Dutch Police intelligence services unlawfully spied on whole population groups(nltimes.nl)
nltimes.nl
Dutch Police intelligence services unlawfully spied on whole population groups
https://nltimes.nl/2024/02/08/police-intelligence-services-unlawfully-spied-whole-population-groups
268 comments
Anyone unfamiliar with the Patty Hearst kidnapping may want to read the excellent book Days of Rage [0]. I started reading it after it was recommended by another user on this forum a long time ago.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Rage:_America%27s_Radi...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Rage:_America%27s_Radi...
Is it possible this story served as a parallel construction -- like when you don't want to expose your actual sources and methods?
No. There was no reason for this ex-cop to tell me the story 5 years ago about something that happened 45 years earlier. And he didn't make a career as a cop, so he wasn't protecting anyone.
> It was back in the time of the SLA terrorism and Patty Hearst kidnapping. One of the brothers in East Oakland casually mentioned to a cop "What are all these hippies doing in our neighborhood?" (It turns out they were having a strategy meeting.)
The SLA only had one black member, who at the time was an escaped convict. Why would a half-dozen white hippies, and one black fugitive, leave their safehouse to hold a strategy meeting in East Oakland?
The SLA only had one black member, who at the time was an escaped convict. Why would a half-dozen white hippies, and one black fugitive, leave their safehouse to hold a strategy meeting in East Oakland?
Because they are under the (mostly correct assumption) that poorer neighborhoods (which are often, but not exclusively, minority neighborhoods) have lower police presence.
And also that radical hippies tend not to have a lot of money, so it's not unusual for them to live in low income neighborhoods (i.e. some members likely lived there anyways).
And also that radical hippies tend not to have a lot of money, so it's not unusual for them to live in low income neighborhoods (i.e. some members likely lived there anyways).
This is an infamous and reasonably well documented small group of people. You don’t need to speculate about their socioeconomic status because we know who they were and can count them on two hands.
TL;DR none of what you said remotely applies. They were middle-upper-class with access to resources and lived in Berkeley before moving to a notorious Concord safehouse in August ‘73, about 3 months before anything in this story takes place.
TL;DR none of what you said remotely applies. They were middle-upper-class with access to resources and lived in Berkeley before moving to a notorious Concord safehouse in August ‘73, about 3 months before anything in this story takes place.
They had not kidnapped Patty at that point. The only thing the SLA was taking credit for at that time was the Marcus Foster murder. They probably thought they had a safe house in east Oakland, which is why all the hippies (as described by the bystander) went there for the meeting.
> The only thing the SLA was taking credit for at that time was the Marcus Foster murder.
The only thing? That murder was a huge deal, and what got the FBI involved. We're talking about the assassination of Oakland's first black school superintendent. By self described marxist/lenninist/maoist terrorists and using cyanide laced bullets. The headlines write themselves.
Now is there not only a fugitive in the group, but they're all fresh off making national news for political violence? Violence that wildly alienated the black community? At which point they choose to leave their actual safehouse to go to a "we think its safe" house in said community for a brief meeting? Did they forget their fake IDs? OPD is looking for (literal) leftist terrorists and don't find a single excuse to detain 6 hippies and a black man?
I don't doubt you're sharing this in good faith, but If I'm gonna keep it a buck, none of this passes the smell test for me. That said, I guess it would track in a way. The whole SLA affair has a stranger than fiction vibe to it from start to finish.
The only thing? That murder was a huge deal, and what got the FBI involved. We're talking about the assassination of Oakland's first black school superintendent. By self described marxist/lenninist/maoist terrorists and using cyanide laced bullets. The headlines write themselves.
Now is there not only a fugitive in the group, but they're all fresh off making national news for political violence? Violence that wildly alienated the black community? At which point they choose to leave their actual safehouse to go to a "we think its safe" house in said community for a brief meeting? Did they forget their fake IDs? OPD is looking for (literal) leftist terrorists and don't find a single excuse to detain 6 hippies and a black man?
I don't doubt you're sharing this in good faith, but If I'm gonna keep it a buck, none of this passes the smell test for me. That said, I guess it would track in a way. The whole SLA affair has a stranger than fiction vibe to it from start to finish.
See parallel construction comment above.
A bit of a self-satisfied, everyone-else-is-a-fool, told-you-so story for the teller. IME, those are signals that the story reveals the teller, the culture of the teller, but not facts.
Of course, I don't know. I think the hard thing in these situations is that we humans tend to trust personal stories like this one - it's rude not to. My comment is rude, in a sense, transgressing in this social interaction. But the accurate, truthful course is to treat the facts as [edit:] nothing - not as maybe true, etc., but as if they were never said.
