Hacker News
points by brightball 1 day ago | 0 comments
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but wasn’t this in response to a massive organized anti-ICE operation?

Headline makes it seem like ICE just did this in a vacuum.

[–] Someone1234 1 day ago
But why is ICE, specifically, investigating that? The Federal government has multiple criminal divisions - why are ICE now a US Citizen criminal investigatory branch too? Seems far outside of their remit.
[–] Schiendelman 1 day ago
Almost all the cabinet level departments has their own Inspector General office since the 70s and 80s.

Homeland Security got one in 2003 with the combination of previous agencies.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 also let those offices start having their own statutory powers and carry firearms without needing to be deputized by the US Marshals Service.

[–] Plasmoid 1 day ago
> Homeland Security finally got one in 2003.

This was heavily affected by them being founded in 2002.

[–] Schiendelman 1 day ago
The departments they were built from didn't have those either.
[–] evan_ 1 day ago
"finally"? The Department of Homeland Security was formed in 2003.
[–] Schiendelman 1 day ago
And the departments they were created from lacked IGs...
[–] serioussecurity 1 day ago
(1) protest is protected by the first amendment (2) American law enforcement isn't supposed to have access to this kind of information about citizens absent a warrant
[–] Levitz 1 day ago
>(1) protest is protected by the first amendment

I'm guessing those 15 people are these 15 people:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/15-members-direct-action-...

>Charges Include Conspiracy to Impede or Injure a Federal Officer, Interstate Stalking, Interstate Threats, Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence, and Assaults on Federal Officers

[–] DANmode 1 day ago
They don’t, a private entity has it, and shared it with law enforcement.

We’re very grateful to these corporate servants of the community.

[–] sneakerblack 1 day ago
Man, you Americans are really playing with fire
[–] DANmode 1 day ago
By not paying a bit of attention what happens in government, especially when our “team” is in power?

Yes, it’s been a long-time coming.

Pendulum has to hit something eventually.

[–] Sohcahtoa82 1 day ago
The Constitution and its amendments binds the government, not private entities such as corporations.

The Fourth Amendment gives you zero protections from corporations willingly handing your data over to the government upon a simple warrantless request. A corporation can choose to tell the government to pound sand without a warrant, but they're not in any legal way obligated to do so.

EDIT: Actually, I may be wrong here. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 may give you some protections against data intended to be private, such as Friends-only social media posts, private messages, etc.

[–] jvanderbot 1 day ago
Yes - the question has always been whether that is a good reason for a new, big federal organization to expand its surveillance capabilities, budget, and prosecution powers.

As a MN'n, I have my own opinions about the escalatory tactics of protestors (the marches were awesome, but many of the follow/callout patrols seemed designed to get people killed), and the predictable response of ICE. All while I strongly oppose gov surveillance and tracking like this.

[–] altcognito 1 day ago
Regardless of the current administration there is no world where the government has shown restraint in surveillance creep.
[–] mrbombastic 1 day ago
People protesting in the United States?!?!? Unthinkable
[–] pixelatedindex 1 day ago
> a massive organized anti-ICE operation?

What operation? Did they go around hacking into servers and invade their privacy?

> Headline makes it seem like ICE just did this in a vacuum.

Would they not do it in a vacuum? There’s been a a vagrant disregard for laws on their side. Why are they getting the benefit of the doubt here? It’s very clear they have been targeting certain demographics and political leaning from its institution.

[–] specked-citrus 1 day ago
This makes it better why?
[–] Starman_Jones 1 day ago
I have no idea, but why would that change anything?
[–] brightball 1 day ago
The article is talking about a license plate scanner website that was being used to track the movements of ICE vehicles, follow them and harass agents.

If people started doing that to UPS delivery trucks I would expect UPS to do everything in their power to protect their staff.

[–] Starman_Jones 1 day ago
UPS could do this, yes, but ICE isn’t allowed to. All of what you described is, by itself, perfectly legal for US citizens, and ICE has even more restrictions about targeting US citizens than the government as a whole. So why is it okay for ICE to do this?
[–] pixelatedindex 1 day ago
> The article is talking about a license plate scanner website that was being used to track the movements of ICE vehicles, follow them and harass agents.

I fail to understand why this is a problem when they do the exact same thing to civilians? On top of that there are companies like Flock who monitor civilians when ICE isn’t there.

I don’t get why you love ICE so much and want to protect them like they’re doing you some big service and not going around instilling fear in others. Have you been living under a rock?

[–] Levitz 1 day ago
>I fail to understand why this is a problem when they do the exact same thing to civilians?

You are asking why a civilian can't do the same things that a federal agent can?

[–] brightball 1 day ago
It’s a leap to claim anyone loves a federal agency.

I followed a lot of the news about them regarding this thing. If I own a business or even simply act as a manager and I know of a constant threat to my staff I would take any action I was legally allowed to protect them. Doesn’t matter if it’s ICE, the postal service, a gas station, theme park, etc.

It’s basic self defense.

ICE agents didn’t start covering their faces just because, they did it because people were doxxing them and going after their families.

People are going to protect themselves and their staff. It’s basic human nature.

[–] Bluescreenbuddy 1 day ago
Do want to be targeted? Then don’t commit constitutional violations and murders
[–] sneakerblack 1 day ago
Do you want to be targeted? Then don't look Latino, black or foreign, work blue collar or service jobs or speak a language that is not English. There are plenty of examples of law abiding citizens getting illegally arrested or killed by ICE.

ICE is facing backlash because they are breaking the law and discriminating. Flock is facing backlash because they are enabling ICE and the general oppression of opposition to the current administration. Crimes should be investigated, but this falls outside of an immigration agency's responsibilities.

All this coming from a non-american by the way.

[–] cowlevel 1 day ago
Well it's fully legal to use widespread AI cameras for mass surveillance, as exemplified by Flock. That has nothing to do with the government - it's just plain legal to do. If the government wants it to be illegal it should make a law that says it's illegal, and then both Flock and other groups will have to shut down their camera networks.
[–] Computer0 1 day ago
ICE agents are undeserving of peace so your argument kind of falls apart a bit.
[–] boston_clone 1 day ago
The framing applied here in this comment is very odd. People are allowed to organize and assemble.

One might even go a step further and say people are obligated to do so when the government repeatedly abuses its power to intimidate and violently affect the lives of people without due process or cause.

[–] close04 1 day ago
> Headline makes it seem like ICE just did this in a vacuum.

The headline makes it look like they run "One of the Largest Anti-Left Surveillance Ops in US History". The only way the trigger matters is if the response to that trigger is justified. These justifications, once you consider them valid, just start a vicious cycle. Most of the people are being put under surveillance by this "massive anti US citizen campaign" with no reasonable suspicion, no judicial supervision, by an agency which should have no business doing any of this. Just another flavor of authoritarianism. Is it justified for them to escalate? If not then your argument is bunk. The title says what it really is and justifying the extremist actions of one side only betrays a bias.

[–] Bluescreenbuddy 1 day ago
You mean protesting? The thing the Constitution protects? You’ve been corrected.