11 ms·

There seems to be wild speculation about freedom of speech rights or hacking Signal. The FBI simply joined groupchats and read them. This is trivial stuff.

by mw888 9mo ago

trollbridge 9mo ago
Or just got control of 1 person’s phone/account.
BurningFrog 9mo ago
Seems like there are hundreds of people in those groups. Can't be hard to get into for some skilled undercover cops. TV shows have shown me they do these things all the time!
- themafia 9mo ago
  It would help if they stopped holding demonstrations in front of facilities with huge amounts of facial recognition technology. Protesting is not something you should do "casually."
  - eleventyseven 9mo ago
    Protesting is a fundamental human right and obligation. It is something that you should do as casually as you would voting, volunteering, and taking out the garbage: something you do from time to time when the moment demands it. See also: https://enwp.org/Chilling_effect https://enwp.org/Chilling_effect
    - themafia 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - dns_snek 9mo ago
        > No. It's not. Governments are not natural. So you have no "fundamental" rights here. You could make the same moot point about all societal laws. Fundamental rights are determined by the constitution, the UN declaration of human rights, as well as any other local charters.
        Claudus 9mo ago
        [flagged]
        direwolf20 9mo ago
        If you believe rights are what God and the Constitution grant, then they're meaningless. Some piece of paper has no real–world relevance. Cops shooting people in the face has real–world relevance.
        Claudus 9mo ago
        [flagged]
        jonathanlydall 9mo ago
        Barring physical limitations, what you can and can't do is ultimately determined by what the society you are by and large a part of deems to be acceptable behaviour. Government rules and social norms can change over time, it ultimately doesn't matter what you feel is "right" or what some law says is "right", it's really about what you can get away with. A large part of what you can get away with is determined about whether or not you will ultimately be penalized for your actions (possibly through violence), and laws can keep people aligned on what is or isn't going to be accepted and when people deemed to be acting in a socially unacceptable way are likely to be penalized in some form. While "rights" may be somewhat philosophical, they can have very real physical "weight" behind them in the form of other people "enforcing" them. And finally, in case you are mistakenly under the impression that I think it's okay for anyone to do anything they want so long as they can get away with it, I don't, but that discussion drifts into the territory of morality and ethics which, while related, are nevertheless different and very large topics of discussion in themselves.
      - mikkupikku 9mo ago
        Governments are natural; nature abhors a vacuum. Governments which at least pay lip service to the premise of respecting people's rights are another matter entirely.
    - oceanplexian 9mo ago
      > Protesting is a fundamental human right That doesn't include vandalism, it doesn't include blocking roads, looting, or assaulting people. What's obvious to me is that a certain class of protestors are intentionally provoking a response from the government by breaking the law. Inevitably someone is arrested, hurt, or killed, and that is used as an excuse for more protests. The protests get increasingly violent in an escalating cycle. That process isn't exercising a "fundamental human right", it's a form of violence. If you don't agree with the Government the correct answer is to vote, have a dialog, and if you choose to protest do it in a way that's respectful to your neighbors and the people around you.
      - defrost 9mo ago
        > a certain class of protestors Yes, a proportionally large and significant number of local Minnesota community members of long and good standing. > are intentionally provoking a response from the government are reacting to excessive over reach by outsiders, directed by the Federal government to act in a punative manner. > Inevitably someone is arrested, hurt, or killed, This has already happened. Multiple times. As was obvious from the outset given the unprofessional behaviour and attitudes of the not-police sent in wearing masks. > [the people aren't] exercising a "fundamental human right" they are exercising their Constitutional rights. Including their right to free speech, to bear arms, to protest the Federal government, etc. > the correct answer is to vote, talk to your neighbors and friends, and peaceably protest, Which they have done and they continue to do. See: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/the-neighbors-defending-minnesota-from-ice/685769/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/the-neighbors-defe... for more about the local community of neighbour loving US citizens acting in defence of their community.
