Slashdot Mirror
DC Inauguration Protestors Are Being Hit With Facebook Data Searches (citylab.com)
During the protests over the inauguration of Donald Trump, more than 230 protestors were arrested -- many of which were charged with rioting and had their phones seized by Washington, D.C., police. One of the individuals who was arrested received an email from Facebook's "Law Enforcement Response Team," which raises the question: Did D.C. police ask Facebook to reveal information about this arrestee? CityLab reports: In an emailed response to CityLab's request for more information, Rachel Reid, a spokesperson for the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, responded that "MPD does not comment on investigative tactics." The District of Columbia United States Attorney's Office -- the agency leading the prosecution of Inauguration protesters -- has not yet responded to CityLab's inquiry. CityLab also asked Facebook about the email. "We don't comment on individual requests," company spokesperson Jay Nancarrow said. He referred CityLab to the site's law enforcement guidelines page and to its Government Requests Report database, where the public can see how many legal processes it receives from countries worldwide. According to this database, U.S. law enforcement requested information on the accounts of 38,951 users over January to June of 2016, and they received some type of data in 80 percent of cases. Which "legal process" authorities sent to Facebook for information on the protester matters considerably in terms of how much data they can seize for investigation. According to Facebook's legal guidelines, a search warrant, for example, could allow Facebook to give away content data including "messages, photos, videos, timeline posts, and location information." A subpoena or a court order would give authorities less information, but would still include the individual's "name, length of service, credit card information, email address(es), and a recent login/logout IP address(es)."
protesting is illegal.
If they are cowards behind a mask, they deserve death. Fuck them and their hypocrisy.
it raises the question but does not beg.
Its a little late to be protesting against DC power. Both DC and AC have been around for quite some time.
Rioting is not protesting. Only 230 arrests out of millions of peaceful protestors.
A number of crimes (including violent ones) have been committed, which the relevant law-enforcement agency(ies) are duly investigating. They have detained some suspects and are collecting evidence. What's so outrageous or even particularly newsworthy about this?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Part of the reason of that is the opacity with which government treats these things. That makes it hard as hell to be an informed populace and fight overreach. It is also something Obama promised and never delivered, he in fact often did the opposite. This is not a partisan statement, as I have nothing but disdain for or current administration and tend to lean pretty damn liberal. I mention it as a point of fact that few, if any of those in power have your or my interest at heart, regardless of the populist messages they spew.
Silence is a state of mime.
Hey, you STUPID IDIOT. BEG THE QUESTION doesn't mean what you think it does. Idiot Millenial, maybe you can lay off the Starbucks and actually take the time to learn something?
Stop using "begs the question" incorrectly, you clowns.
Further:
According to Facebook's legal guidelines, a search warrant, for example, could allow Facebook to give away content data including "messages, photos, videos, timeline posts, and location information." A subpoena or a court order would give authorities less information, but would still include the individual's "name, length of service, credit card information, email address(es), and a recent login/logout IP address(es).
What's the problem, exactly? One arrested individual is making this claim. Facebook says they do so with a court order, subpoena, or actual warrant. You need an actual warrant to get most info.
Now if you had evidence that Facebook was turning over tons of data on anyone who was simply at the protests without a warrant/subpoena/order, then we'd have a story.
If you want to play statistics, you could also say "billions of people did not protest Trump." Hey, sorry if you don't like it but that logic works both ways. You want to minimize the (obvious and improper) damage caused by rioting liberals, I'll be happy to minimize the (pathetically small and insignificant) number or protesters.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I'm not seeing a post that said beg the question. Is there some feature of Slashdot I am unaware of that is hiding it?
In Soviet Russia.... erm pretty much the same shit happens.
Look, he's not a Republican, he refuses to follow their policies, he's not a President, he refuses to obey any laws, divest any business, he's not even a fooking American, he defended Putin on Sunday by attacking America, aka 'Putin's good because American is bad'.
There were more people at the womens days anti-Trump protests than at Trump's inauguration, and that pretty much tells American made the RIGHT choice in not voting for him.
The GOP needs to clean house of it's little Russian parasite.
You picked a strange place to raise the issue of using "beg the question", AC.
Hearsay is NOT acceptable. The OP is lies.
I don't see how his statement minimizes the damage. To me it was a statement of how if someone official wanted to attack the right to protest a much bigger roundup would have been made.
