is how come RICO laws don't apply to Trump in this case. In a RICO case, if I told you to go kill someone and you went and did it, I'm as culpable for the murder as you are. But for some reason this doesn't apply to cases of free speech traceably inciting action by a third-party? I am entirely unsure when a situation can have RICO statutes applied, but the very existence of RICO also sorta contradicts free speech
- casefields 6y ago
  Obligatory Popehat: https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...
  - imbnwa 6y ago
    That's not only helpful its gold
VoodooJuJu 6y ago
One of the most disturbing things about this event is the particular set of words being used to describe it: terrorist attack, assault on the capitol, violent uprising. To me, and I'm sure to most people, words like "terrorist attack" conjure images of mass murder via gunfire or vehicles, kidnappings, and brutal executions. But none of those things happened here. If one does consider this to be a "violent terrorist attack", then what words are left to describe an actual terrorist attack? Is anyone else disturbed that the discourse is being ushered toward these particular words; that you're being made to associate a riot of angry citizens with mass-murder attacks by men wearing balaclavas and wielding AK's? To use these words, "terrorist attack, assault on the capitol, violent uprising", for this event, it's imprecise, misleading. Orwell has a wonderful essay covering this imprecise and practically manipulative use of language. It's a brilliant read, and very relevant at the moment: https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/ https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...
exabrial 6y ago
It will be used to justify the expansion of surveillance because Apple/Google/Facebook/Twitter are forcing the connoisseurs of the conspiracy theories into other platforms that don't have as high of protection from foreign intelligence service influence. Essentially, keeping debate in the open and public is the best option for everyone, even if you [rightfully] disagree with it or it's woefully misguided. Apple/Google/Facebook/Twitter's actions are making things far worse for everyone by forcing conversations underground to alt platforms. Freedom of speech and expression is really _really_ important on private forums for that reason.
- exabrial 6y ago
  So here's the latest thing circulating: Everyone is now turning "Auto Updates" off on their iPhones because they think this will prevent Apple from backdooring their phones. Congratulations, Big Tech. Now we're going to have a million unpatched devices rolling around.

326 points by jimmy2020 6y ago

bane 6y ago

What's really interesting in the Capitol attack is how the terrorists ended up simply surveilling themselves, posting their videos and pictures onto their own social media with their own identifying information attached. You don't need a police state when the enemy is this stupid.

DangitBobby 6y ago
That tells me that they didn't think what they were doing was something to hide. Definitely stupid, but also probably not an attempted coup if that's the case. That is, I don't think the protestors themselves were attempting a coup.
- ben509 6y ago
  A coup is when state actors illegally overthrow other state actors. Most coups are pulled off by militaries, e.g. how Pinochet got into power. This would be an uprising; it's being called a "coup" because uprising sounds sympathetic.
  - AnHonestComment 6y ago
    The reaction here is not about “what” — we’ve seen far worse happen this year, in cities across the country. It’s about “who”: people with power have finally been impacted by the craziness they foster. Welcome DC, to the crazy the rest of us have dealt with for a year!
  - DangitBobby 6y ago
    I still think it's possible someone was attempting a coup but that the protestors were not in on it.
    - beerandt 6y ago
      If so, I struggle to see what the desired outcome would have been at the capital. But people need to be careful, because by saying it was a coup, it normalizes the concept for those who saw Wednesday as a good faith protest march, regardless of what it's now perceived as. Changing/ shifting the definition of words has behavioral consequences.
    - ben509 6y ago
      I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them had some kind of underpants gnomes plan to snatch a Senator. But, really, it was a protest. The point was to engage in drama and theatrics. Why break into the Capitol? Even more drama. Now people are dead, it's managed to tar even Trump's public image, and they're going to get hit with federal charges.
- TT3351 6y ago
  They didn't think they had anything to hide because police organizations and state AGs helped incite the event. This is a typical characteristic of right-wing, white militants. They do not see their actions as vigilantism because they earnestly believe their actions carry the weight of law. Veterans and police officers were among the insurrectionists in the Capitol.
- gumby 6y ago
  Of course they were, they just didn't believe they'd see significant resistance because they believed the vast majority of people agreed with them.
bra-ket 6y ago
one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter".
o_p 6y ago
Its a really big stretch to call a mob of unarmed people who took a bunch of selfies a terrorist attack. It was just a riot
- bane 6y ago
  They were armed.
  - mcv 6y ago
    And they terrorised people. They forced their way in, shouted the names of politicians they were looking for, forced their way through barriers. A mob doesn't need guns to be a threat.
stogxx 6y ago
Since when is a shut-in an act of terrorism? As far as I'm aware these protesters at the Capitol didn't kill or attempt to kill anyone. Yes, they damaged government property. Many will face prosecution for this. Supporters of BLM have committed far worse acts in recent years but they are not labelled as terrorists. The only people that died at this event were the protestors - one at least was unarmed and murdered by a police officer. The whole thing is on video.
- bane 6y ago
  They killed a police officer.
- mcv 6y ago
  Not "murdered" by a police officer. The officer was defending an area that contained the politicians this mob was looking for.

