SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Facebook temporarily disabled the social media accounts of a woman who was posting video of her own standoff negotiations with the police:
Baltimore police shot and killed Korryn Gaines, a 23-year-old black woman, after an hourslong standoff on Monday — during which Facebook and Instagram, at police request, temporarily shut down Gaines' accounts. [...] Police Chief Jim Johnson says Gaines was posting video of the standoff to social media as it was unfolding, which prompted police to request the deactivation of her accounts. Gaines' Facebook page is now reactivated; it does not have any videos visible to the public. On Instagram, one video apparently recorded during the standoff remains. [...] A second video, now deleted, showed a police officer with a gun drawn at Gaines' door. Facebook and Instagram have not responded to NPR's requests for comment.
[...] "Gaines was posting video of the operation as it unfolded. Followers were encouraging her not to comply with negotiators' requests that she surrender peacefully," he said. "Clearly, you can see this was an exigent circumstance where life and serious injury were in jeopardy." After a short period of time, Facebook (which owns Instagram) complied and deactivated the accounts. No data was deleted, Johnson said. Police do not have the authority to directly deactivate a social media account, Johnson and the spokeswoman both said. Facebook decides whether to comply with such requests.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:58AM
Considering that she was being arrested for charges stemming from driving around with a license plate that had been covered up to indicate that she wasn't subject to the normal laws, I think it's highly likely that she was one of those sovereign citizen nutters.
It's unfortunate that she was killed. Beyond just the loss of human life, there's the unfortunate result that she'll probably wind up a martyr to those free citizen wackjobs.
As far as deactivating the page goes, that's probably more about limiting her access to outside interference than ti was about controlling video from leaving the scene. Anybody outside the premises could film what they wanted and anything that she filmed was likely to wind up in evidence and subsequently released anyways. Especially in the case that there's a wrongful death suit.
We don't really have all the facts, but I suspect that the deactivation of the profiles was the right call. The last thing you want is an armed nutter being egged on by other nutters and trolls while trying to defuse the situation.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:23AM
I know, right? How dare she demand liberty? That's obviously a summary execution offense.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:07AM
/me chants “I am a citizen of the United States, not a U.S. citizen. I am a citizen of the United States, not a U.S. citizen. I am a citizen of the United States, not a U.S. citizen.”
Whee! I no longer have to file form 1040!
I don't remember if that was the exact magickal incantation, but you too can declare yourself not subject to whatever laws you feel like by reciting the true name of your citizenship. One is a birthright and the other is an artificial contract with Satan!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by shortscreen on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:55AM
There are quite a few incantations which can grant immunity from laws. Generally, they are only effective if one has a lot of money (but sometimes a badge will do).
(Score: 1) by tisI on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:31PM
Yes, Yes .. I want to know the incantation that a couple former leaders of the US used to keep them free after being convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:27PM
I'll give you a hint, it starts like this:
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States. . .
Once you've assumed that office you're already in the club; no further handshakes or incantations required.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:33AM
Precisely what liberty was she demanding? Arguably posting on the internet, but it doesn't appear that the platform owners were coerced into doing it. It appears that what she was doing was a violation of their ToS anyways. The fact that it was reported by the cops wouldn't be any different than if somebody else reported it.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:05AM
Why do you say she violated the terms of service?
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Thursday August 04 2016, @11:07AM
because he has to believe she was a 'bad' person, otherwise their worldview might need re-thinking..
(Score: 1) by ewk on Thursday August 04 2016, @11:53AM
<sarcasm> Probably something in that TOS about the glorification of violence and/or terrorism...
Won't somebody think of/for the children? </sarcasm>
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:08PM
Because every service I've ever signed up for has exceptions for criminal activities. You can't engage in criminal activities and expect that the service is going to be complicit in streaming the activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:24AM
> that's probably more about limiting her access to outside interference than ti was about controlling video from leaving the scene.
I know that's what they said, and probably what a lot of them thought. But how important was it really? For one thing, she had a near infinite number of other ways for people outside to send her messages. But very few ways for the public to see what was going on without going through the police. Other people on scene with their own camera phones just don't have the vantage that she did.