        pclmulqdq 9mo ago
        The main thing I see these protesters doing wrong is that they seem to freak out and fight back once they get aarrested. This is not how to deal with under-trained law enforcement unless you want to die. Get arrested, get booked, have your friends pay your bail, and then have a media circus around the court cases that result. This seems lame and takes some self-control to do, but it works really well. Instead, people are getting killed and videos are coming out that seem very chaotic, where people with different predispositions than you can empathize with the police. If those videos were people getting arrested and pepper sprayed for speaking out and for helping each other, they would hit a lot harder for a much larger population.
  - Perceval 9mo ago
    Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually and without having to protect your face/identity. It was enshrined in the First Amendment as a fundamental check on the federal government in order to recognize the natural right of a self-governing people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. What is not something that should be gone casually – or really at all – is an attempt to engage in insurrection with black bloc or globalized intifada insurgency tactics to prevent the enforcement of law.
    - themafia 9mo ago
      > Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually Then you are going to be identified and your conversations monitored. This is precisely the outcome the article is complaining about. I find that expectation absurd. > of a self-governing people This describes the majority not the individual. > and petition the government There is no expectation or statement that your anonymity will be protected. The entire idea of a "petition" immediately defies this. > to prevent the enforcement of law. How does "tracking ICE" _prevent_ the enforcement of the law? Your views on the first amendment suddenly became quite narrow.
      - account42 9mo ago
        > How does "tracking ICE" _prevent_ the enforcement of the law? Your views on the first amendment suddenly became quite narrow. Because the whole point of tracking ICE is to help people dodge them. It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law.
        fc417fc802 9mo ago
        > It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law. I expect the vast majority of government abuses in recent history the world over have to at least some degree followed the law according to those carrying out the acts. Thus it is almost to be expected that as a situation escalates those crying foul might occasionally find themselves opposing the rule of law as described by those in power. To state it plainly, not all "rule of law" is subjectively equal.
  - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
    > Protesting is not something you should do "casually” Neither is violently undermining our Constitutional order. These folks should be on notice that they will be prosecuted. If we played by Trump’s book, we’d charge them with treason and then let them appeal against the death penalty for the rest of their lives.
    - themafia 9mo ago
      > Neither is violently undermining our Constitutional order. Ah, the "ends justify the means" then? Is this something you want applied _against_ you? Seems reckless. > These folks should be on notice that they will be prosecuted. They will not. > If we played by Trump’s book Moral relativism will turn you into the thing you profess to hate. > we’d charge them with treason and then let them appeal against the death penalty for the rest of their lives. Words have actual meaning. We're clearly past that and just choosing words that match emotional states. If you don't want to fix anything and just want to demonstrate your frustrations then this will work. If you want something to change you stand no chance with this attitude. I'm not choosing sides. I'm simply saying if you want to avoid FBI attention then take your heart off your sleeve and smarten up.
      - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