zepto 6y ago

I think we’ll find that there was plenty of surveillance to detect the attack. Just no emphasis on the threat.

almost_usual 6y ago
Or motivation to stop the threat. I’m truly worried about more armed uprising and no enforcement.
- newguy1234 6y ago
  Law enforcement/FBI have never been good at stopping terrorist attacks. The only ones they stop are the ones where the attacker is being stupid obvious like openly talking about it online. Most of the time they let them go through because "they need to build a case".

pjc50 6y ago

This is very good. Not more policing, but better policing. Turning a blind eye to this or pardoning certain crimes but not others is just as much an injustice as over-policing. And someone needs to have a deep inquiry into what happened with calling in reinforcements.

_0ffh 6y ago

True, but when has the truth ever stopped a politician?

exabrial 6y ago

Nor does it justify closing public discussion with those you disagree with.

smshgl 6y ago

While the events of 1/6 are hardly justifiable, I find it deeply troubling that the same crowd who was calling for the abolition of the police a few months ago is now earnestly encouraging informing on their own friends, family, and neighbors because they deserve to be punished and most importantly, humiliated. I hardly believe the FBI needs any assistance in locating anyone, but I fear this is settling a troubling precedent that has not been seen since 20th century Europe. In the months and years to come, we must try to not forget that the government exists solely for the benefit of its constituents, not the other way around. The ruled class, red and blue, does not want freedom from oppression, they want to be the oppressors.

jMyles 6y ago
> I find it deeply troubling that the same crowd who was calling for the abolition of the police a few months ago is now earnestly encouraging informing on their own friends Uhhh, is that actually happening? I think I have my finger pretty firmly on the pulse of one center of today's abolitionist movement, in Portland (where I was in the streets getting gassed many times this summer), and I don't know of anybody who holds the contradictory viewpoint you're describing. I don't think most abolitionists care enough about the Capitol in the first place to get enraged about this.
ceejayoz 6y ago
“Defund the police” (in general) doesn’t mean “don’t stop any crimes”. It means things like “maybe we don’t need armed people to give tickets to drivers with a busted headlight” and “if we put more funds into mental health crisis teams we won’t have to send as many cops to violent incidents”. There are full-on police abolitionists, but they’re far fewer in number.
- zpeti 6y ago
  That’s an interesting clarification as I’ve never heard this take before, especially from the press who’s supposed to speak for the left. They seem pretty happy with just plain: let’s defund the police, full stop.

boxmonster 6y ago

We need to crack down on performative speech. Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson shouldn't be able to hide behind the legal arguments that their words aren't meant to be taken seriously because they are performative.

stogxx 6y ago
Carlson cuts right to the truth. I can see why many on the left dislike him.
- boxmonster 6y ago
  "You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers" https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-...
jacquesm 6y ago
Interesting development: Alex Jones just threw Trump under the bus and claims he received direct orders from Trump.
- zepto 6y ago
  Given that he claims lizard aliens control the government, it doesn’t seem like it would be hard for him to be discredited about this.
newguy1234 6y ago
So get rid of freedom of speech? Got it.
- boxmonster 6y ago
  I didn't say get rid of it. How about requiring a warning label on these shows? I mean the lawyers for Jones and Carlson have already argued they aren't meant to be taken seriously. I think a label run on their shows would be enough.