The problem I have is that the police were able to make that call with basically no oversight. Kind of like the decision to send in the bomb-bot to blow up the guy in dallas. What is most convenient for the police isn't necessarily what's best for society.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:36AM
Quite important. One of the objectives necessary if they're going to bring somebody like that in alive or get the hostages out is to get and keep the hostage taker as calm as possible. Having it livestreamed probably wouldn't have been as much of an issue in the past, but having an audience, especially one that's egging the hostage taker on, leads to volatility that makes it that much harder to control the situation.
As I've already said, the videos that she took are likely to be made available to the courts at some point and any that do exist will probably eventually be released to the public. Not to mention that there were witnesses outside the building as well to document what happened. So, it's unlikely that the cops are going to be able to avoid scrutiny by asking that the stream be shut down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:01AM
Oh, they will be. And they will show that Greedo shot first. Any claim of the original showing that Han shot first will of course be denied.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:48AM
Considering that she was being arrested for charges stemming from driving around with a license plate that had been covered up to indicate that she wasn't subject to the normal laws
No idea why she was doing that, but with all the license plate readers and surveillance in many places (maybe not there), I think it's a good idea. Maybe not totally covering it up since that just invites the cops, but thwarting the surveillance is definitely a good thing.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @11:35AM
Ho hum. . .
We don't really have all the facts, but I suspect that the deactivation of the profiles was the right call.
More stuff that Francis doesn't know! But she suspects! I feel so much more secure now, really.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @12:06PM
OMG you're right -- after all, if they hadn't suppressed those social media accounts, they might have been unable to defuse the situation and had to shoot her! Clearly that "right call" made all the difference.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:23PM
you two kiss ass traitors probably talked shit about the people at waco and ruby ridge basd on what the tv whores told you too. While kids and dogs were being run over with tanks or sprayed in the back with an mp5, you were calling them "nutters" and "wack jobs" even though they have a constitutional right to believe in whatever made up god they want or to sell guns to their fellow americans (illegal laws about barrel length not withstanding). I don't blame the pigs for wanting tactical superiority but facebook is chickenshit for shutting her account off. Of course, people are stupid for acting like facebook is legitimate/trustworthy to begin with.
People are sick of government leeches and their henchmen using force, or the threat of force, on people just because they think they should have control. People are finally realizing that they are free ,if only they believe in it and stand up for it. You pieces of shit fund the thieves and applaud their hired killers. Justice comes for you too.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:12PM
Traitor? She would have had her day in court if she hadn't refused to show up.
As for Waco and Ruby Ridge those aren't even remotely the same thing. She apparently thought she was above the law, refused to turn herself in and then took her son hostage while she tried to fight off the cops. How else was this going to end. Bottom line is that you assume that there wouldn't have been a change if they hadn't removed her social media access, but the evidence we have suggests that her contacts were just egging her on.
It's not like we're going to be able to do a double blind A/B test here to see which strategy was going to be the superior one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:41PM
I'd encourage you to dig deeper to find the root cause of action here. The root problem was not that Korryn Gaines refused to show up in court, it was that she was pulled over via threat of force because a cop noticed she didn't have a license plate on her car.
My journey to discover the limits of governments' authority started with the self-contradictory nature of USian gun bans and ended with: "if I as a single individual do not have authority to do a thing, neither can I then delegate that same authority to a government" [soylentnews.org]. If I were to forcibly stop someone on the side of the road because they didn't have proper ornamentation on their vehicle, I'd be guilty of false imprisonment, assault, and other literal crimes. The traffic cop had no more authority to forcibly stop Korryn Gaines than I do, because the cop's authority is solely derived from my own!
A huge percentage of the problems we face as a society is due to the this disregard for the easily-discerned limits of government power in favor of our preferred flavor of rank tyranny/criminality.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday August 04 2016, @11:56PM
I could accept forbidding others to post to her social media. To block her own posting in this case seems highly suspicious.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.