ICE denies having a protester database. A letter to Congress sheds more light(www.npr.org)
131 pointsby Jimmc4146 hours ago9 comments
  • itqwertz4 hours ago
    There are always personal risks when you engage with society at a political level.

    If you see a police stop on the highway, should you pull over and record to observe? Could this stop make you a person of interest, or at least a known nuisance, to the average law enforcement agency? Would footage of interactions between the detained driver, police, and yourself be of interest on social media? Does the U.S. government possess a vast well of data of each citizen's interactions on communication networks?

    Let's be honest here - what was this person's intentions? A quick Google search of "Xenia Pantos" shows details about this person's life and practice that would place them a political/social enemy of the current U.S. administration's voting base.

    My advice is to treat all interactions with the government as neutral at best, and to avoid any reason for them to target you. If you decide to become a political, expect some negative attention from the opposing side, especially if that opposing side is in power. The ideal world where a citizen exercises their rights crumbles into brutal reality the second one of these interactions being observed becomes physically contentious or violent.

    • wbl3 hours ago
      I, unlike you, live in a democracy and expect the government to not send goons to intimidate opponents.
      • itqwertz3 hours ago
        I also live in a "democracy" as well, but the U.S. has as much corruption as any banana republic or former Soviet bloc state. We just haven't reached ostensible, Mexico-tier levels that irk the average citizen. Democracy is just the story you're told to placate your feelings of powerlessness by the powers-that-be. Any form of real threat to power through protest is squashed before it even begins. There is evidence it is fostered by the government itself.
        • Freedumbs3 hours ago
          Your assertion is the US is less corrupt than Mexico? Can you explain how laws are made in America and who they benefit what percentage of the time? Can you explain the open fraud described as AI?
          • 2 hours ago
            undefined
      • raincom3 hours ago
        Government has a monopoly on violence. It is just that the developed world hasn't seen the abuses perpetrated by the enforcers of the government.
        • 3 hours ago
          undefined
      • voakbasda3 hours ago
        Where do you live? I would like to go there, because you are definitely not describing the US that I live in.
      • tengbretson3 hours ago
        > I, unlike you, live in a democracy and expect the government to not send goons to intimidate opponents.

        How are those two concepts actually related or linked in any way?

    • tencentshill3 hours ago
      ICE was ordered to confront and escalate without a reason. They came looking for trouble.
    • pseudalopex2 hours ago
      > Let's be honest here - what was this person's intentions? A quick Google search of "Xenia Pantos" shows details about this person's life and practice that would place them a political/social enemy of the current U.S. administration's voting base.

      You confused honesty and FUD seemingly. The article said they observed ICE activity and gave evidence this sufficed to make them an enemy in the administration's eyes. And their pronouns would make them a social enemy to some. Google showed what? They called their occupational therapy practice neurodiversity-affirming? They liked to sew?

      > The ideal world where a citizen exercises their rights crumbles into brutal reality the second one of these interactions being observed becomes physically contentious or violent.

      A brutal reality is citizens who did not exercise their rights lost them. And subjects who exercised them together gained them.

  • superkuh5 hours ago
    >Department of Homeland Security officials have repeatedly denied having a database tracking U.S. citizen protesters or a database of "domestic terrorists", even as anecdotes like what happened to Pantos and Williams suggest federal agents are collecting observers' information in some capacity.

    The real list of domestic terrorists is the DHS employee payroll for ICE and CBP.

    The DHS's list of people who observe them is not standalone, they say they integrate it into existing databases, and this is their strongest claim. But it's just obfuscation, the intent, that they maintain a list of normal people who observe them so they can terrorize them has been confirmed.

    • kgwxd5 hours ago
      Welcome to the list.
      • glaslong4 hours ago
        We're all on the list, just getting ranked up or down
      • red-iron-pine5 hours ago
        posting a sardonic comment like that? also list.
        • virgildotcodes5 hours ago
          Replying to a sardonic comment - believe it or not, list.
          • ccvannorman5 hours ago
            Posting a level 3 meme comment? Straight to list.
        • 5 hours ago
          undefined
      • aiisascam5 hours ago
        [dead]
    • profdevloper4 hours ago
      [flagged]
      • SpicyLemonZest4 hours ago
        I don't want to make it sound like posting online is some heroic act, but they've murdered multiple protesters. It's at least a little brave to say you won't stand for it.
        • profdevloper3 hours ago
          Life isn't a video game -- if you interfere with law enforcement activities, bad things can happen.
          • kashunstva2 hours ago
            I suppose in some sense ICE is a law enforcement group; but witnessing their wanton behaviour in Minneapolis, ramming vehicles, breaking into homes without a warrant, use of disproportionately deadly force, … it’s a stretch to imagine that one is interfering with “the good guys” who should otherwise be serving the law with care and restraint. Neither of the citizens murdered in Minneapolis were interfering with law enforcement, at least as I define “law enforcement” and “interfere.”
            • profdevloperan hour ago
              I only know of the Good and Pretti cases wrt deadly force -- it's possible they were defensible uses (the bar is higher for LEO personnel) but that's for the courts to decide. Certainly a needlessly tragic outcome that could have been prevented by letting law enforcement perform their duties without interference.
              • grumio38 minutes ago
                you claim Pretti interfered with LE from performing their duties.