Of course, I don't know. I think the hard thing in these situations is that we humans tend to trust personal stories like this one - it's rude not to. My comment is rude, in a sense, transgressing in this social interaction. But the accurate, truthful course is to treat the facts as [edit:] nothing - not as maybe true, etc., but as if they were never said.
It's a slippery slope. Mussolini defeated the Mafia in southern Italy. However, his gov't did it in a brutal manner. Lots of innocent people rounded up too.
"The hand of Vengeance found the bed To which the Purple Tyrant fled; The iron hand crush'd the Tyrant's head And became a Tyrant in his stead." --The Grey Monk, William Blake
"The hand of Vengeance found the bed To which the Purple Tyrant fled; The iron hand crush'd the Tyrant's head And became a Tyrant in his stead." --The Grey Monk, William Blake
Mussolini is insanely popular in Sicily, which is alarming because not only was he a Fascist, but a Northern Italian.
By “popular”, I mean tour guides will sing his praises to American tourists. Jewish, American tourists.
By “popular”, I mean tour guides will sing his praises to American tourists. Jewish, American tourists.
Fascism is popular everywhere right now, so it's not dependant on the location (Sicily in this case). The question is, how did it become popular in so many places simultaneously?
This was in the 1990s.
Historical Fascism is unpopular.
It’s made a come back in Italy and India.
But the modern, far-right neofascists admire Israel more than the Third Reich.
The resurgence of the far-right began in the early 2000s when Jörg Haider‘s Freedom Party took power in Austria and Jean-Marie le Pen made the run-off in France.
It got much more powerful during the financial crisis of 2008 and the migration crisis caused by the Arab Spring in the mid 2010s.
It’s not a mystery why people are pissed off and looking for non-mainstream candidates.
A big mystery is why the far-left has vanished.
The Occupy Protests fizzled out, Jeffrey Corbyn imploded the Labour Party, and Jacobin put up a paywall.
Historical Fascism is unpopular.
It’s made a come back in Italy and India.
But the modern, far-right neofascists admire Israel more than the Third Reich.
The resurgence of the far-right began in the early 2000s when Jörg Haider‘s Freedom Party took power in Austria and Jean-Marie le Pen made the run-off in France.
It got much more powerful during the financial crisis of 2008 and the migration crisis caused by the Arab Spring in the mid 2010s.
It’s not a mystery why people are pissed off and looking for non-mainstream candidates.
A big mystery is why the far-left has vanished.
The Occupy Protests fizzled out, Jeffrey Corbyn imploded the Labour Party, and Jacobin put up a paywall.
> This was in the 1990s.
Interesting!
> It’s not a mystery why people are pissed off and looking for non-mainstream candidates.
Why are they? Generally, economies are doing well, there is peace - at least, they were until the fascists started disrupting it.
> It’s made a come back in Italy and India.
Hungary, Poland, US, Russia, Brazil, El Salvador, ... where does it end?
> A big mystery is why the far-left has vanished.
Agreed, and even the moderately left.
Interesting!
> It’s not a mystery why people are pissed off and looking for non-mainstream candidates.
Why are they? Generally, economies are doing well, there is peace - at least, they were until the fascists started disrupting it.
> It’s made a come back in Italy and India.
Hungary, Poland, US, Russia, Brazil, El Salvador, ... where does it end?
> A big mystery is why the far-left has vanished.
Agreed, and even the moderately left.
Inflation in basic goods and exorbitant rents mean that a lot of people are struggling far more than GDP-style indicators would imply.
There's also secular decline in a lot of southern european manufacturing, so the economic basis for stable income and family life in a lot of places just isn't there anymore.
There's also secular decline in a lot of southern european manufacturing, so the economic basis for stable income and family life in a lot of places just isn't there anymore.
That would seem to lean people toward the left wing, which supports workers, not the right, which supports the wealthy and powerful.
The left wing is also very pro-immigration and globalization.
That’s the big wedge issue for the far right - migration of people and capital.
When their factory closes down and is moved to a cheaper country, might the workers be worried about open borders?
That’s the big wedge issue for the far right - migration of people and capital.
When their factory closes down and is moved to a cheaper country, might the workers be worried about open borders?
> The left wing is also very pro-... globalization.
That conflates the centrists, including left and right (when there was a center-right) with the left. The progressive left was always dubious at best about globalization, iirc.
The migration thing is, to a great extent, people inflaming ethnic hatred. People like open borders when they want to migrate themselves, or hire migrants; it also brings trade and tourism; it brings peace and eliminates pointless political distinctions.
