8 ms·

I.e. the inference is that ICE is unconstitutionally tracking and assembling lists of protestors exercising their First Amendment rights. > "A post-scan analys

I.e. the inference is that ICE is unconstitutionally tracking and assembling lists of protestors exercising their First Amendment rights. > "A post-scan analysis confirmed the detection of 574 IMSI-exposing messages." That's roughly 574 unique protestors, give or take. Full-on autocratic tyranny—this is also what Putin's oligarchs did to Ukranians at the Maidan Protests, in Kyiv in 2014. Used IMSI-catchers to assemble lists of everyone present, and intimidate them. https://slate.com/technology/2014/01/ukraine-texting-euromaidan-protesters-kiev-demonstrators-receive-threats.html https://slate.com/technology/2014/01/ukraine-texting-euromai... ("How Did Ukraine’s Government Text Threats to Kiev’s EuroMaidan Protesters?" (2014)).

MiiMe19 1y ago
[flagged]
- perihelions 1y ago
  The article I'm replying to is the parent comment's "Exclusive: Evidence of cell phone surveillance detected at anti-ICE protest"; not the HN OP.
  - exe34 1y ago
    "Earlier this year, new media publication Straight Arrow News said it had analysed “mobile network anomalies” around a Washington state protest against ICE raids that were consistent with Stingray use."
tiahura 1y ago
How do you know there wasn’t a warrant?
- perihelions 1y ago
  It'd be flatly unconstitutional to approve a dragnet warrant targeting a protest.
  - tiahura 1y ago
    In a recently-unsealed search warrant reviewed by Forbes, ICE used such a cell-site simulator in an attempt to track down an individual in Orem, Utah. Maybe you missed it when you read the article?
    - perihelions 1y ago
      The article[0] I'm replying to is about a political protest in Tukwila, Washington. [0] https://san.com/cc/exclusive-evidence-of-cell-phone-surveillance-detected-at-anti-ice-protest/ https://san.com/cc/exclusive-evidence-of-cell-phone-surveill...
      - loeg 1y ago
        (It establishes that it is possible to obtain a warrant to use this device. One could have been obtained in Tukwila.)
  - dmix 1y ago
    They wouldn't necessarily be targeting the whole protest, the IMSI catcher would work broadly and from that the warrant would require them to narrow down to one and ignore rest. Unless I misunderstood the technical details the parent comment posted. This broad dragnet nature of Stingray collection has always been why it's been a major privacy issue. Like doing a wiretap by tapping the whole neighbourhood and filtering phone calls for a certain address.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    After reading Kavanaugh's latest concurrence I am not so sure.
    - Yeul 1y ago
      Whoever thought it was a good idea to let a president appoint the supreme court was a naive fool.
      - 1y ago
- vkou 1y ago
  When you treat with someone you know to be a compulsive liar, the onus of proof is on them. If this government has not proven that they had one, you'd be mad to trust that they did. There are no consequences to it for lying, or for not following the law, or not acting in good faith. It has a well-documented history of doing all three, and is headed by a convicted criminal.
- analognoise 1y ago
  Can we stop sanewashing these people? They clearly don't care for legality, constitutionality, anything positive or good.
  - tiahura 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - vharuck 1y ago
      This is an administration that once had a man who, during a meeting about deportations attended by department lawyers, in response to what would be done if the courts rejected their rationale, said "Fuck the courts." This man is no longer part of the administration. But not because he was fired for this blatant disregard for the judicial branch. It's because he was nominated to be a judge (and the Senate confirmed him).
    - Refreeze5224 1y ago
      Please argue in good faith. "Just because xyz" is not. It's asking to ignore tons of evidence and explicit speech to the contrary.
- lordhumphrey 1y ago
  Whether an action has gotten a legal thumbs-up or not is of little relevance here. I'd like to leave the question of why that's true as an exercise for the reader, but your comment makes it sound as if you have trouble with this concept, so let's be explicit - a state operating autocratically can, and often will, rubberstamp whatever it decides it wants to do. Had a quick look for the numbers from FISA to give you an example of this. https://www.motherjones.com/criminal-justice/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request/ https://www.motherjones.com/criminal-justice/2013/06/fisa-co... says that they denied 11 requests for surveillance warrants out of 33,900 requests over 33 years of operation. That's a pass rate of 99.07%! So allow me to say - a warrant wouldn't have changed anything, they give them out like nothing. In the article though, it does say: "ICE did not respond to requests for comment from SAN. It is not clear whether ICE or any other law enforcement agency obtained a warrant to use an IMSI catcher — commonly referred to as a “Stingray” — to conduct surveillance."