jacquesm 6y ago

Of course it doesn't, the perps were discussing this openly and in plaintext on various websites which are still in the air. Who needs surveillance. What you do need is to react to available intelligence, but this isn't the first time in history that that doesn't happen. They are also presently discussing their next day-out for rednecks in the form of another insurrection and coup attempt on the 17th of January. Let's hope that this time some people will take notice because while everybody seems to be happy that this effort failed from the perspective of the perps it looks like a major victory: they took the bloody capitol with such ease that 10 minutes more planning would have had them hold house or senate members or even the VP or the speaker hostage. Or worse. This isn't over yet.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
spamizbad 6y ago
Not only that, but multiple people were taking screenshots, linking authorities to posts, even sharing doxxed information with law enforcement prior to the event. They ignored it!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Do you have a source for that?
tolbish 6y ago
The problem isn't that we don't have the tools to fight these terrorists. The problem is that many of our politicians and police are siding with the terrorists, or at the very least sympathetic to their cause. This isn't a new phenomenon either. This has been documented [0] time and time again [1]. [0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-i... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/27/white-supremacists-militias-infiltrate-us-police-report https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/27/white-suprem...

Orou 6y ago

HNers: Are you anticipating any sort of 'pendulum effect' where we over-correct for our present situation in the new Democratic executive and legislature, specifically in the area of surveillance and privacy? What changes do you expect to have happen in the next year or two in this area? Are you taking any steps regarding your own privacy based on your predictions?

rconti 6y ago
It doesn't seem they needed any additional surveillance to stop this. Just adequate security staff for a pre-planned rally of very angry people that they already knew about. They plan for this kind of thing all the time. This time, they failed. I see the most likely initiatives of the new administration to revolve around reining in the powers of the presidency.
- gred 6y ago
  No administration ever "reigns in" the powers of the administration. This is always a priority and talking point of the party out of power, regardless of party. As soon as you are in power, you exploit and expand on the precedents set by the previous administration. The only very small exception I can even think of was Trump's one-in, two-out regulation policy [1]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2018/10/23/trump-exceeds-one-in-two-out-goals-on-cutting-regulations-but-it-may-be-getting-tougher/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2018/10/23/trump-exc...
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    It makes quite reasonable sense for this administration to distribute the presidential powers to the congress, since they control both anyway, and have proven to be most harmed by an opposition president.
eplanit 6y ago
The over-correction will be terrible. The Left has embraced authoritarianism, so this is a grand opportunity for them. They don't want to (nor now do they have to) negotiate or do anything "incremental". They want radical change, and the powers of the state to enforce it (environmental and social justice will be prominent). The idiots who perpetrated 1/6/21 have put us in an awful place.

mimixco 6y ago

This could be the beginning of the end for anonymous social media. I can see lawmakers suggesting we move to a KYC model like fintech or like China has where a real ID must be associated with each social account. It would certainly help curtail bots and also make it riskier for people to promote violence in a public forum.

pjc50 6y ago
The thing is, these protests didn't expect the police to fight or arrest them. They did all this stuff in public under their real names. Someone wore their work ID lanyard to storm the Capitol. It's not risky to promote violence in public forums in the US provided you're not specific about it. Heck, the ringleader was the president; it's not like we need him to submit ID to get his Twitter back.

touchmystereo 6y ago

Of course it does justify expanding surveillance. The Capitol riots caused a mild discomfort in very important Democratic politicians, which basically equates it with 9/11. In contrast, many months long BLM riots, while they resulted in many deaths, made thousands of people unsafe and caused billions of dollars of damage, weren't nearly as important. Why? Because they were controlled by the Democratic establishment and only affected working- and middle-class people, whom those politicians barely consider human. So obviously they didn't see a need for legislation or even condemnation. In fact, they seen the riots as a good thing.