I agree that globalization needs to address the relatively easy mobility of capital relative to labor. But that problem is arguably extreme capitalism - where the capitalists get whatever they want - not globalization. Globalization writ by labor would have looked a lot different.
That conflates the centrists, including left and right (when there was a center-right) with the left. The progressive left was always dubious at best about globalization, iirc.
The migration thing is, to a great extent, people inflaming ethnic hatred. People like open borders when they want to migrate themselves, or hire migrants; it also brings trade and tourism; it brings peace and eliminates pointless political distinctions.
I agree that globalization needs to address the relatively easy mobility of capital relative to labor. But that problem is arguably extreme capitalism - where the capitalists get whatever they want - not globalization. Globalization writ by labor would have looked a lot different.
Actual “labor” has a strong social conservative streak, especially in regards to migration.
Notice the protests by farmers, truckers, etc.
The progressive left in America is formed in heavily globalized universities. They are 100% in support of globalization, as they are beneficiaries and producers of it.
I don’t know where the “heart and soul” of the European progressive left is. Other than Spanish socialists, I don’t think there are many.
Notice the protests by farmers, truckers, etc.
The progressive left in America is formed in heavily globalized universities. They are 100% in support of globalization, as they are beneficiaries and producers of it.
I don’t know where the “heart and soul” of the European progressive left is. Other than Spanish socialists, I don’t think there are many.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
It always turns out badly and the dictator is always corrupt. If they aren't corrupt, why wouldn't they hold elections and allow freedom and dissent?
We don't need to, and don't have time to, and absolutely should not sacrifice the victims to, relearning the lessons of democracy.
We don't need to, and don't have time to, and absolutely should not sacrifice the victims to, relearning the lessons of democracy.
It's only 'corrupt' though, if there was any expectation that the resources of the state were to be controlled by anyone but the ultimate leader. Therefore, the view of whether a given absolute leader is corrupt or not depends more on the society's expectations of them than it depends on their actions. A monarch in an absolute monarchy can never be considered corrupt, even if widely seen as wicked.
Even if that's true, how is it meaningful? Who cares what you call it, it's corruption.
The semantics are not very meaningful; I will concede that :) My point was simply that the concept of democracy isn't necessarily an obvious one. Perhaps in early 20th-century Italy, where there was still a technically supreme monarchy, and the tradition of democratic elections itself was only a few generations old, putting trust in one man alone (Mussolini) might have seemed reasonable or even ideal.
> Perhaps in early 20th-century Italy, where there was still a technically supreme monarchy, and the tradition of democratic elections itself was only a few generations old, putting trust in one man alone (Mussolini) might have seemed reasonable or even ideal.
Might have? Do we have evidence? And if it did, what do you conclude from that?
> the concept of democracy isn't necessarily an obvious one
Taking a vote is an obvious concept.
Might have? Do we have evidence? And if it did, what do you conclude from that?
> the concept of democracy isn't necessarily an obvious one
Taking a vote is an obvious concept.
Also, the mafia came back, maybe not in his time.
That was due to the Allied Military post-WW2 occupation of Italy. There are a couple of books on that very subject. These Mafioso presented themselves as anti-fascist and anti-communist to help their appointment into positions of power.
Which is ironically the same way as they got "used" by Garibaldi to "unify" Italy in 1860-1861.
Only a fool can actually believe to defeat mafia with plain violence.
Only a fool can actually believe to defeat mafia with plain violence.
lots of Mafia in the USA placed in positions of authority in labor unions -- see Teamsters. Some US political thinking was to use these harsh, often effective people as a "lesser evil" versus genuine communist-labor organizers. Due to many abuses of workers (see History of Slave or Indentured Labor) there were many communist labor organizers, for real.
Now we wait to see if Bukele is doing it again.
Why don’t you ask for a source?
What would the identity of the "former Oakland PD officer" do to establish the veracity of the claim?
I presume you mean the Symbionese Liberation Army when you say SLA?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army
Probably. But Service Level Agreement Terrorism has a nice ring to it.
They gave some context by specifying "SLA terrorism" up front, so it's a safe presumption.
I feel pretty terrified when I receive an SLA breach alert
> They just asked for ID of everyone leaving the neighborhood and recorded them
Ah, the famous American freedom. Papers please.
(in practice, it's practically impossible to stop law enforcement doing this kind of thing at least some of the time, no matter what country you're in or how unconstitutional it is. There will always be groups with little enough political power that they have no redress)
Ah, the famous American freedom. Papers please.