  - Levitz 1y ago
    >Whether an action has gotten a legal thumbs-up or not is of little relevance here. On the contrary, I don't think there's anything more relevant. That such action can be legal speaks volumes about the state of what is legal and tolerated within the US. This, like pretty much everything about the current administration, is not explicitly about Trump, but something that has been cooking for at the very least the past two decades.
    - anecdatas 1y ago
      It's relevant in the sense of "is this an indicator of increasing autocracy" but not relevant in the sense of "does the presence of the warrant indicate this is ok". I think the parent poster is saying that the present of a warrant does not make the action not autocratic. And you are disagreeing with a different idea (that the presence of a warrant doesn't matter at all), by saying it does matter, but in the opposite way -- if a warrant is present that indicates the state is losing checks and balances.
  - tiahura 1y ago
    It seems like it would be hard to make pronouncements about the error rate without knowing the actual rate of unsupportable requests? Moreover, you’re referencing FISA warrants which are so unlike typical warrants that constructing arguments based on FISA practice is risky. Point me to an article if I’m wrong, but I haven’t heard even a single credible rumor that these Stingrays aren’t being used for exactly what authorities say they are - trying to find particular individuals is a general area. Have you heard of whistleblower accounts or accidentally leaked details about large scale storage ordata mining of location data from Stingrays? If your argument is simply that law enforcement agencies don’t have the right to conduct a dragnet when pursuing a fugitive murderer, as is the case here, you’re going to need something more persuasive than a rant against authoritarianism.
- throwawayq3423 1y ago
  A warrant for several thousand people at a spontaneous event ?
xp84 1y ago
[flagged]
- boston_clone 1y ago
  Start at the Fourth Amendment. (I guess the First would be more appropriate place to start, but the Fourth is quite pertinent.) Also, > [...] if you disagree with me and think the government is fascist and thus can't be trusted not to throw you in prison just for saying things they don't like this is happening: https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/tourist-refused-entry-into-us-and-jailed-over-bald-jd-vance-meme/ar-AA1HlCyz https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/tourist-refused-entr... edited for phrasing / completeness
  - xp84 1y ago
    This seems like an apples/oranges comparison. The constitution is pretty silent afaik on whether random foreign nationals such as this tourist have any particular rights. Obviously summarily executing or imprisoning them would be a big no-no, but being asked lots of questions and thoroughly searched because they think you're a troublemaker is not uncommon. Being refused entry to a country that isn't yours and being home safe by the end of the day, is quite a few huge leaps away from being locked up in your own country for your speech. Do I think that incident sounds like a stupid move by CBP if that is the whole story[1]? Yeah. But I disagree that it's proof we're in a fascist dictatorship. [1] Is it also possible that the government agents didn't overhear him making some flippant comment that made him seem far more dangerous? For instance, "Yeah I can't believe I'm even coming here when that fascist Trump was elected. Wish that bullet hadn't missed." If he had said or done something to cause it to happen, you can bet he would have forgotten to mention it when he recounted his story to The Daily Star.
- some_guy_nobel 1y ago
  Courts have repeatedly held that the government cannot chill lawful protest activity by imposing undue surveillance or intimidation. Sure, there is no explicit “right to anonymity,” but the Supreme Court has recognized in cases like NAACP v. Alabama (1958) that forced disclosure of membership lists can violate First Amendment rights, because it deters participation and chills association. Of course, the Fourth Amendment also has clauses against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it's easy to see, from modern cases like Carpenter v. United States (2018) (which limited warrantless cellphone location tracking) why this could be perceived poorly. But the Constitution tries to ensure that risk doesn’t come from government retaliation against lawful expression. I would ask why you're so keen to allow it.
meetpatelcurry 1y ago
[dead]