JarlUlvi 6y ago
I don't agree. Similar to the Jan 6 Trump event, many peaceful BLM protest marches were conflated with the simultaneous violent riots. We need to make better distinction between peaceful marching, and wholesale looting and arson. Now Antifa has been a violent, murderous group for as long as I can remember, but they've gotten a pass. Because of a complicit media, the antifa DA in Oregon, tacit approval by Democrat pols, and financial/legal aid. They are the shock troops of the Democrats after all.
ceejayoz 6y ago
> The Capitol riots caused a mild discomfort in very important Democratic politicians... https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-extremists/u-s-capitol-siege-emboldens-motley-crew-of-extremists-idUSL1N2JJ0A0 https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-extremists/u-s-... > Reuters photographer Jim Bourg, who was photographing protesters trying to break down doors to the Capitol building, said he heard three older white men in red “Make America Great Again” caps talking about finding Vice President Mike Pence to hang him from a tree as a “traitor.” > Security agents rushed Pence from the Senate chamber after protesters breached the Capitol building. (There's video evidence of the crowd yelling "Hang Mike Pence", incidentally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW718KRYDtU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW718KRYDtU)
- bebopcowboy 6y ago
  Oh no! Politicians were afraid of their constituents! Meanwhile normal citizens just spent the entire summer having their livelihoods destroyed as the media and corporations cheered on the perpetrators.

b-g-m 6y ago

In 2020 I wanted DC to start looking at smart-city cameras. I have been living in DC for nearly 10 years and watched the crime in the area go up alarmingly during the quarantine. People being robbed in broad daylight, Porch pirates, Arsons, burglary, auto theft - not to mention other threats and hazards in the capital go on without being apprehended. I am specifically interested in the smart-city Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) cameras which could identify sick people, terrorists, gun shots, and all other kinds of hazards, threats and security issues.

ceejayoz 6y ago
"Defund the police" folks would point out that the increase in crime likely stems from an ineffective safety net during the pandemic and the ensuing economic difficulties it has caused.
scrose 6y ago
I spent a brief amount time working with smart city tech. You might be surprised just how many cameras and sensors already exist that are monitoring you at any moment as you walk down the street. The issue usually isn’t that there’s no evidence for crimes, it’s that investigating those mostly petty crimes, outside of secure areas is an extremely low priority for police departments. For example, I’ve had the police reject my video evidence of a hit and run where the driver admitted to it on camera, because they didn’t want to spend resources investigating something that didn’t result in a death. I stopped working with smart city tech because I felt there’s only two realistic directions it can go: Excessive surveillance by the police, or excessive surveillance by people whose only interest is selling whatever data they can collect about you in public spaces to advertisers and other 3rd parties.
joubert 6y ago
Crime statistics for DC: 2020 vs 2019 https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-glance https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-glance
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  So most of their claims were wrong. Motor vehicle theft was up 50%. Robbery, burglary, and other theft were down. There were 5 more cases of arson.

etcet 6y ago

The breach of the capitol building is an embarrassment. There's not reinforced glass on the first floor windows? The secured interior is 3 cops in front of a wooden door with plate glass windows? And those cops just kinda slinked away letting a woman breach it and get insta killed? The outside perimeter is just a few cops in front of some fencing? What a fucking failure.

barbacoa 6y ago
Imagine if we had a 2008 Mumbai style terror attack with armed and organized gunman. We'd be f'ed.
- casefields 6y ago
  We have. 5 members of Congress were shot. Jimmy Carter commuted their sentences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_United_States_Capitol_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_United_States_Capitol_sho...
throwaway201103 6y ago
Especially on a day when there was a large protest planned for a vote taking place. It's a government building and it should be reasonably open to the public but common sense needs to raise its head at some point. Securing the building for a few hours would not have been unreasonable.
chrisseaton 6y ago
Do you think it should be a fortress? That's sad. It's supposed to be an accessible place where your representatives work, not a military base.
- etcet 6y ago
  I think it should be reasonably defensible. It's not just a failure of the architecture though. The tactics used were mostly ineffective. Defensive forces were positioned thinly with few real blockades. I saw one instance of police blocking an entrance through sheer mass and it was effective. The cops could have been done the same in the interior hallways instead of giving up their spread out weak positions. This would have prevented the use of firearms. If you can stomach it, I ask everyone to watch the full lead up to the shot. It is an absolute failure of policing. Start at 37:20 on https://banned.video/watch?id=5ff6857e00bac0328da8e888 https://banned.video/watch?id=5ff6857e00bac0328da8e888 and yes it's NSFL (shot at 39:10).

whatsmyusername 6y ago

They don’t need to expand anything. We have all the tools we need to identify, arrest, and incarcerate the perpetrators. Additionally there’s ample ability to deplatform them and their supporters through the agreements they signed with social media companies and payment processors. The free market won’t have trouble deciding that these traitors are done with both public life and making enough money to ever have to pay taxes again. Moreover, we are all well within our rights to practice the conservative principle of not doing business with those we find repugnant.