(in practice, it's practically impossible to stop law enforcement doing this kind of thing at least some of the time, no matter what country you're in or how unconstitutional it is. There will always be groups with little enough political power that they have no redress)
sorry, but the proper american phrase is "license and registration"
Drivers license and car registration, right?
If I was a terrorist on US soil, I'm gonna be bussing.
If I was a terrorist on US soil, I'm gonna be bussing.
Intracity buses have cameras. Intercity buses require ID.
No they don’t. I’ve often put my kids on intercity (really interstate) buses to go visit their grandparents. I’ve never had to show ID and they don’t have ID.
Did you show it when you bought the tickets? Which bus line?
I remember news stories about it, and thinking that people could no longer travel anonymously.
I remember news stories about it, and thinking that people could no longer travel anonymously.
These are private bus lines like Flixbus.
They require ID here in Europe. They don't always check for it, but probably they want to avoid delays in case the bus is checked at a border.
Are there public interstate bus lines?
Public? No. Though, the one most people think of is Greyhound and maybe they do check ID. I was just emphasizing that I was not using Greyhound.
Why? Do interstates also have border check points?
Bus companies require them, afaik.
That only covers the driver, not everyone in the vehicle.
doesn't matter, they'll be friends on facebook, or have otherwise interacted with each other online
While it is practically impossible in cases like this, there's still a huge difference between the US where police will at best begrudgingly acknowledge your rights and most other countries in the world where you do not have rights to begin with.
On the other hand in the US police routinely kill unarmed people, which seems like it’s much worse for personal freedom. Do you have freedom to consider your rights when doing so gets you self-defenced to death for not cooperating?
Quick question, without looking it up what order of magnitude of unarmed people do you think the US police kill each year? 10s? 100s? 1,000s? 10,000s?
Per WaPo's police shooting database[1], there were 51 last year (going up to 71 if you include unknown, 173 including unknown and undetermined). Filter down to people who were not fleeing or having a mental health crisis and you get 8 (26 including unknown and undetermined). While that still represents a problem in the use of force by cops, to say nothing of the idea that carrying a weapon (which is legal in much of the US) means that your death at the hands of the police is acceptable, killings of unarmed people seem far from routine. I don't think you have any reason to believe you will be killed by the police for not giving them your ID.
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic...
Per WaPo's police shooting database[1], there were 51 last year (going up to 71 if you include unknown, 173 including unknown and undetermined). Filter down to people who were not fleeing or having a mental health crisis and you get 8 (26 including unknown and undetermined). While that still represents a problem in the use of force by cops, to say nothing of the idea that carrying a weapon (which is legal in much of the US) means that your death at the hands of the police is acceptable, killings of unarmed people seem far from routine. I don't think you have any reason to believe you will be killed by the police for not giving them your ID.
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic...
Your link says 1141 killed by police right at the top and a quick search lead to https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de... which says 1160 last year. This is just the number killed not the number shot.
I was talking about unarmed people because we're specifically talking about people being shot just for not complying with orders they're not legally required to comply to. I didn't think about the possibility of people being shot and surviving, mainly because cops typically magdump people which seems to be reflected in the stats since the number only goes up by 19. In any case, I don't think the distinction is substantial to this discussion.
Edit: I'm not seeing 1141 anywhere, where did you get that number?
Edit: I'm not seeing 1141 anywhere, where did you get that number?
At the top of the page you linked, I think.
https://imgur.com/a/bRLYOLQ
https://imgur.com/a/bRLYOLQ
Ah I see, idk how I missed that. I think it's 12 months rolling, and in any case includes things like armed confrontations which is outside the scope of this discussion
> Filter down to people who were not fleeing or having a mental health crisis
Why on earth should US police get a free pass on shooting people fleeing or having a mental health crisis?
Such things warrent an investigation with a real possibility of penalties and|or charges in Commonwealth countries.
Are you stating that it's OK to shoot people that run | are paranoid?
Why on earth should US police get a free pass on shooting people fleeing or having a mental health crisis?
Such things warrent an investigation with a real possibility of penalties and|or charges in Commonwealth countries.
Are you stating that it's OK to shoot people that run | are paranoid?
I filtered those out because we're specifically talking about people being shot just for not complying with orders they're not legally required to comply to.
I didn't read the parents comment as trying to make a point of nationalistic pride, but to frame the US in the broader international context. There are a lot of countries in the world. The majority of which rank below the US on measurements of corruption, and many on police violence.
https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global/202...
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-ki...
https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global/202...
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-ki...
This is such a lazy reply. Even 10 seconds Googling would tell you Americans don't need to provide ID to the police (unlike other countries) unless you are operating a motor vehicle.