        > Is this something you want applied _against_ you? It’s literally happening. And sure. If I try to murder the Vice President or murder Americans as part of a political stunt, hold me to account. Those were the rules I thought we were all playing by. > If you want something to change you stand no chance with this attitude Strongly disagree. There are new political tools on the table. Unilaterally disarming is strategically stupid. > if you want to avoid FBI attention then take your heart off your sleeve and smarten up I’m going to bet I’ve gotten more language written into state and federal law than you have. That isn’t a flex. It’s just me saying that I know how to wield power, it and doesn’t come from trying to avoid crooked federal agents. If they’re crooked, they’ll come for you when you speak up. In my experience, they’re more bark than bite.
    - rbanffy 9mo ago
  - LightBug1 9mo ago
    [flagged]
- GorbachevyChase 9mo ago
  They had already been outed by internet sleuths possibly, but not necessarily, informed by leaks from the police. The FBI is making a press release about an investigation only to save face because the criminal conspiracy is already common knowledge among those interested. In the universe of a competent FBI, which I think is ours, they already know who is in the network. They have well-publicized, patently unlawful dragnet signals intelligence collection capabilities. The targets are people who organize openly on Zoom and Discord, and broadcast volumes of their ideology on bumper stickers, Mastodon, and Blue-Twitter. So why does (if the press is to be believed) an authoritarian, fascist, ultra-right-wing regime allow them to operate? I feel like ICE is Floyd/BLM repeated as farce.
  - zahlman 9mo ago
    > In the universe of a competent FBI, which I think is ours, they already know who is in the network. Certainly they know the handles of those people, and what they've said and what documents they've exchanged. Connecting Signal accounts to real-world identity... well, that's definitely the FBI's wheelhouse, but some might make it easier or harder than others. But there are a few cases where even the Internet sleuths are pretty confident about identity. > So why does (if the press is to be believed) an authoritarian, fascist, ultra-right-wing regime allow them to operate? Rationality requires treating behaviour inconsistent with a quality as evidence against that quality.
  - mindslight 9mo ago
    > So why does (if the press is to be believed) an authoritarian, fascist, ultra-right-wing regime allow them to operate? So why does (if the service manual is to be believed) not changing my car's oil still allow my car to keep operating? (does this kind of ignore-any-sort-of-abstract-model "insight" sway anybody who is not extremely stoned?)
trhway 9mo ago
>The FBI simply i don't think an investigation by FBI has ever been "simply" to the subjects of such an investigation. And to show bang-for-the-buck the "simply reading chat" officers would have to bring at least some fish, i.e. federal charges, from such a reading expedition. In general it sounds very familiar - any opposition is a crime of impeding and obstruction. Just like in Russia where any opposition is a crime of discreditation at best or even worse - a crime of extremism/terrorism/treason.
- db48x 9mo ago
  Don’t be disingenuous. The people in these groups are coordinating for a specific reason: to follow federal agents around, harass them, and prevent them from doing their jobs. That’s textbook Obstruction of Justice. It is illegal to prevent an officer from doing their job. These groups are also documented to have harassed people who are _not_ federal officers under the mistaken impression that they are. That’s just assault. Probably stalking too. Anyone who participates in these groups will be committing crimes, and should be prosecuted for it. If you don’t like the job that an officer is doing then the right thing to do is to talk to your Congress–critter about changing the law. Keep in mind that ICE is executing a law that was passed in 1995 with bipartisan support in Congress and signed by Bill Clinton. No attempt has been made to modify that law in the last 30 years. If Democrats didn’t like it, they had several majorities during that time when they could have forced through changes. They didn’t even bother.
  - jakelazaroff 9mo ago
    > The people in these groups are coordinating for a specific reason: to follow federal agents around, harass them, and prevent them from doing their jobs. That’s textbook Obstruction of Justice. It is illegal to prevent an officer from doing their job. If that's the case, then why has no one been prosecuted on those grounds?