caseysoftware 6y ago

Of all the pictures and videos from inside the Capitol, has anyone seen any trespassers/protestors/rioters/insurrectionists carrying weapons? I caught some of it live and have been looking since and haven't seen any. Pictures or video would be appreciated.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
newguy1234 6y ago
A few were but it was a tiny proportion. Think 5 people out of 100,000 that went type of situation.
johnchristopher 6y ago
There's a very well documented Google sheet floating around with most of the videos and pictures of the event. I won't link because it contains very graphic videos of the death of one of the participant.
stogxx 6y ago
No but I did see an unarmed protestor get shot in the face by a police officer
beerandt 6y ago
There were two incidents I've read of, neither inside the capital or even on capital grounds. One was a guy who had two 9mm handguns. No mention of what led to the arrest, but it seems to be a stop and frisk type of encounter. The other is the guy who allegedly had a wagon of molotov's, and was also carrying some type of firearm. Neither seem to be incidents of the people being in the act of using the weapons. Although if the guy had actual molotovs, yeah that's not good.
mch82 6y ago
Yes. Early live video showed people who looked like tourists. Things escalated dramatically. Zip cuff guy appears to have a gun on his hip in addition to the body armor & zip ties for taking hostages. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zip-cuffs-capitol-riots/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zip-cuffs-capitol-riots/ We’re now learning of pipe bombs. https://www.businessinsider.com/pipe-bomb-reportedly-found-at-rnc-headquarters-dnc-evacuated-2021-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/pipe-bomb-reportedly-found-a... The killed police officer was attacked with a fire extinguisher, so things other than guns can be used as weapons. Many photos show body armor, riot shields, and staffs. Photos show Members of Congress escorted to safety in CBRN hoods (protection against chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear air pollution). The C-SPAN live feed was cut off for the safety of Congress & the staff at the Capitol. You can watch the moment on YouTube, plus the subsequent audio only broadcast. What do you think? Is that helpful?

newguy1234 6y ago

The tech community has already been hitting the drum beat for stripping our liberties and massively expanding the surveillance programs under the guise of "stopping terrorism". Why do you think Biden was quick to identify the protest as terrorism? It will set the tone for the rest of his administration. Civil liberties will be stripped in the name of security/stopping terrorism.

bebopcowboy 6y ago
It’s already happening and he hasnt even been inaugurated. It’s also being cheered on by the shills on this website employed by big tech

SubiculumCode 6y ago

That Capitol attack is misnamed: The attack was an attempt to remove an opposing branch of government. Leading to, irrespective of their intentions, a probable dictatorship and end of this American experiment.

throwaway201103 6y ago
Zero chance any of that would have happened. It certainly could have gotten more ugly than it was. But a loosely organized mob of protestors is not going to achieve that. One SWAT team, or the military if necessary, would have dealt with it easily.
- SubiculumCode 6y ago
  Zero chance bull. The majority of the mob were not organized, but there was a core of co-operating individuals that came prepared with Kevlar, weapons, specialized restraint zip ties, etc, and appeared trained. Who knows what would have happened if they had breached sooner than the Senators/Congressman could have escaped to safety? And without that branch being able to function, who knows what Trump might try to claim empowered to do? Is this likely? Maybe, maybe not. But I tell you what. There is more danger to under-emphasizing the threat than over-emphasizing the threat. Indeed, fear and control over executive power is at the core of our Constitution and founders' fears. I will not play down what happened, and who instigated it. The general mob could also have quickly instigated a massacre. Chants of "Hang M. Pence."
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Over-emphasizing the threat could have taken the form of five times as many police in riot gear surrounding the Capitol. That would have been fine (hopefully). Or it could have taken the form of police deciding to open fire, which could have killed a large number of people and had enormous and unpredictable political consequences. Over-emphasize isn't enough. It has to lead to the right actions rather than to damaging ones.

stogxx 6y ago

The media pretends that this is unprecendented and willfully forgets the events of last year when antifa forcefully took a federal courthouse in Portland. They also ignore the general carnage of last year - violence and arson directed at business owners and people following the death of George Floyd. When viewed side by side, the double standards shown by the press is staggering