Comment I was replying to said: "This got reported up the chain of command and OPD intelligence set up traffic stops all around the neighborhood perimeter. That was it. They just asked for ID of everyone leaving the neighborhood and recorded them"
So are you saying that didn't happen?
So are you saying that didn't happen?
Police are allowed to stop traffic and get drivers IDs. It think that's true in every country?
Glory to Arstotzka.
Dirty hippies. Thank god those domestic terrorists were apprehended before they could murder again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army
>During its existence from 1973 to 1975, the group murdered at least two people, committed armed bank robberies, attempted bombings and other violent crimes, including the kidnapping in 1974 of newspaper heiress Patty Hearst.
>During its existence from 1973 to 1975, the group murdered at least two people, committed armed bank robberies, attempted bombings and other violent crimes, including the kidnapping in 1974 of newspaper heiress Patty Hearst.
> Between February 2023 and July 1, 2022, that did not happen in three investigations, the CTIVD said. The supervisory body did not say which communities were involved but did explain that by “community,” it means a population group “based, for example, on ethnicity, religious belief, or occupational group.” So, theoretically, the police intelligence services may have been spying on visitors to a certain mosque or protesting farmers.
We really have a problem with targeted surveillance of specific communities like visitors of a specific mosque? Or a pub frequented by known nazis? I don't get it. The article doesn't have enough details to form an opinion!
We really have a problem with targeted surveillance of specific communities like visitors of a specific mosque? Or a pub frequented by known nazis? I don't get it. The article doesn't have enough details to form an opinion!
> like visitors of a specific mosque? Or a pub frequented by known nazis?
But the article had a slightly different example than yours:
> on visitors to a certain mosque or protesting farmers
You changed "protesting farmers" to "a pub frequented by known nazis." It's emotionally easy not to have a problem with targeted surveillance of nazis, but surveilling farmers, who are currently protesting throughout Europe? That's clearly politically motivated surveillance of ordinary, peaceful, law-abiding citizens who dissent from the government's views.
But the article had a slightly different example than yours:
> on visitors to a certain mosque or protesting farmers
You changed "protesting farmers" to "a pub frequented by known nazis." It's emotionally easy not to have a problem with targeted surveillance of nazis, but surveilling farmers, who are currently protesting throughout Europe? That's clearly politically motivated surveillance of ordinary, peaceful, law-abiding citizens who dissent from the government's views.
The protesting farmers have been blocking highways with their tractors and lighting fires containing asbestos (also on / near highways). You could argue that the former should be allowed as part of a protest, but the latter moves you squarely outside the "law-abiding citizens" category.
European farmers appear to be a singular career category where the government(s) will pay you to be a failure.
It's a group that by the nature of their production cycle is very exploitable (you have to sell the harvest or it litterally turns into manure), and yet they are extremely essential to a population's survival (unlike e.g. hairdressers, no food ruins your month in a way an overdue trim can't match).
So you want to keep farms up even in times the market wont.
So you want to keep farms up even in times the market wont.
What makes them a singular category in this regard? Genuine question. Virtually all agricultural sectors enjoy some form of subsidy, for what I think are obvious reasons. Likewise it's not like the idea of government money going to less-than-optimally-productive labor is unheard of.
No, that's major US finance companies...
That’s the case in the US as well. What do you think agriculture subsidies are?
If you want countries that don’t subsidize agriculture that has been Aussie and NZ since the 80s iirc. Though I haven’t lived in those countries for a decade or two now and Covid and various financial panics over the last decades resulted in a variety of corporate hand outs so it seems plausible that those businesses have got some government support since then.
If you want countries that don’t subsidize agriculture that has been Aussie and NZ since the 80s iirc. Though I haven’t lived in those countries for a decade or two now and Covid and various financial panics over the last decades resulted in a variety of corporate hand outs so it seems plausible that those businesses have got some government support since then.
> The protesting farmers have been blocking highways with their tractors
Yeah, that's kind the idea of a protest. If you don't create enough inconvenience, than it will be, at best, a small line in a newspaper. "10 thousand farmers gathered in an abandoned meadow and drove around in protest." Yes, cute.
They are going this far because, obviously, they have the feeling they haven't been heard, and/or because they feel decisions are being made that are not taking into account the reality of their profession.
> lighting fires containing asbestos
This sounds like nothing more than a dubious scaremongering claim to discredit whatever concern they are trying to air. It -might- be something that happened anecdotally and accidentally, but to describe it as something done deliberately while also putting their own health in danger requires quite a bit more proof than hearsay.