If you want to play statistics, you could also say "billions of people did not protest Trump." Hey, sorry if you don't like it but that logic works both ways. You want to minimize the (obvious and improper) damage caused by rioting liberals, I'll be happy to minimize the (pathetically small and insignificant) number or protesters.
Tremendous deflection! MAGA!
People that use facebook are pathetic to begin with. They put their entire life details out there, and then complain about it because someone requested access to it?....If it ain't already 5000% clear to you, FB serves as nothing more than a surveillance tool.
If every single marketing drone in corporate America with the right subscription can mine all this data to sell us useless plastic trinkets that we don't need, then why not let the police mine it to solve crimes that were committed during a large public gathering?
No one is saying they are going after the innocent granny holding a "i would have rather had Hillary" placard but if she happened to share a photo of some anarchists destroying property that can help the police identify them, then hell yes the police should be searching it so long as they had probable cause and got a warrant.
If you are protesting and have your phone on you with a social media app working..
Expect all that networking to be collected by some agency and later passed to law enforcement.
A US social media brand offering services in the USA has to respond when asked by courts in the USA.
If you want to protest having a device that broadcasts unique data about yourself is not going to go unnoticed by a long list of agencies given the day and event.
Know that all and any public comments on social media are been tracked. Friends of friends joining or showing support for local events and will be connected back by 2 or 3 hops of friends.
In the USA you have freedom of speech, freedom after speech. People can peaceably to assemble and petition the Government.
The protection of been compelled to be a witness is well understood. Any device found may not always enjoy the classic unreasonable searches and seizures protection.
Older cell phone would have unique International Mobile Equipment Identity as part of the device and would often be opened and noted by police as part of a battery protection offer. The request to avoid battery leakage would then allow that IMEI number to be matched over vast US wide call logs.
Modern devices might just work when police turn them on and show apps used.
Any account mentioned or found on the "net" to be public facing can be found or a court request made for more information.
Given the long history of tracking protests online in other nations e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "1986, French university students coordinated a national strike using Minitel, demonstrating an early use of digital communication devices for participatory technopolitical ends" expect the same tracking in 2016/17 globally. Police around the world have been tracking people online for decades. Once something is public on line, expect all connections to that account to be tracked back for many hops.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Yes, it's called "alt-Slashdot, I don't think it's fake news for White Nationalists, stuff you can cite when truth and logic fail you".
No respect for people who damage property. That's called rioting, not protesting. You commit a crime you should be prosecuted and people are clueless to post shit on Facebook and not expect to be identified. Do these people really believe in anything? Or just want to destroy and loot? This is why nobody gives a crap about their message. Your burning shit down and you want me to relate to your protest? If your standing around watching it happen your as guilty as the rest.
munches the mo5t
It's not right, but you still have to expect this crap.
That's why the masks are a good idea.
You can do face paint instead, with patterns designed to fool face recognition systems, and that's less suspicious-looking than a mask — if only slightly. But it's a hell of a lot harder to take off, and go back to looking normal.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Because the people pointing it out then were being told the ONLY reason to disagree with what was going on was because they were racists. I know you don't believe me, and if only I had some proof. But a video of some idiot no-name leftist would just leave you saying he doesn't represent the DNC. So let me instead bring up one of the TOP DNC leaders.
Video of Carter calling me racists for pointing out what Obama was doing.
Yep, you supported calling me racist and now act like everyone was against what Obama was doing despite supporting him and everything he did for 8 years. You just assumed Clinton would continue on with it using those Federal powers and the IRS to suppress people you don't like. Too bad those powers are going to be used to ENFORCE THE FUCKING LAW, the true liberal nightmare... Equal treatment under the law.
I have yet to see any actual evidence of that, unless you count pure conjecture by The Young Turks & co.
Meanwhile, I have seen a fair bit of evidence that someone employed by Berkley appears to have admitting to assaulting someone who was unconscious on Twitter, complete with pics of the guy. I suppose that person could've taken a picture of an unconscious person and claimed to have punched them for fun on Twitter without actually doing it, but that sounds even dumber.
I suggest getting a Trump/Pence bumper sticker just to be safe.
You may want to hold off on those Trump stickers, liberals become irrationally violent at the sight of Trump's very name.
Var from being safe, you and your property would be in quite real danger.
If you scoff, I dare you to we are a bright red MAGA hat to any rally against Trump. If you are lucky you will just be egged, and not sucker punched/maced.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I continue to be outraged at how MPD treats protesters. The phrase "no comment on investigative tactics" says a lot: Our government is using "tactics" against citizens. This is all leading somewhere tragic and dark.
Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."
Agreed. But not all of the people who were arrested were doing those things. Some got arrested for things like turning the corner at the wrong time and finding a riot in front of them. You would need more information about the particular facts in the case to know whether the law enforcement request made sense. Most do; some don't. If they try to charge the person with a crime or if the person decides to sue them, then the person gets to find out more and challenge it in court. That's not perfect, but it's still a much better system than many countries in the world have.
Worry about the data that doesn't get reported, not the data that does.
Real lawyers write in C++
"Beg the Question" has one colloquial meaning that is wrong but 80-90% of people believe is correct and one actual meaning that is right but that 90-95% of people don't understand. As a practical result, you should never use "beg the question" in a sentence, except perhaps with a particularly intellectual friend.
Instead, use "raises the question" (the colloquial meaning) or "contains circular reasoning" (the actual meaning).
Posted without Karma bonus due to metapost.
Real lawyers write in C++
I happy to see that facebook is doing some good to society in law making and also for cooperating. I think facebook should also help other country police to arrest people who use social platforms for rites and controversy. Facebook is social sharing platform on which people share what they feel about themselves and for others, this is good until and unless it harms freedom of others.
Fucking illiterate American idiots.
And they were RIOTING, not 'protesting'...
U mad bro?
No matter how many people use literally to mean figuratively, no matter how many dictionaries take note of the inverse usage, it is still wrong, and anyone trying to avoid looking like a moron would be wise to steer clear of incorrect uses.
The only people that look like morons are those who continue to argue something long after the battle has been lost. Historically you are correct. Good for you. In modern usage the term "begging the question" now means something different than its original use because it is widely understood to mean something different now. That's how living languages work. How it is used and understood is all that really matters. Pointlessly clinging to an old definition when the rest of the world has moved on makes you look rather foolish and out of touch. Nobody likes the pedantic guy who tries to tell everyone they are wrong about the language. Don't be the guy at the party who says "well technically Frankenstein isn't the name of the monster". Nobody cares and you look like an ass when you point it out.
Rioting is not protesting.
Some protests take the form of a riot. Not all riots are protests and not all protests are riots. Rioting is not peaceful protesting but it absolutely sometimes is a form of protest. Riots are not organized but they are often in response to some perceived grievance or out of dissent.
It is perfectly legal for Police to search anything on your person, and your vehicle (if you were in it at the time), incident to placing you under arrest. If your phone is on your person, they can search it and its contents for items that may pose a threat to the officers, including data which may incite violence against them.
For example, in Johnson v. Maryland, the circuit court ruled that police had a right to search Mr. Johnson's phone for material he may have posted immediately before his arrest that might cause people to come to his aid against the arresting officers. The police had confiscated his phone roadside during a routine traffic stop, which he for some reason had not locked, and examined his recent text messages and Facebook posts. In those text messages they found evidence of recent drug deals Mr. Johnson had participated in, and he was subsequently charged. In court, the officers claimed they feared for their lives because they say him typing on his phone and thought he might have been summoning cohorts to attack them. The court agreed that they had a reasonable suspicion that the accused was doing just that, and were proper in their search incident to his arrest for speeding (the court noted that a traffic stop, while a temporary detention, is an arrest which allows a search incident to arrest for officer safety).
So, investigators arresting people for rioting, which is a violent felony, have every reason to believe that recent activity on their phones may imperil their physical safety, and thus have every right to search for evidence of same. Anything on the phone then becomes plain view admissible if it is encountered during that search.
You know all those times you made yourself feel so superior when you signaled your virtue by calling Republicans "racists" and "homophobes" and "Nazis"?
And supported violence to further your feelings?
And thereby undermined peaceful political discourse?
It's time for you to reap what you have sowed, AND EAT SHIT.
Those 60% of the people who don't want to have Trump impeached? 90% of those want to shove the past "progressive" actions of violence, hate and intolerance that you've supported right down your sanctimonious throat.
One of the individuals who was arrested received an email from Facebook's "Law Enforcement Response Team,"
Which seems like another good reason not to have a Facebook account. That's assuming that Facebook actually has a "Law Enforcement Response Team" and that this isn't just a phishing attempt...