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The media pretends that this is unprecendented It is. > forgets the events of last year when antifa forcefully took a federal courthouse in Portland. A federal courthouse isn't the national Capitol, and the courthouse wasn't targeted specifically because officials were present and inspired in part by public calls to execute particular officials and in part by a direct call by the a defeated candidate as part of an ongoing campaign to reverse election results. > They also ignore the general carnage of last year - violence and arson directed at business owners and people following the death of George Floyd. No, in fact comparison of the events and the law enforcement responses is common in the media, even though the coup attempt is still portrayed as an unprecedented event. So the claim that the events of last summer are “ignored” by the media is simply false.
- beerandt 6y ago
  Scotus confirmation protests were however, exactly the same, but for the capital police reaction and escalation. The admitted intent was to intimidate senators votes. One event met resistance and and things escalated. The other saw federal agents kneel in support and open the doors.
stateofnounion 6y ago
More https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/congress-protests-brett-kavanaugh/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/congress-protests-br...
tstrimple 6y ago
Did "antifa" force their way in past police officers while beating them and spraying them with pepper spray? Did they break windows and try to climb across barriers with secret service on the other side with guns drawn? Were they chanting about heads on pikes or about hanging Pence? Are you so completely biased that you think an group of protestors taking over an empty building without force is somehow equivalent to a group of people attacking police and literally breaking into a building occupied by congress while chanting about and actually performing violence?

dragonwriter 6y ago

> The Capitol Attack Doesn’t Justify Expanding Surveillance In the sense of paying a few people to monitor public social media sites so that widespread in-the-open planning of a mass violent attack on the Capitol doesn't result in the FBI having no indication that anything but First Amendment-protected activities are planned, it does justify expanding surveillance. It doesn't justify additional government surveillance powers, or intrusion into privacy, though.

kyrra 6y ago

While what Trump did here was bad, it's also important to know that others were a bit incompetent in this incident. 1) capital police rejects offers for more support before the event. The capitol police chief resigned because of it. https://wjla.com/news/local/capitol-police-to-resign-after-report-that-offers-of-federal-help-were-rejected https://wjla.com/news/local/capitol-police-to-resign-after-r... 2) The sergeant arms for the house and senate also both resigned. https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/senate-sgt-at-arms-resigns-after-rioters-took-over-capitol/ https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/senate-sgt-at-arms-resigns-aft... There have also been much larger protests in the capital where they never breached the capital building. No one properly prepared for this demonstration.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> capital police rejects offers for more support before the event. While I think the demands for th resignations of the various Capitol officials involved were warranted, I suspect that it will turn out that reliance on the FBI intelligence assessment that there was no indication that anything other than First Amendment protected activities were likely played a significant role in this and the other preparation failures.
- kyrra 6y ago
  I'm guessing it's going to be more complicated than that. One thing I think I learned during the Trump presidency is that the federal bureaucracy will leak nuggets of information that make them look good or paint the story that they want. But when the full facts and truth of a given situation come out it tends to be far more complicated than far less clear cut than what the initial leaks seem to paint.

mwfunk 6y ago

There's gobs of intelligence on what was about to happen, what was happening, and what might yet be about to happen, all out there in the open on social media. I'm way more worried about the complete and utter lack of using existing intelligence that was served up on a silver platter and continues to be. That completely destroys any argument for expanding surveillance right there, without even considering human rights or legal angles. If they can't even act on what's given to them, or what they already know, maybe that should get the laser focus for the indefinite future.

Arubis 6y ago

In my ideal world, the highly visible use of pervasive, systemic surveillance to rapidly identify, locate, apprehend, and prosecute the scores of folks that casually committed long-minimum-sentence federal crimes both discourages future criminal actions and sparks a debate over whether watching and recording everybody all the time is the way we want to live. I’m not so naïve that I believe that’ll actually happen, though. Tangentially, that pervasive surveillance is “saving” this investigation instead of letting most potential suspects go unidentified is indicative of the general trend of police departments getting lazy about doing actual investigative police work—-increasingly, if it’s not electronically recorded evidence, it may as well not have happened.

rootusrootus 6y ago

Agreed. It does not seem like there was a breakdown in information here, a lot of detail was known both before and after. No justification for a power grab.