Yeah, that's kind the idea of a protest. If you don't create enough inconvenience, than it will be, at best, a small line in a newspaper. "10 thousand farmers gathered in an abandoned meadow and drove around in protest." Yes, cute.
They are going this far because, obviously, they have the feeling they haven't been heard, and/or because they feel decisions are being made that are not taking into account the reality of their profession.
> lighting fires containing asbestos
This sounds like nothing more than a dubious scaremongering claim to discredit whatever concern they are trying to air. It -might- be something that happened anecdotally and accidentally, but to describe it as something done deliberately while also putting their own health in danger requires quite a bit more proof than hearsay.
Here, a recent source: https://www.nu.nl/binnenland/6300928/aangehouden-demonsteren...
It has happened regularly at farmer protests, so speculating that it might be accidental is absurd. They deliberately burn garbage containing asbestos. They are criminals that deserve to be behind bars.
It has happened regularly at farmer protests, so speculating that it might be accidental is absurd. They deliberately burn garbage containing asbestos. They are criminals that deserve to be behind bars.
Corrected, I stand. Straight to jail with the two of them.
The farmers have been anything but peaceful. They've destroyed public & private property, doused it in literal shit, started fires and threatened politicians. They've also blocked roads preventing emergency services from getting through.
I think the point is, Farmers as a group were peaceful until very recently. Law abiding citizens don't riot because Mars stationed direct.
I like Bill Burr's quote here - "A dog should not bite a man. But if a dog does bite a man, it's fair to ask what he was doing when it bit him"
I like Bill Burr's quote here - "A dog should not bite a man. But if a dog does bite a man, it's fair to ask what he was doing when it bit him"
In this case the unfortunate answer is that they were given cushy subsidies and preferential treatment for years and this is sadly no longer sustainable due to climate change. They are now entitled and angry.
It's understandable they don't like it, but the reaction is ridiculously extreme.
It's understandable they don't like it, but the reaction is ridiculously extreme.
lupusreal(1)
Farmers were peaceful because they were in a position of privilege over many other businesses. It was being subjected to the same pressure that everyone else was that caused issues.
I get that that would be a hard transition, but you don’t get to say “they were peaceful before when others weren’t” when the lack of peacefulness from others was largely because they weren’t getting the same support and protection that these groups were getting, especially when they’re directly demonstrating in their responses now that they fundamentally agree with the issues that caused prior protests and riots, now that those issues also impact them.
I get that that would be a hard transition, but you don’t get to say “they were peaceful before when others weren’t” when the lack of peacefulness from others was largely because they weren’t getting the same support and protection that these groups were getting, especially when they’re directly demonstrating in their responses now that they fundamentally agree with the issues that caused prior protests and riots, now that those issues also impact them.
Fair... though I would point out there are reasons governments might want to support citizens who make food more than citizens who make widgets.
It's funny - prior to this thread I didn't realize the protests were over subsidies. Definitely a case of seeing my own filter bubbles.
It's funny - prior to this thread I didn't realize the protests were over subsidies. Definitely a case of seeing my own filter bubbles.
> though I would point out there are reasons governments might want to support citizens who make food more than citizens who make widgets.
Keep in mind that these farmers mostly export their food for profit. It is not being used to feed our own population.
Keep in mind that these farmers mostly export their food for profit. It is not being used to feed our own population.
Right, but their own population isn't currently having trouble importing food (that I know of). Farm subsidies are essentially a form of insurance against famine.
I think these things are cyclical, I can think of many previous protest cycles with farmers being aggressive. Different countries have different protest cultures of course.
>The farmers have been anything but peaceful. They've destroyed public & private property, doused it in literal shit, started fires and threatened politicians.
Yeah, so? That's how they like their protests in France (and how we like them in several parts of Europe too).
The French state itself was established on a much more violent rebellion...
Yeah, so? That's how they like their protests in France (and how we like them in several parts of Europe too).
The French state itself was established on a much more violent rebellion...
It's not how we like them in the Netherlands. I don't care at all what the French like.
> That's clearly politically motivated surveillance of ordinary, peaceful, law-abiding citizens who dissent from the government's views.
Peaceful? In Germany, a particularly nasty incident made headlines where a drunk farmer tried to evade a roadblock and ended up injuring a policeman [1], just last week two got arrested for attempting to run over cops [2], others spread feces and trash over a highway and lit up barricades [3], and the large demonstration in January in Berlin had over ten arrests for violence as well as explosives [4].
[1] https://www.bild.de/regional/ruhrgebiet/ruhrgebiet-aktuell/b...
[2] https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/oldenburg_ostfr...