MiiMe19 1y ago

[flagged]

perihelions 1y ago
The article I'm replying to is the parent comment's "Exclusive: Evidence of cell phone surveillance detected at anti-ICE protest"; not the HN OP.
- exe34 1y ago
  "Earlier this year, new media publication Straight Arrow News said it had analysed “mobile network anomalies” around a Washington state protest against ICE raids that were consistent with Stingray use."

tiahura 1y ago

How do you know there wasn’t a warrant?

perihelions 1y ago
It'd be flatly unconstitutional to approve a dragnet warrant targeting a protest.
- tiahura 1y ago
  In a recently-unsealed search warrant reviewed by Forbes, ICE used such a cell-site simulator in an attempt to track down an individual in Orem, Utah. Maybe you missed it when you read the article?
  - perihelions 1y ago
    The article[0] I'm replying to is about a political protest in Tukwila, Washington. [0] https://san.com/cc/exclusive-evidence-of-cell-phone-surveillance-detected-at-anti-ice-protest/ https://san.com/cc/exclusive-evidence-of-cell-phone-surveill...
    - loeg 1y ago
      (It establishes that it is possible to obtain a warrant to use this device. One could have been obtained in Tukwila.)
- dmix 1y ago
  They wouldn't necessarily be targeting the whole protest, the IMSI catcher would work broadly and from that the warrant would require them to narrow down to one and ignore rest. Unless I misunderstood the technical details the parent comment posted. This broad dragnet nature of Stingray collection has always been why it's been a major privacy issue. Like doing a wiretap by tapping the whole neighbourhood and filtering phone calls for a certain address.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  After reading Kavanaugh's latest concurrence I am not so sure.
  - Yeul 1y ago
    Whoever thought it was a good idea to let a president appoint the supreme court was a naive fool.
    - 1y ago
vkou 1y ago
When you treat with someone you know to be a compulsive liar, the onus of proof is on them. If this government has not proven that they had one, you'd be mad to trust that they did. There are no consequences to it for lying, or for not following the law, or not acting in good faith. It has a well-documented history of doing all three, and is headed by a convicted criminal.
analognoise 1y ago
Can we stop sanewashing these people? They clearly don't care for legality, constitutionality, anything positive or good.
- tiahura 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - vharuck 1y ago
    This is an administration that once had a man who, during a meeting about deportations attended by department lawyers, in response to what would be done if the courts rejected their rationale, said "Fuck the courts." This man is no longer part of the administration. But not because he was fired for this blatant disregard for the judicial branch. It's because he was nominated to be a judge (and the Senate confirmed him).
  - Refreeze5224 1y ago
    Please argue in good faith. "Just because xyz" is not. It's asking to ignore tons of evidence and explicit speech to the contrary.
lordhumphrey 1y ago
Whether an action has gotten a legal thumbs-up or not is of little relevance here. I'd like to leave the question of why that's true as an exercise for the reader, but your comment makes it sound as if you have trouble with this concept, so let's be explicit - a state operating autocratically can, and often will, rubberstamp whatever it decides it wants to do. Had a quick look for the numbers from FISA to give you an example of this. https://www.motherjones.com/criminal-justice/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request/ https://www.motherjones.com/criminal-justice/2013/06/fisa-co... says that they denied 11 requests for surveillance warrants out of 33,900 requests over 33 years of operation. That's a pass rate of 99.07%! So allow me to say - a warrant wouldn't have changed anything, they give them out like nothing. In the article though, it does say: "ICE did not respond to requests for comment from SAN. It is not clear whether ICE or any other law enforcement agency obtained a warrant to use an IMSI catcher — commonly referred to as a “Stingray” — to conduct surveillance."
- Levitz 1y ago
  >Whether an action has gotten a legal thumbs-up or not is of little relevance here. On the contrary, I don't think there's anything more relevant. That such action can be legal speaks volumes about the state of what is legal and tolerated within the US. This, like pretty much everything about the current administration, is not explicitly about Trump, but something that has been cooking for at the very least the past two decades.
  - anecdatas 1y ago
    It's relevant in the sense of "is this an indicator of increasing autocracy" but not relevant in the sense of "does the presence of the warrant indicate this is ok". I think the parent poster is saying that the present of a warrant does not make the action not autocratic. And you are disagreeing with a different idea (that the presence of a warrant doesn't matter at all), by saying it does matter, but in the opposite way -- if a warrant is present that indicates the state is losing checks and balances.
- tiahura 1y ago
  It seems like it would be hard to make pronouncements about the error rate without knowing the actual rate of unsupportable requests? Moreover, you’re referencing FISA warrants which are so unlike typical warrants that constructing arguments based on FISA practice is risky. Point me to an article if I’m wrong, but I haven’t heard even a single credible rumor that these Stingrays aren’t being used for exactly what authorities say they are - trying to find particular individuals is a general area. Have you heard of whistleblower accounts or accidentally leaked details about large scale storage ordata mining of location data from Stingrays? If your argument is simply that law enforcement agencies don’t have the right to conduct a dragnet when pursuing a fugitive murderer, as is the case here, you’re going to need something more persuasive than a rant against authoritarianism.
throwawayq3423 1y ago
A warrant for several thousand people at a spontaneous event ?

