15 ms·
> Between February 2023 and July 1, 2022, that did not happen in three investigations, the CTIVD said. The supervisory body did not say which communities were i
by RamblingCTO 3y ago
> Between February 2023 and July 1, 2022, that did not happen in three investigations, the CTIVD said. The supervisory body did not say which communities were involved but did explain that by “community,” it means a population group “based, for example, on ethnicity, religious belief, or occupational group.” So, theoretically, the police intelligence services may have been spying on visitors to a certain mosque or protesting farmers.
We really have a problem with targeted surveillance of specific communities like visitors of a specific mosque? Or a pub frequented by known nazis? I don't get it. The article doesn't have enough details to form an opinion!
- n4r9 3y agoI'd be miffed if the police sidestepped the law and tracked my whereabouts just because I was in an organisation where a couple of other members have suspicions raised about them.
- krageon 3y agoThere is a dragnet law, this will happen to you and it is legal
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoI think that's exactly how it works. If you associate with sketchy people or groups, you automatically become a target for surveillance.
- bilbo0s 3y agoI was just thinking this. I mean, we're talking about tracking those hanging out at places where terrorists are known to gather, and associating with said terrorists, however casually? That's just military sense. Are we just supposed to let the known terrorist go to the bar, have his/her coded conversations with an unknown subject, and then let that subject go on his/her merry way without looking any further into the matter? That would be naive in the extreme.
- repelsteeltje 3y agoMight be a legitimate concern, but not enough evidence for Police surveillance. You mention "military sense", but this isn't a war. If there is terrorist suspicion, I'd say it is more in the intelligence jurisdiction.
- n4r9 3y agoFirstly we're not talking about "terrorists" but people who intelligence services have "received a signal" about. That's pretty ambiguous but sounds like it could mean an anonymous tip-off or information from another department. Secondly, no one's suggesting that they let everyone go their merry way without looking into anything. Only that widespread surveillance must be justified e.g. the evidence must pass some threshold and other responses have been ruled out.
- ramon156 3y agoThis shouldn't be news to anyone
- blueflow 3y agoGuilt by association? Also, some tiny question: People you think you associate with or people the Police think you associate with?
- repelsteeltje 3y agoSuspicion by association. I guess I'm a suspect for doing banking at a large bank know to also cater for criminals. Should probably look for a different bank. ...Oh, wait.
- arp242 3y agoThis really depends on the details. If, say, one member of a mosque is under surveillance for good reasons and then you extend that to everyone attending the mosque for no particular reason other than "well, maybe we'll catch something, doesn't to try": that's probably not a good thing. On the other hand, if the imam is preaching violent rhetoric, multiple members are under surveillance for good reasons, and there's good reasons to believe that the violence is an important part of the mosque community in the first place (rather than a relatively small detail): then that's perhaps not such a bad thing. You don't "accidentally" associate with that kind of thing. Or: you probably don't need detailed reasons to put someone in Don Corleone's employ under surveillance.
- n4r9 3y agoSidestepping the law is unjustified regardless of the details.
- arp242 3y agoI was just addressing the "tracked my whereabouts just because I was in an organisation where a couple of other members have suspicions raised about them" bit.
- n4r9 3y agoBut then you're addressing a different point to the one I made! I don't disagree with what you're saying inherently. But the "sidestepping legal process" is crucial to why this is so problematic.
- piva00 3y agoWould it be ok to surveil you just because you are a Twitter user, a known place for nazi gatherings? I'd say it's not ok.
- ramon156 3y agoI'm biased though. Spy on me all you want, i got nothing to hide
- weberer 3y agoWhy stop there? I hear Nazis use the internet. By that logic, all internet users should be tracked.
- krapp 3y agoAll internet users are tracked, either by American and American-allied intelligence services or their own governments, all the time. If you're in the Western sphere of influence everything you say and do on any internet connected device goes to an NSA server for analysis, assuming they don't simply have direct access to your data through PRISM or secret warrants. And we kill people over metadata. You can assume that what the Dutch are doing here is standard operating procedure everywhere, and that any laws to the contrary are just a facade.
- piva00 3y ago
- Doxin 3y agoThe point here is that this is something the intelligence agencies are allowed to do but only if done for a well grounded reason. It seems that step has been skipped.