[3] https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/sachsen-anhalt/magdeburg/magd...
[4] https://www.rnd.de/politik/bauernproteste-in-berlin-drei-ver...
Peaceful? In Germany, a particularly nasty incident made headlines where a drunk farmer tried to evade a roadblock and ended up injuring a policeman [1], just last week two got arrested for attempting to run over cops [2], others spread feces and trash over a highway and lit up barricades [3], and the large demonstration in January in Berlin had over ten arrests for violence as well as explosives [4].
[1] https://www.bild.de/regional/ruhrgebiet/ruhrgebiet-aktuell/b...
[2] https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/oldenburg_ostfr...
[3] https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/sachsen-anhalt/magdeburg/magd...
[4] https://www.rnd.de/politik/bauernproteste-in-berlin-drei-ver...
In the netherlands several of these "protesters" have been rounded up, arrested or otherwise prosecuted. Some later on. Several have been found guilty of breaking the law. Some as young as 17 or 19¹.
Regardless of the political view or perspective or stance: they are provably not law-abiding.
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisati...
Regardless of the political view or perspective or stance: they are provably not law-abiding.
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisati...
If that's the worst across multiple countries, it seems very peaceful. Much worse happens in the general public.
Are you suggesting that because a few people did things you don't like, everyone involved is violent? That is not only clearly false, but very dangerous.
Are you suggesting that because a few people did things you don't like, everyone involved is violent? That is not only clearly false, but very dangerous.
If significant elements of a widespread protest show signs of radicalisation - and there are lots of signs - then it is the job of the police to investigate, how serious and organized the radicals are. Some drunk nuts blowing off steam vs. the beginning of domestic terrorism.
That justification is used to criminalize and suppress protest and dissent.
The GGP didn't show lots of signs, just a few incidents. Where is evidence of 'lots of signs'?
The GGP didn't show lots of signs, just a few incidents. Where is evidence of 'lots of signs'?
I did not say anything about the police being justified in suppressing legal protest. I said they have the duty to investigate, if there is suspicion of radicalisation.
And about signs, in germany the economy ministre could not leave his ferry, because of aggressive protesters. I did not noticed a widespread condemnation of said action by the rest of the protestors. That alone justifies investigation.
And about signs, in germany the economy ministre could not leave his ferry, because of aggressive protesters. I did not noticed a widespread condemnation of said action by the rest of the protestors. That alone justifies investigation.
> I said they have the duty to investigate, if there is suspicion of radicalisation.
That is oppression and a tool of oppression, and it's got a long history.
> in germany the economy ministre could not leave his ferry, because of aggressive protesters
Do you have evidence? And if there were, so what? Why must this law be enforced so utterly? Again, the tools of oppression - 'law and order!'
That is oppression and a tool of oppression, and it's got a long history.
> in germany the economy ministre could not leave his ferry, because of aggressive protesters
Do you have evidence? And if there were, so what? Why must this law be enforced so utterly? Again, the tools of oppression - 'law and order!'
"That is oppression and a tool of oppression, and it's got a long history."
Not per se. If it means rounding everyone up regulary and search all their homes for the sake of it - then yes. But investigations can also be discrete.
"And if there were, so what? Why must this law be enforced so utterly?"
Why must a government not bow to a violent mob? Because it would end democracy, if they would. It would mean, give right to those people, who can get the most determinated hooligans.
Not per se. If it means rounding everyone up regulary and search all their homes for the sake of it - then yes. But investigations can also be discrete.
"And if there were, so what? Why must this law be enforced so utterly?"
Why must a government not bow to a violent mob? Because it would end democracy, if they would. It would mean, give right to those people, who can get the most determinated hooligans.
> Not per se.
What do you mean? Not in theory? Theory doesn't matter, because in reality people abuse power if they have it, as they do with that power.
> Why must a government not bow to a violent mob? Because it would end democracy, if they would. It would mean, give right to those people, who can get the most determinated hooligans.
That sounds apocolyptic. There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?
What do you mean? Not in theory? Theory doesn't matter, because in reality people abuse power if they have it, as they do with that power.
> Why must a government not bow to a violent mob? Because it would end democracy, if they would. It would mean, give right to those people, who can get the most determinated hooligans.
That sounds apocolyptic. There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?
"There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. "
Yeah, because they do not bow to violence.
"What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?"
The US would have, if they would have accepted that the "protesters" could storm the capitol without consequence for example and decide the outcome of a election by force.
Yeah, because they do not bow to violence.
"What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?"
The US would have, if they would have accepted that the "protesters" could storm the capitol without consequence for example and decide the outcome of a election by force.