    - zahlman 9mo ago
      [flagged]
lynndotpy 9mo ago
More specifically, right-wing agitators joined the chats and posted screenshots online.
- zahlman 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - xp84 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - TheOtherHobbes 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - zahlman 9mo ago
        > The Pretti shooting has been ruled a homicide, by the way. I don't see anything in e.g. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/01/27/alex-pretti-dhs-cbp-report/88386166007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/01/27/alex-p... to substantiate that; and as far as I can tell there have not yet been any other investigations, and thus no other opportunity for such a ruling.
        hypeatei 9mo ago
        A homicide isn't a "ruling" in court, it just describes the manner of death. We all saw several ICE agents shoot this man. It's a homicide.
        direwolf20 9mo ago
        "ruled a homicide" is a "ruling"
        zahlman 9mo ago
glaugh 9mo ago
Do you mean just technically trivial? I agree with that. If you mean more broadly trivial, I see that quite differently. An administration that has repeatedly abused its power in order to intimidate and punish political opponents is opening an investigation into grassroots political opponents. That feels worth being concerned about.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- thegreatpeter 9mo ago
  [flagged]
- arrozconcosas 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - giardini 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - CursedSilicon 9mo ago
      [flagged]
  - giardini 9mo ago
    [flagged]
- nlitened 9mo ago
  [flagged]
- fc417fc802 9mo ago
  The FBI infiltrating political groups of all stripes is to be assumed by default at this point. A particularly high profile example would be the plot to kidnap a state governor a few years ago. As to actually acting on what they learn, within this context yeah that would be troubling.
RobRivera 9mo ago
Yea, I just assume any easily joinable movement like this is a honeypot of sorts.
- epistasis 9mo ago
  Most of these groups are centered around a neighborhood, or a school, or a church. For anything school related, people are very suspicious of outsiders trying to join. Churches and neighborhood groups might be more open, I suspect, but still gotta get somebody who lives there or goes to the church to vouch for you. But the worst case for an outsider joining is not very bad; they get to see what's going on, but the entire point of the endeavor is to bring everything to light and make everything more visible. And if an outsider joins and starts providing bad information or is a bad actor, typical moderation efforts are pretty easy.
- lukan 9mo ago
  Most people are not professional conspiracists and know how to handle secret meetings, communication etc. But the more the whole thing shifts towards that, the closer civil war is. In other words, if you think any easily joinable movement is a honeypot you already seem to think along the lines of resistance movement in a dictatorship. (If it is .. I will not judge, I am not in the US)
  - RobRivera 9mo ago
    That seems like quite a stretch from reality. I just know the glowies enjoy lurking websites where people openly post how to use Tor.
FrustratedMonky 9mo ago
"FBI simply joined groupchats and read them. This is trivial stuff." Isn't the simply inserting an agent into the secret circle the most time honored way to crack security.
- FrustratedMonky 9mo ago
  People downvoting don't know security. Technology often fails around the human factor. You have a private chat? Ok? and you let people in? So sorry your encryption didn't help with who you let in.
1vuio0pswjnm7 9mo ago
Funny how HN discussions about the development of encrypted messaging apps often include remarks from commenters about the need for a "group chat" feature In some cases, popular messaging apps that initially did not provide "group chat" have since added this "feature", apparently in response to "user demand" The so-called "tech" companies that control these apps from Silicon Valley and Redmond have aligned with one political party, generally whichever party is in power, for "business" reasons, e.g., doing whatever is necessary to ensure their continued profits free from regulation Surveillance is their core business