                What causes you to believe that?

                • profdevloper29 minutes ago
                  Video footage of him attempting to smash taillights of LEO vehicles
          • SpicyLemonZestan hour ago
            No, that’s not how things work in the United States. Law enforcement officers don’t have a general license to kill. Genuine interference with law enforcement is a crime, but if an officer kills someone for doing it, that’s still murder.
            • profdevloperan hour ago
              No, they don't, but real life is messy and the good guy doesn't always win. When you intentionally put yourself in a chaotic situation, bad things can happen. It's unclear if deadly force was justified in either the Good or Pretti cases, but that's for the courts to decide -- they were certainly avoidable and needless tragedies.
              • SpicyLemonZestan hour ago
                If the courts were to decide either of those cases, I would defer to their judgment. The Trump administration has made it clear that they're going to try and stop those cases from ever reaching a court, though, so in the absence of a court judgment I'm going to keep calling them murders.
          • mothballed3 hours ago
            This is presented as some kind of proverb, but it's actually quite useless. If you don't interfere with law enforcement, bad things can also happen. The only reason Cliven Bundy is still ranching his cattle on that land in Nevada to this day is because he "interfered with law enforcement activities."

            This isn't to advocate a choice one way or the other, but your statement is facially devoid of actionable information.

  • jmbwell4 hours ago
    I just caught myself thinking Pantos shouldn’t have answered the phone. Not in a blame the victim way, more in that never answering the phone is just good opsec at this point. The phone, the door, just don’t talk to a cop without a lawyer. They don’t come to you to be helpful to -you-.

    Except in this case in a broader sense, we know about something we wouldn’t have otherwise

    • adiabatichottub4 hours ago
      If somebody calls you like this, immediately ask them for their name and supervisor in the calmest, most business-like tone you can muster. A good tactic is to tell them you can't talk just this second and ask for a name and number you can reach them at to discuss the matter further. If they're going to try to dox you then you should try to dox them right back.
  • brianwmunz5 hours ago
    Whenever I would talk to people about the importance of privacy in data and online activity, people would always say something like "I don't care, I've got nothing to hide. I'm not some weird pervert." And yeah I'm not either but this kind of stuff is why it's important. Fascism thrives on knowledge of the people it wants to oppress.
    • troyvit5 hours ago
      It's trite, but saying you don't care about privacy rights because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.
      • giancarlostoro4 hours ago
        Just correct them more blatantly:

        I dont care about the fourth amendment, I have nothing to hide.

    • notglossy4 hours ago
      This is the issue. At some point very basic and normal things, like believing in a woman’s right to vote or in people’s broad access to healthcare, can be considered radical or terroristic by the powers that be. Then the lists become so pervasive that just living your life and performing every day activities puts you at risk, even if you are trying to conform.
      • 4 hours ago
        undefined
    • bluGill4 hours ago
      I'm not doing anything I should have to hide. However I am doing some things that I would have to hide elsewhere, and there is no particular reason to believe those things will remain things I don't have to hide.
    • mrtesthah4 hours ago
      Nowadays the issue is that the “I’ve got nothing to hide” crowd assumes we all live in a society where laws are equally and sensibly enforced. That is demonstrably no longer the case under the prerogative state, which now includes ICE/CBP, DOJ, and FBI.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_state_(model)

