Headline makes it seem like ICE just did this in a vacuum.
[–] serioussecurity 1 day ago
[–] Levitz 1 day ago
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
We’re very grateful to these corporate servants of the community.
[–] sneakerblack 1 day ago
[–] Sohcahtoa82 1 day ago
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
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
[–] mrbombastic 1 day ago
[–] pixelatedindex 1 day ago
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
[–] Starman_Jones 1 day ago
[–] brightball 1 day ago
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
[–] pixelatedindex 1 day ago
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?
[–] brightball 1 day ago
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
[–] sneakerblack 1 day ago
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
[–] boston_clone 1 day ago
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
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.
[–] Someone1234 1 day ago
[–] Schiendelman 1 day ago
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
This was heavily affected by them being founded in 2002.
[–] Schiendelman 1 day ago
[–] evan_ 1 day ago
[–] Schiendelman 1 day ago