There seems to be wild speculation about freedom of speech rights or hacking Signal. The FBI simply joined groupchats and read them. This is trivial stuff.

by mw888 9mo ago

There seems to be wild speculation about freedom of speech rights or hacking Signal. The FBI simply joined groupchats and read them. This is trivial stuff.

trollbridge 9mo ago

Or just got control of 1 person’s phone/account.

BurningFrog 9mo ago

Seems like there are hundreds of people in those groups. Can't be hard to get into for some skilled undercover cops. TV shows have shown me they do these things all the time!

themafia 9mo ago
It would help if they stopped holding demonstrations in front of facilities with huge amounts of facial recognition technology. Protesting is not something you should do "casually."
- eleventyseven 9mo ago
  Protesting is a fundamental human right and obligation. It is something that you should do as casually as you would voting, volunteering, and taking out the garbage: something you do from time to time when the moment demands it. See also: https://enwp.org/Chilling_effect https://enwp.org/Chilling_effect
  - themafia 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - dns_snek 9mo ago
      > No. It's not. Governments are not natural. So you have no "fundamental" rights here. You could make the same moot point about all societal laws. Fundamental rights are determined by the constitution, the UN declaration of human rights, as well as any other local charters.
      - Claudus 9mo ago
        [flagged]
        direwolf20 9mo ago
        If you believe rights are what God and the Constitution grant, then they're meaningless. Some piece of paper has no real–world relevance. Cops shooting people in the face has real–world relevance.
        Claudus 9mo ago
        [flagged]
        jonathanlydall 9mo ago
        Barring physical limitations, what you can and can't do is ultimately determined by what the society you are by and large a part of deems to be acceptable behaviour. Government rules and social norms can change over time, it ultimately doesn't matter what you feel is "right" or what some law says is "right", it's really about what you can get away with. A large part of what you can get away with is determined about whether or not you will ultimately be penalized for your actions (possibly through violence), and laws can keep people aligned on what is or isn't going to be accepted and when people deemed to be acting in a socially unacceptable way are likely to be penalized in some form. While "rights" may be somewhat philosophical, they can have very real physical "weight" behind them in the form of other people "enforcing" them. And finally, in case you are mistakenly under the impression that I think it's okay for anyone to do anything they want so long as they can get away with it, I don't, but that discussion drifts into the territory of morality and ethics which, while related, are nevertheless different and very large topics of discussion in themselves.
    - mikkupikku 9mo ago
      Governments are natural; nature abhors a vacuum. Governments which at least pay lip service to the premise of respecting people's rights are another matter entirely.
  - oceanplexian 9mo ago
    > Protesting is a fundamental human right That doesn't include vandalism, it doesn't include blocking roads, looting, or assaulting people. What's obvious to me is that a certain class of protestors are intentionally provoking a response from the government by breaking the law. Inevitably someone is arrested, hurt, or killed, and that is used as an excuse for more protests. The protests get increasingly violent in an escalating cycle. That process isn't exercising a "fundamental human right", it's a form of violence. If you don't agree with the Government the correct answer is to vote, have a dialog, and if you choose to protest do it in a way that's respectful to your neighbors and the people around you.
    - defrost 9mo ago
      > a certain class of protestors Yes, a proportionally large and significant number of local Minnesota community members of long and good standing. > are intentionally provoking a response from the government are reacting to excessive over reach by outsiders, directed by the Federal government to act in a punative manner. > Inevitably someone is arrested, hurt, or killed, This has already happened. Multiple times. As was obvious from the outset given the unprofessional behaviour and attitudes of the not-police sent in wearing masks. > [the people aren't] exercising a "fundamental human right" they are exercising their Constitutional rights. Including their right to free speech, to bear arms, to protest the Federal government, etc. > the correct answer is to vote, talk to your neighbors and friends, and peaceably protest, Which they have done and they continue to do. See: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/the-neighbors-defending-minnesota-from-ice/685769/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/the-neighbors-defe... for more about the local community of neighbour loving US citizens acting in defence of their community.
      - pclmulqdq 9mo ago
        The main thing I see these protesters doing wrong is that they seem to freak out and fight back once they get aarrested. This is not how to deal with under-trained law enforcement unless you want to die. Get arrested, get booked, have your friends pay your bail, and then have a media circus around the court cases that result. This seems lame and takes some self-control to do, but it works really well. Instead, people are getting killed and videos are coming out that seem very chaotic, where people with different predispositions than you can empathize with the police. If those videos were people getting arrested and pepper sprayed for speaking out and for helping each other, they would hit a lot harder for a much larger population.
- Perceval 9mo ago
  Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually and without having to protect your face/identity. It was enshrined in the First Amendment as a fundamental check on the federal government in order to recognize the natural right of a self-governing people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. What is not something that should be gone casually – or really at all – is an attempt to engage in insurrection with black bloc or globalized intifada insurgency tactics to prevent the enforcement of law.
  - themafia 9mo ago
    > Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually Then you are going to be identified and your conversations monitored. This is precisely the outcome the article is complaining about. I find that expectation absurd. > of a self-governing people This describes the majority not the individual. > and petition the government There is no expectation or statement that your anonymity will be protected. The entire idea of a "petition" immediately defies this. > to prevent the enforcement of law. How does "tracking ICE" _prevent_ the enforcement of the law? Your views on the first amendment suddenly became quite narrow.
    - account42 9mo ago
      > How does "tracking ICE" _prevent_ the enforcement of the law? Your views on the first amendment suddenly became quite narrow. Because the whole point of tracking ICE is to help people dodge them. It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law.
      - fc417fc802 9mo ago
        > It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law. I expect the vast majority of government abuses in recent history the world over have to at least some degree followed the law according to those carrying out the acts. Thus it is almost to be expected that as a situation escalates those crying foul might occasionally find themselves opposing the rule of law as described by those in power. To state it plainly, not all "rule of law" is subjectively equal.
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
  > Protesting is not something you should do "casually” Neither is violently undermining our Constitutional order. These folks should be on notice that they will be prosecuted. If we played by Trump’s book, we’d charge them with treason and then let them appeal against the death penalty for the rest of their lives.
  - themafia 9mo ago
    > Neither is violently undermining our Constitutional order. Ah, the "ends justify the means" then? Is this something you want applied _against_ you? Seems reckless. > These folks should be on notice that they will be prosecuted. They will not. > If we played by Trump’s book Moral relativism will turn you into the thing you profess to hate. > we’d charge them with treason and then let them appeal against the death penalty for the rest of their lives. Words have actual meaning. We're clearly past that and just choosing words that match emotional states. If you don't want to fix anything and just want to demonstrate your frustrations then this will work. If you want something to change you stand no chance with this attitude. I'm not choosing sides. I'm simply saying if you want to avoid FBI attention then take your heart off your sleeve and smarten up.
    - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
      > Is this something you want applied _against_ you? It’s literally happening. And sure. If I try to murder the Vice President or murder Americans as part of a political stunt, hold me to account. Those were the rules I thought we were all playing by. > If you want something to change you stand no chance with this attitude Strongly disagree. There are new political tools on the table. Unilaterally disarming is strategically stupid. > if you want to avoid FBI attention then take your heart off your sleeve and smarten up I’m going to bet I’ve gotten more language written into state and federal law than you have. That isn’t a flex. It’s just me saying that I know how to wield power, it and doesn’t come from trying to avoid crooked federal agents. If they’re crooked, they’ll come for you when you speak up. In my experience, they’re more bark than bite.
  - rbanffy 9mo ago
- LightBug1 9mo ago
  [flagged]
GorbachevyChase 9mo ago
They had already been outed by internet sleuths possibly, but not necessarily, informed by leaks from the police. The FBI is making a press release about an investigation only to save face because the criminal conspiracy is already common knowledge among those interested. In the universe of a competent FBI, which I think is ours, they already know who is in the network. They have well-publicized, patently unlawful dragnet signals intelligence collection capabilities. The targets are people who organize openly on Zoom and Discord, and broadcast volumes of their ideology on bumper stickers, Mastodon, and Blue-Twitter. So why does (if the press is to be believed) an authoritarian, fascist, ultra-right-wing regime allow them to operate? I feel like ICE is Floyd/BLM repeated as farce.
- zahlman 9mo ago
  > In the universe of a competent FBI, which I think is ours, they already know who is in the network. Certainly they know the handles of those people, and what they've said and what documents they've exchanged. Connecting Signal accounts to real-world identity... well, that's definitely the FBI's wheelhouse, but some might make it easier or harder than others. But there are a few cases where even the Internet sleuths are pretty confident about identity. > So why does (if the press is to be believed) an authoritarian, fascist, ultra-right-wing regime allow them to operate? Rationality requires treating behaviour inconsistent with a quality as evidence against that quality.
- mindslight 9mo ago
  > So why does (if the press is to be believed) an authoritarian, fascist, ultra-right-wing regime allow them to operate? So why does (if the service manual is to be believed) not changing my car's oil still allow my car to keep operating? (does this kind of ignore-any-sort-of-abstract-model "insight" sway anybody who is not extremely stoned?)