xp84 1y ago

[flagged]

boston_clone 1y ago
Start at the Fourth Amendment. (I guess the First would be more appropriate place to start, but the Fourth is quite pertinent.) Also, > [...] if you disagree with me and think the government is fascist and thus can't be trusted not to throw you in prison just for saying things they don't like this is happening: https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/tourist-refused-entry-into-us-and-jailed-over-bald-jd-vance-meme/ar-AA1HlCyz https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/tourist-refused-entr... edited for phrasing / completeness
- xp84 1y ago
  This seems like an apples/oranges comparison. The constitution is pretty silent afaik on whether random foreign nationals such as this tourist have any particular rights. Obviously summarily executing or imprisoning them would be a big no-no, but being asked lots of questions and thoroughly searched because they think you're a troublemaker is not uncommon. Being refused entry to a country that isn't yours and being home safe by the end of the day, is quite a few huge leaps away from being locked up in your own country for your speech. Do I think that incident sounds like a stupid move by CBP if that is the whole story[1]? Yeah. But I disagree that it's proof we're in a fascist dictatorship. [1] Is it also possible that the government agents didn't overhear him making some flippant comment that made him seem far more dangerous? For instance, "Yeah I can't believe I'm even coming here when that fascist Trump was elected. Wish that bullet hadn't missed." If he had said or done something to cause it to happen, you can bet he would have forgotten to mention it when he recounted his story to The Daily Star.
some_guy_nobel 1y ago
Courts have repeatedly held that the government cannot chill lawful protest activity by imposing undue surveillance or intimidation. Sure, there is no explicit “right to anonymity,” but the Supreme Court has recognized in cases like NAACP v. Alabama (1958) that forced disclosure of membership lists can violate First Amendment rights, because it deters participation and chills association. Of course, the Fourth Amendment also has clauses against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it's easy to see, from modern cases like Carpenter v. United States (2018) (which limited warrantless cellphone location tracking) why this could be perceived poorly. But the Constitution tries to ensure that risk doesn’t come from government retaliation against lawful expression. I would ask why you're so keen to allow it.

meetpatelcurry 1y ago

[dead]