- MisterSandman 3y ago> We really have a problem with targeted surveillance of specific communities like visitors of a specific mosque? Yes? Have you opened a history textbook, like ever?
- beeboobaa 3y agoI have, and it's pretty obvious that religion causes a lot of violence
- noir_lord 3y agoSo does politics, sports teams, newspapers, TV, radio, various websites and humanity generally. We surveil everyone all the time then?
- beeboobaa 3y agoIt's a matter of severity. If (fans of) a sports team frequently vandalizes a town after their team plays then yes, they absolutely should be surveilled.
- vouwfietsman 3y agoMaybe everyone who worships divine literature that calls for indiscriminate violence, seems like a good start.
- tomrod 3y agoThose occur way less than the religious pipeline of radicalization.
- kingkawn 3y ago[flagged]
- CamperBob2 3y agoNot as much as police.
- Telemakhos 3y ago> like visitors of a specific mosque? Or a pub frequented by known nazis? But the article had a slightly different example than yours: > on visitors to a certain mosque or protesting farmers You changed "protesting farmers" to "a pub frequented by known nazis." It's emotionally easy not to have a problem with targeted surveillance of nazis, but surveilling farmers, who are currently protesting throughout Europe? That's clearly politically motivated surveillance of ordinary, peaceful, law-abiding citizens who dissent from the government's views.
- Thiez 3y agoThe protesting farmers have been blocking highways with their tractors and lighting fires containing asbestos (also on / near highways). You could argue that the former should be allowed as part of a protest, but the latter moves you squarely outside the "law-abiding citizens" category.
- Simon_ORourke 3y agoEuropean farmers appear to be a singular career category where the government(s) will pay you to be a failure.
- olliej 3y agoThat’s the case in the US as well. What do you think agriculture subsidies are? If you want countries that don’t subsidize agriculture that has been Aussie and NZ since the 80s iirc. Though I haven’t lived in those countries for a decade or two now and Covid and various financial panics over the last decades resulted in a variety of corporate hand outs so it seems plausible that those businesses have got some government support since then.
- doktrin 3y agoWhat makes them a singular category in this regard? Genuine question. Virtually all agricultural sectors enjoy some form of subsidy, for what I think are obvious reasons. Likewise it's not like the idea of government money going to less-than-optimally-productive labor is unheard of.
- mschuster91 3y ago> We really have a problem with targeted surveillance of specific communities like visitors of a specific mosque? Or a pub frequented by known nazis? There's one of a hell of a difference between the right to religious expression and the right to drink in a pub. The former is protected in many constitutions (USA: First Amendment, Germany: Art. 4 Abs. 2 Grundgesetz, Netherlands: Art. 6 no. 1 Constitution) as well as in Art. 18 of the Declaration of Human Rights, the latter is not.
- RamblingCTO 3y agoWell, a lot of people, including you, seem to misunderstand me. I had very specific examples in my head with demonstrated (planned) actions against others or the state. I was even thinking about a very specific nazi pub in Germany. It's not about beliefs or religion for me. I couldn't care less and don't agree with "Generalverdacht" or "Sippenhaft" at all. On the opposite.
- anfogoat 3y ago> The article doesn't have enough details to form an opinion! It does, unless your interest is in justifying the breaking of law and abuse of powers. These people were granted amazing powers, are paid from taxes, and yet somehow it's too much to expect that they'd have an ounce of respect for the law and the privacy of their supposed fellow citizens. Unscrupulous individuals who work overtime to figure out ways to abuse their powers. And it really is unfathomable to me how it's possible for someone to be an agent of government, knowing you're responsible for being that for which no one nowhere should trust their government with any powers, and somehow still being able to go about your daily activities without your conscience tearing you into pieces. Impossible to say enough bad things about these specimens.
- contravariant 3y agoI have a problem with surveillance on any criteria that's only marginally more specific than 'people the government doesn't like' or 'people who don't like the government'.
- lispm 3y agoI would think that the biggest problem in the Netherlands is organized crime around drug imports.
- coldtea 3y ago>We really have a problem with targeted surveillance of specific communities like visitors of a specific mosque? That's the very definition of the thing we should have a problem with.