trhway 9mo ago

>The FBI simply i don't think an investigation by FBI has ever been "simply" to the subjects of such an investigation. And to show bang-for-the-buck the "simply reading chat" officers would have to bring at least some fish, i.e. federal charges, from such a reading expedition. In general it sounds very familiar - any opposition is a crime of impeding and obstruction. Just like in Russia where any opposition is a crime of discreditation at best or even worse - a crime of extremism/terrorism/treason.

db48x 9mo ago
Don’t be disingenuous. The people in these groups are coordinating for a specific reason: to follow federal agents around, harass them, and prevent them from doing their jobs. That’s textbook Obstruction of Justice. It is illegal to prevent an officer from doing their job. These groups are also documented to have harassed people who are _not_ federal officers under the mistaken impression that they are. That’s just assault. Probably stalking too. Anyone who participates in these groups will be committing crimes, and should be prosecuted for it. If you don’t like the job that an officer is doing then the right thing to do is to talk to your Congress–critter about changing the law. Keep in mind that ICE is executing a law that was passed in 1995 with bipartisan support in Congress and signed by Bill Clinton. No attempt has been made to modify that law in the last 30 years. If Democrats didn’t like it, they had several majorities during that time when they could have forced through changes. They didn’t even bother.
- jakelazaroff 9mo ago
  > The people in these groups are coordinating for a specific reason: to follow federal agents around, harass them, and prevent them from doing their jobs. That’s textbook Obstruction of Justice. It is illegal to prevent an officer from doing their job. If that's the case, then why has no one been prosecuted on those grounds?
  - zahlman 9mo ago
    [flagged]

lynndotpy 9mo ago

More specifically, right-wing agitators joined the chats and posted screenshots online.

zahlman 9mo ago
[flagged]
- xp84 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - TheOtherHobbes 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - zahlman 9mo ago
      > The Pretti shooting has been ruled a homicide, by the way. I don't see anything in e.g. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/01/27/alex-pretti-dhs-cbp-report/88386166007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/01/27/alex-p... to substantiate that; and as far as I can tell there have not yet been any other investigations, and thus no other opportunity for such a ruling.
      - hypeatei 9mo ago
        A homicide isn't a "ruling" in court, it just describes the manner of death. We all saw several ICE agents shoot this man. It's a homicide.
        direwolf20 9mo ago
        "ruled a homicide" is a "ruling"
        zahlman 9mo ago

glaugh 9mo ago

Do you mean just technically trivial? I agree with that. If you mean more broadly trivial, I see that quite differently. An administration that has repeatedly abused its power in order to intimidate and punish political opponents is opening an investigation into grassroots political opponents. That feels worth being concerned about.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
thegreatpeter 9mo ago
[flagged]
arrozconcosas 9mo ago
[flagged]
- giardini 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - CursedSilicon 9mo ago
    [flagged]
- giardini 9mo ago
  [flagged]
nlitened 9mo ago
[flagged]
fc417fc802 9mo ago
The FBI infiltrating political groups of all stripes is to be assumed by default at this point. A particularly high profile example would be the plot to kidnap a state governor a few years ago. As to actually acting on what they learn, within this context yeah that would be troubling.

RobRivera 9mo ago

Yea, I just assume any easily joinable movement like this is a honeypot of sorts.

epistasis 9mo ago
Most of these groups are centered around a neighborhood, or a school, or a church. For anything school related, people are very suspicious of outsiders trying to join. Churches and neighborhood groups might be more open, I suspect, but still gotta get somebody who lives there or goes to the church to vouch for you. But the worst case for an outsider joining is not very bad; they get to see what's going on, but the entire point of the endeavor is to bring everything to light and make everything more visible. And if an outsider joins and starts providing bad information or is a bad actor, typical moderation efforts are pretty easy.
lukan 9mo ago
Most people are not professional conspiracists and know how to handle secret meetings, communication etc. But the more the whole thing shifts towards that, the closer civil war is. In other words, if you think any easily joinable movement is a honeypot you already seem to think along the lines of resistance movement in a dictatorship. (If it is .. I will not judge, I am not in the US)
- RobRivera 9mo ago
  That seems like quite a stretch from reality. I just know the glowies enjoy lurking websites where people openly post how to use Tor.

FrustratedMonky 9mo ago

"FBI simply joined groupchats and read them. This is trivial stuff." Isn't the simply inserting an agent into the secret circle the most time honored way to crack security.

FrustratedMonky 9mo ago
People downvoting don't know security. Technology often fails around the human factor. You have a private chat? Ok? and you let people in? So sorry your encryption didn't help with who you let in.

1vuio0pswjnm7 9mo ago

Funny how HN discussions about the development of encrypted messaging apps often include remarks from commenters about the need for a "group chat" feature In some cases, popular messaging apps that initially did not provide "group chat" have since added this "feature", apparently in response to "user demand" The so-called "tech" companies that control these apps from Silicon Valley and Redmond have aligned with one political party, generally whichever party is in power, for "business" reasons, e.g., doing whatever is necessary to ensure their continued profits free from regulation Surveillance is their core business