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Social media is a fascist's wet dream. This kind of data collection smacks of preparations for a purge: identify your opponents, and all their social contacts via social media. Analyze with proven big data techniques to determine political bent of said contacts, prepare your lists, and when the time is right (after Trump has done the modern day equivalent of "burning the Reichstag"), round them all up as enemies of the state and intern them.
Game, set and match. Defeat Trump in 2020? Those of us to the left of Genghis Khan will be lucky not to be in prison before the midterms in 2018, with a permanent loss of our right to vote in most states. On what charge? With the fast and loose way this administration is playing with the rule of all, will it even matter?
It does show one thing. They're scared, and the protests are working. But the blowback is likely to be painful. (Don't get me wrong. I marched at the women's march, I'll march on April 22 (despite the alt-right trolls that have inundated the subreddit), and consequences be damned. If we don't stand up now, we'll never be able to stand up again.
But that said, we should be under no illusions. If Bannen and the rest of the fascists in government believe they can get away with it, they'll pin something awful on all of us and get us off the street, and out of the voting booth, as soon as they can. And the future is going to be very, very ugly, no matter how this shakes out.
Ahhh......the US isn't the greatest nation on earth, that'd be Australia.
The US isn't too bad as far as countries go, but you'll have to work harder on the health, wealth, education, crime, drugs and guns things before you can get a crack at the championship belt.
Nothing personal.
"Begging the question" is almost always used incorrectly...
Unlike, for instance, French (a "dead language spoken by millions"), which has a rule-making body with the force of law that can fine you (in some jurisdictions) for saying "hamburger" in an otherwise French sentence, American English is a living language.
That means what is "correct" is what the bulk of the speakers actually say. It changes from time to time. This is one of those times and one of those changes.
It is also a Germanic language, not a Romance language.
It's similar to the prohibition on ending a sentence with a preposition (which is a rule from Latin which academics keep trying to impose on English speakers, though the grammatical form always was legitimate in English and other Germanic languages). "Begging the Question" began as a mistranslation of a Latin phrase (attributed to Aristotle) that was incorporated as a technical term (for a particular logical fallacy) into a specialized academic vocabulary. But the phrase has ALSO come to be used for other things (which actually match the string of words more closely).
Some academics claim their subculture's first use makes it the only "correct" meaning of the phrase. But like other words and phrases in English, the common usage defines the (set of) "correct" meaning(s).
I agree. It begs the question, "Where was the original post?"
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
I have protesters quoted because they would more accurately be described as rioters, or terrorists.
If you think "terrorist" is too harsh, please see Title 22 of the US Code Section 2656f(d).
Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/Pages/welcome.aspx
Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” [1]
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/Pages/welcome.aspx
Tolerant liberals, by the thousands, have threatened to assassinate the president. I am not sure if imminent threats of violence protected by the first amendment.
Not only is there a flood of threats against Trump himself, but there have also been threats to rape Trump's wife. There have also been a flood of insults against Barron Trump – a ten year old child.
Gotta love Madonna's threats to bomb the white house.
The hate speech and violence advocacy is not just a few bad apples, it is entirely mainstream. Thousands of tolerant liberals have threatened murder (certainly on twitter). The hate speech and violence advocacy is strongly encouraged by mainstream media, such as the Guardian. The Guardian clearly feels that violence is an acceptable form of political advocacy, as long as it comes from the left.
Here is a statement by peaceful liberal Godfrey Elfwick, of the Guardian:
> I'd rather punch 300 innocent people and 1 genuine Nazi, than punch no Nazi at all.
--- Gedfrey Elfwick of The Guardian
Nasrine Malik, also from The Guardian, argues that physical violence against Trump supporters should be condoned because his voters are bigots.
FYI: physical violence, intimidation, and destruction, to advance a political goal is also known as “terrorism.”
> Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” [1]
> The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/Pages/welcome.aspx
“When they go low, going high is not enough,” argues Malik, adding, “When Richard Spencer was punched in the street, it was a cathartic moment for many.”
Malik goes on to assert that “reasoned debate” is no longer sufficient when confronting “racists and misogynists”
Here is the video from The Guardian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu3OPaNl3jU
Certainly the Guardian would find nothing wrong with this. It serves her right for having a political opinion that a leftist does not agree with:
https://twitter.com/abc7newsbayarea/status/827039436596670464
The hypocrisy of the left is palpable. Although the tolerant liberals are responsible for the actual violence, the left claim that anybody who dares to express a opinion that the left does not approve of is somehow committing violence.