      • brianwmunz4 hours ago
        Right, and it's a sliding scale. People think in terms of institutions acting the way they're supposed to. As we've seen those lines can get blurry and reasons can be created to track and suppress free speech.
  • josefritzishere4 hours ago
    History tells us fascists do not respect the law, or their opposition, and are not interested in honest discourse. It's self-evident that those who wish to rule through force don't feel bound by rules of order, or intellectual honesty. In short... they're going to lie and you should expect it.
  • oakinnagbe5 hours ago
    [dead]
  • guywithahat4 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • adiabatichottub4 hours ago
      Observing and recording law enforcement is generally not illegal, however threatening it might feel to them. It's unfair to compare that to an event where protesters broke into a government building, damaged property, assaulted law enforcement, and made violent threats against elected officials. As to the generosity of letting people know they might be added to an official list, it seems more calculated to intimidate than to inform.
    • mothballed4 hours ago
      If DHS has probable cause that they've violently attacked an officer why aren't they bringing that to a judge and jury rather than some secret list?
  • zthrowaway5 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • herbst5 hours ago
      Is that the case? Did they also have some kind of untrained police force (ice) doing the dirty things?

      From here in Europe it looks like that shithole of country completely lost their mind. But who knows what is real anymore

      • pandaman2 hours ago
        Not only ICE exists since Patriot Act created DHS, but before that the same organization was called INS. If you watch 80s-90s police procedurals you can spot when someone's on the show's staff had their gardeners/housekeepers busted in an immigration raid and there is an episode, where the characters need help from illegals, who are first afraid of them being "La Migra" but after reassuring that they are dealing with the "real" police who does not care about immigration at all, open up and help to fight crime with their insightful observations.
      • Izkata5 hours ago
        ICE is decades old, so yes.
      • wat100005 hours ago
        Trumpers refuse to believe that the issue is not the deportations themselves, but the abuses and murders that accompany them.
      • mothballed5 hours ago
        Yes, pre-Trump I was brutalized by DHS at the border including strip searched, cavity searched, medical bills racked up in my name and imprisoned based on a completely fabricated tale by DHS.

        I posted my story on HN and a few other places and I was mocked and told in so many words I deserved it and I had probably lied about the back-story. The only people that would believe it was my own family. The ACLU and all the lawyers I contacted declined the case or ignored it.

        After Trump I told the same story and suddenly everyone believed it. Everyone. Suddenly all the lawyers that ignored me and declined the case were saying "why didn't you seek damages."

        It was there all along. It got worse with Trump in charge, but the truth is, you all just didn't believe us when it happened under Biden. The true stories of the abused weren't believed and taken seriously by many of the people who do now until it was politically convenient.

    • 5 hours ago
      undefined
    • wnevets5 hours ago
      > Where was all the outcry when Obama and Biden were deporting way more per year than Trump is?

      It sounds like you are saying you believe Trump is weaker on border security than Obama & Biden.

      • notaustinpowers4 hours ago
        "The enemy is both strong and weak." - Ur-Fascism, 1995.
  • chasil5 hours ago
    I think that we should have a Schengen Area of the Americas, but observing the problems that this has caused the E.U. (Brexit), a proper implementation would require a much more controlled and gradual approach.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area

    Edit: It would be most pleasant to delete this comment. Drat.

    • wongarsu5 hours ago
      But Britain was never in the Schengen area. One of their many "we are an island, we are different" privileges
    • wat100005 hours ago
      What's the connection between Schengen and Brexit?
      • hinoki5 hours ago
        To give more context:

        The UK is not and has never been in Schengen.

        I guess GP is taking about free movement of EU citizens, but that has nothing to do with Schengen.

        • pbhjpbhj5 hours ago
          Schengen Area has open borders with a common visa policy.

          >free movement of EU citizens, [...] has nothing to do with Schengen.

          Did you mis-speak?

          One of the things leading up to Brexit was politicians claiming we couldn't police our borders without getting out of the EU. That was of course false. Almost the opposite in practical terms.

          Presumably, if UK were to return to the EU we would do so without our past veto, and as part of Schengen. That makes it less desirable.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area

          • wbl3 hours ago
            Schengen is not the vehicle for freedom of establishment in the EU. Europe is complicated.
          • ninalanyon4 hours ago
            Not all EU countries are in Schengen so why would the UK have to be part of it if it rejoined the EU?
            • inigyou4 hours ago
              I thought it was a requirement now. The UK got special treatment because it was a founding or very early member of the EU, but now if it wants to rejoin it'll have to join on the same terms a country like Ukraine would.
            • markvdb4 hours ago
              It's part of the package now. The same thing with the euro for example. New member states are supposed to adopt the euro at one point.
            • wat100004 hours ago
              The EU really wants all members to be in Schengen. The UK was allowed to opt out because its membership was so desirable. After the Brexit fiasco it's unlikely that the EU would want them back in so badly that they'd accept another opt-out.
      • 5 hours ago
        undefined