3princip 6y ago

Is the talking point in the US that disgruntled Americans are terrorists?! Really? Right, wrong, crazy ... however you see them. Kinda scary calling citizens terrorists, especially on a political basis. Protestors invading government buildings is quite common in the world, but calling citizens terrorists is usually something you see in non-democratic regimes.

bebopcowboy 6y ago
Especially after we just had widespread arson and looting in every American city all summer while these same people heaped praise on the perpetrators.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  AFAICT most protestors over the summer were peaceful. There didn't seem to be much sympathy for those destroying property or stealing merchandise. Regardless I'd agree that the Jan. 6 protestors weren't trying to incite terror so much as stop a process they've been convinced was flawed. Hopefully with a change of government the US political culture can mellow and maybe even reconcile a bit.
mch82 6y ago
No. The talking point is that the violent extremists who broke into the Capitol chanting “kill [Republican Vice President] Mike Pence”, wearing body armor, armed with guns, pipe bombs, and zip ties for taking hostages are terrorists. Do you disagree?
rsynnott 6y ago
> Kinda scary calling citizens terrorists Historically, most terrorists, most places in the world, are citizens of the countries they're doing the terrorism in. > especially on a political basis Terrorism is essentially always politically motivated. > but calling citizens terrorists is usually something you see in non-democratic regimes Eh? No it isn't. Here's a list for Germany, for instance; most are domestic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Germany#List_of_significant_terrorist_incidents_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Germany#List_of_s...

rsynnott 6y ago

Well, obviously not. It was telegraphed beforehand that it would happen on Twitter and Parler by various loons, by the US president, his kids, and his insane lawyer, and no-one did a thing (or, arguably, people did less than the reasonable minimum). And presumably the surveillance that already exists picked up some more than that. The problem was (possibly deliberate) negligence, not a lack of intelligence.

aklemm 6y ago

Protect the Capitol or the point is moot. This is more of a fundamental dilemma that most are admitting right now.

beerandt 6y ago

But censorship / de-platforming leads to communication being pushed underground... and that will be their argument for increased surveillance.

imbnwa 6y ago

One question that comes to mind in all this is how come RICO laws don't apply to Trump in this case. In a RICO case, if I told you to go kill someone and you went and did it, I'm as culpable for the murder as you are. But for some reason this doesn't apply to cases of free speech traceably inciting action by a third-party? I am entirely unsure when a situation can have RICO statutes applied, but the very existence of RICO also sorta contradicts free speech

casefields 6y ago
Obligatory Popehat: https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...
- imbnwa 6y ago
  That's not only helpful its gold

VoodooJuJu 6y ago

One of the most disturbing things about this event is the particular set of words being used to describe it: terrorist attack, assault on the capitol, violent uprising. To me, and I'm sure to most people, words like "terrorist attack" conjure images of mass murder via gunfire or vehicles, kidnappings, and brutal executions. But none of those things happened here. If one does consider this to be a "violent terrorist attack", then what words are left to describe an actual terrorist attack? Is anyone else disturbed that the discourse is being ushered toward these particular words; that you're being made to associate a riot of angry citizens with mass-murder attacks by men wearing balaclavas and wielding AK's? To use these words, "terrorist attack, assault on the capitol, violent uprising", for this event, it's imprecise, misleading. Orwell has a wonderful essay covering this imprecise and practically manipulative use of language. It's a brilliant read, and very relevant at the moment: https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/ https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...

exabrial 6y ago

It will be used to justify the expansion of surveillance because Apple/Google/Facebook/Twitter are forcing the connoisseurs of the conspiracy theories into other platforms that don't have as high of protection from foreign intelligence service influence. Essentially, keeping debate in the open and public is the best option for everyone, even if you [rightfully] disagree with it or it's woefully misguided. Apple/Google/Facebook/Twitter's actions are making things far worse for everyone by forcing conversations underground to alt platforms. Freedom of speech and expression is really _really_ important on private forums for that reason.

exabrial 6y ago
So here's the latest thing circulating: Everyone is now turning "Auto Updates" off on their iPhones because they think this will prevent Apple from backdooring their phones. Congratulations, Big Tech. Now we're going to have a million unpatched devices rolling around.