Yvette Felarca is one of the ring leaders of Berkeley riots. She claimed that Milo exercising his right to free to speech was “raping” and “killing” her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNGtI3Ezdvo
The Mayor of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin, clearly condones the violence. He uses the usual liberal tactic of calling any differing opinion "hate speech."
> "Using speech to silence marginalized communities and promote bigotry is unacceptable. Hate speech isn't welcome in our community."
--- Jesse Arreguin
Peaceful liberals were violently attacking Milo's fans, but Milo is the "extremist".
In 2016, the left was screaming and crying about violence from Trump supporters. Clearly, the left does not condone violence to advance a political objective – unless the violence is coming from the left. Turns out, the violence at the Trump rallies was from thugs hired by the democrats.
The left booed and hissed at Trump when Trump suggested he might not accept election results. Hillary made some speech about how accepting elections was the cornerstone of our democracy, and everybody cheered. Until Hillary lost the election, then the Hillary supporters went out and violently r
Jeez.
How invasive of your privacy do they have to get before you stop using them?
I saw this issue and stopped using facebook years ago when they required my real mobile phone to continue using the account.
My advice is to never start using Facebook in the first place.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
53/41
53% of white women voted for Trump.
41% of white women voted for Clinton.
You don't need a facebook account to read Facebook comments. All you need is /.
You jerks have kangaroos and those giant spiders everywhere, no thanks mate.
This is why you use burner phones that you keep under the porch of a friend's neighbor, until you need them.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
...they aren't getting hit with Napalm.
Title: Trump protestors being searched
Actual claim: One protestor got a search that may be related to the protest. Meanwhile 38,951 searches done under Obama Jan-Jun 2016.
No shit! like 7 out of the 10 'top deadliest creatures' list always come from Australia.
this seems speculatory at best. All we know is what someone claimed they voted. Voting is still anonymous. I could be latino and claim to vote for hillary, all the while voting for trump in hopes he stops the import of more people competing in my field of work. If that were true I sure as hell would not tell anyone.
Now make a post indoicating what steps the opposition (aka Trump supporters) need to do.
Heck, tell Trump what to do.
Trump supporters should largely do the same - support political & community organizations they support, contact their representatives, hold businesses accountable, and make a good-faith effort to reach out and understand the legitimate concerns of the people who disagree with them.
What makes you think I'd suggest that they do anything other than what I recommended Trump detractors do? Political engagement and discussion are what will create real and lasting solutions. Cunty sniping at one another from the safety of our Facebook-imposed filter bubbles are what will lead us to continue on the path we're on.
What makes you think I'd suggest that they do anything other than what I recommended Trump detractors do?
Because of the prevalence of blind, deaf, and dumb anti-liberal critics on this site, and the internet as a whole? Quite a large bunch of hysterical warblers who feign concern, but are simply hypocritical partisan stooges that are prone to vicousness and deceit. See if you can spot a few.
What, did you think I'm not drawing from real experience? Way to fail to apply your own advice to yourself if so. To be honest, I don't even see your response as particularly enthusiastic or robust, it seems quite half-hearted. I will grant it is substantially more than most will deliver, they'll totally ignore the subject, or go on a tirade about it. You managed something in the way of acknowledgment, however. You only seem slightly reluctant and a bit perplexed, which indicates a lack of awareness of the problem, but not outright denial and rejection.
So...yeah, take your advice, adjust accordingly, and send it to Trump, he needs it. A lot. Do it with enthusiasm and vigor.
You'll be much better off if you do. Not as much as if Trump listened, but you can only do so much.
53/41
53% of white women voted for Trump.
41% of white women voted for Clinton.
Those are impossible numbers, the voting turnout was less than 60% or about 140 million people, therefore, unless you assume white women in the US, (over 100 million) were a HUGE share of the electorate, you misspoke, even leaving aside your lack of specification of Americans.
In reality, you look at the total numbers, and you see real questions to ask yourself. Like why you couldn't specify voters in 2016. Then you see it's actually somewhere around 20-30% instead.
Interestingly enough, in Russian there is no distinction — both "ape" and "monkey" translate into the same word "obezyana".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It could also be the false flag operation. Police used fake protestors at Vietnam War protests to provoke violence and discredit the real protestors. I don't know if Trump supporters are smart enough to do the same, but these rioters are certainly discrediting the cause they nominally claim to support. When Trumpsters see these people rioting, looting, and waving Mexican flags, they feel their intolerance and xenophobia is even more justified.