Even State Department-funded Human Rights Watch admits that authorities combine legal and illegal methods to obtain convictions: https://text.hrw.org/report/2018/01/09/dark-side/secret-origins-evidence-us-criminal-cases

Combining dragnet surveillance with device hacking is intended in the design of both tools. Hence, State Department-funded Signal dupes you into handing over your identity as part of the population-centric mapping. In custody, your phone will be hacked when it is taken away if it’s important.

https://xcancel.com/hannahcrileyy/status/2034273723667161480#m

  • James R Kirk@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    This is total alarmist misinformation. The “evidence of terrorism” was not “using Signal” or “carrying a first aid kit”, it was taking part in an armed assault on an immigration facility where a dozen people set off fireworks and shot a police officer with an AR-15.

    The prosecution used the presence of the first aid kit they carried during their armed assault, along with actual messages (not metadata) from a Signal chat to make the case that the attackers planned on using violence.

    There are a lot of problems with this case, IMO the most dangerous part here is that adds legitimacy the (false) idea that “antifa” is an organization that exists. Something the Trump administration has been struggling to prove. This X post takes small details out of context.

    1. Don’t trust anything ever posted to X. Especially something that discourages the use of private messaging apps.

    2. I highly recommend everyone report this this post to your admins and strongly recommend all instance admins ban/warn accounts like OP. If we want the fediverse to catch on it needs to be more factual, not knee jer.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Thing is that there are actual privacy respecting messaging apps like SimpleX Chat. Signal isn’t one of them. It’s run by people associated with US intelligence, it’s hosted on a single server based in the US, and it actively harvests phone numbers. It’s incredible that people look at this and still claim it’s a private messaging app.

    • Skullgrid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      8 hours ago

      it was taking part in an armed assault on an immigration facility where a dozen people set off fireworks and shot a police officer with an AR-15.

      based

    • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      9 hours ago

      The prosecution used the presence of the first aid kit they carried

      Insane bullshit.

      I have a kit with me every day of my life, and I’ve had to refill it many times due to using it on others.

      It would be pure coincidence that I happen to be carrying a first aid kit on any given day, and if I’m going to a peaceful protest I’m bringing my trauma kit because the entire fucking world knows how cops treat protesters.

      • James R Kirk@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I agree that bringing a first aid kit to a peaceful protest is not evidence that someone is planning violence.

        I disagree that bringing a first aid kit along with explosives and assault weapons to a planned confrontation is evidence someone was attending a peaceful protest.

        • Feyd@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          8 hours ago

          You completely dodged the actual question. Is a first aid kit evidence of planned terrorism?

          • arrow74@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            They didn’t dodge anything. They answered your question quite clearly. The answer is context matters.

            A first aid kit alone is not proof of that. The commentor did not claim that nor did the prosecution of the case. When taken in context with the other evidence and the actual actions they were able to use it as supporting evidence.

            Now in my opinion their actions were based, but obviously illegal. If I were on the jury I would have let them walk, but that’s all beside the point.