SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In what is starting to look like COINTELPRO updated and outsourced for the 21st century, it was recently revealed that cybersecurity firm ZeroFox monitored at least two high-profile Black Lives Matter protest organizers and labeled them as 'physical threats' in secret reports to Baltimore city administrators and to an unnamed 'classified partner' organization at Fort Meade (headquarters of the NSA and other intelligence agencies).
McKesson and Elzie both tell Mother Jones they were "not surprised" that they were being watched. "It confirms that us telling the truth about police violence is seen as a threat," McKesson says. Both activists say they do not know why they were identified as physical threats. McKesson and Elzie live in Missouri, where they helped organize the Ferguson protests. They traveled together to Baltimore for a week and a half during the Freddie Gray protests.
This classification of non-violent political protesters as threats follows the nationwide, FBI-orchestrated purge of the Occupy movement that was legally enabled by labeling them a terrorist threat.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday August 08 2015, @10:16PM
Judging by their photos, the most naughty thing they might have done is parking the car without pulling the handbrake.
but of course i might be wrong, appearance is not everything.
Then I recall photos of politicians and powerful people, whose empty eyes would make a shark feel very uneasy, and feel very uneasy.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Entropy on Saturday August 08 2015, @11:47PM
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/black-lives-matter-rants-burn-everything/ [wnd.com]
Black lives matters cofounder recommends "looting, destroying, and rioting". That not only sounds like a physical threat but domestic
terrorism.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @12:09AM
What that video doesn't show is how immediately afterwards all those angry black thugs burned down the building, looted it and beat the shit out of all the white people there. Because it didn't happen. How terrible that people fighting their oppression get the slightest bit worked up about being killed in police custody during a call-and-response protest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @12:30AM
We have plenty of security camera footage of all that happening too. But as we all know, poor innocent darkie can't help but committing crimes all the time since he's so underprivileged. It's our duty to take all rich people's money and give it to noble, innocent felons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @02:14AM
Obligitory solution... http://tftppull.freethoughtllc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/wilder.jpg [netdna-cdn.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @04:15AM
Brilliant solution, but it doesn't take into account corruption or mistakes. And breaking unjust laws may well be necessary. All this does is place the blame on those doing normal and harmless things, rather than on those who make it illegal to do those things and those who enforce those laws. "It's not our fault that we banned Innocuous Activity X and sent thugs to come arrest you for doing X! It's your fault for breaking the law! We had no part in creating the law even though we did create it!" A good example of authoritarianism and government worship, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:23PM
Here's a better one, and perfectly topical:
Nazi to Jew: "Instead of saying 'Fuck the SS' how about you stop breaking the law?"
(Score: 2) by Jiro on Sunday August 09 2015, @03:17AM
What you're saying is that although they threatened looting, burning, and rioting, they didn't do it, so that doesn't count. Why in the world do you think it shouldn't count? The security form is trying to determine that they are a threat. Making credible threats means that you are a threat, regardless of whether you happened to have carried them out this time or not.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 09 2015, @03:25AM
> What you're saying is that although they threatened looting, burning, and rioting, they didn't do it, so that doesn't count.
> Making credible threats means that you are a threat,
What I am saying is that it wasn't even close to a credible threat. Breitbart had to really reach to find anything and the worst he could find was a call-and-response at an organized political conference that required per-registration isn't even close to plotting destruction.
Having to find the smallest possible transgression and blow it completely out of proportion actually disproves the point - this is the worst Breitbart can do it means these people are pretty damn pacifistic.