It's a very absolutist argument. Not all protests or violence are the same, and almost none are a threat to democracy.
I don't support violent protest, but absolutist law and order are a much bigger threat to liberty, a way to criminalize and shut down dissent. It's just weaponizing the law.
I don't support violent protest, but absolutist law and order are a much bigger threat to liberty, a way to criminalize and shut down dissent. It's just weaponizing the law.
You don't understand... these farmers are all kulaks, enemies of the revolution! They're dangerous as a class and need to be treated accordingly.
Also what happened to the economy minister was not a cool thing to do.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XRpCjLxICKg
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XRpCjLxICKg
Yup. Totally justifies bypassing the law and putting all the farmers under surveillance.
> as well as explosives
As read: "Verstoß gegen das Sprengstoffgesetz" or, in plain English "A violation of the law on explosives". Which says absolutely nothing, as fireworks would already qualify as explosives if forbidden.
> as well as explosives
As read: "Verstoß gegen das Sprengstoffgesetz" or, in plain English "A violation of the law on explosives". Which says absolutely nothing, as fireworks would already qualify as explosives if forbidden.
Blocking roads with climate activism can get you years in prison, but blocking roads with tractors and trailers of dung is law-abiding.
The article specified them as examples and I found them quite framing. So yes, I changed it to cases where no one would probably have a problem with it. I'd personally have a problem with farmers being surveilled just because they are farmers and are protesting. I wanted to show that we need more data before having an opinion, as it depends on the details.
The "protesting farmers" is just speculation from the NOS, and might as well be Nazis or motorbike gangs or extreme-left activists or $anything_else. Previous poster merely used it as an example to illustrate that these type of specifics matter.
Also these "protesting farmers" involved a number of violent incidents, intimidation, threats, and things like that. Look, things aren't black-white here, but "peaceful, law-abiding citizens" is very much a distortion of what happened.
Also these "protesting farmers" involved a number of violent incidents, intimidation, threats, and things like that. Look, things aren't black-white here, but "peaceful, law-abiding citizens" is very much a distortion of what happened.
Yes, thank you! A lot of people took my comment the wrong way.
Since Russia through Hungary organise and support the farmer protests monetarily and politically, there is no question that they should be monitored on some level.
Show me the evidence that Russia are organising these protests, because I sincerely doubt if.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure some Russian money is involved, but that is hardly organising.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure some Russian money is involved, but that is hardly organising.
https://24.hu/belfold/2024/01/26/brusszel-gazdatuntetes-mcc-...
MCC is a shill university to transform state money to private, it’s not even a secret. They moved billions of Euros through it. Also, Hungary is utterly compromised, which can be checked by using the keywords spy, Russia and Hungary together. It’s compromised on every level. A good article about it is here: https://www.direkt36.hu/putyin-hekkerei-is-latjak-a-magyar-k...
MCC is a shill university to transform state money to private, it’s not even a secret. They moved billions of Euros through it. Also, Hungary is utterly compromised, which can be checked by using the keywords spy, Russia and Hungary together. It’s compromised on every level. A good article about it is here: https://www.direkt36.hu/putyin-hekkerei-is-latjak-a-magyar-k...
I have a problem with “surveilling nazis”. If they’re not actively committing criminal acts, and there isn’t a warrant demonstrating with specificity that the particular facility or group is involved (e.g the same requirement for any other warrant) they should not be subject to any more surveillance than say a Christian group, or a Muslim group, or an lgbt group, or hell a group of sports team supporters. The amount of surveillance should be zero.
I hate nazis with a passion, and would never be ok employing or working with someone who’s basic life belief is that a bunch of their coworkers (maybe including me?) don’t have the right to exist and are fundamentally inferior (if nothing else a cynical 100% capitalist take would be that having a Nazi anywhere in your management hierarchy will clearly open your company to plausible discrimination suits).
Before anyone brings up accepting others beliefs, that’s not an issue. There is a basic social contract: you can believe whatever you want without consequences until your beliefs get to “other people don’t get to have the same rights as me”. The “paradox of tolerance” is BS used by bigots to try and allow them to attack the rights of others with impunity under the guise of accepting other’s beliefs.
I hate nazis with a passion, and would never be ok employing or working with someone who’s basic life belief is that a bunch of their coworkers (maybe including me?) don’t have the right to exist and are fundamentally inferior (if nothing else a cynical 100% capitalist take would be that having a Nazi anywhere in your management hierarchy will clearly open your company to plausible discrimination suits).
Before anyone brings up accepting others beliefs, that’s not an issue. There is a basic social contract: you can believe whatever you want without consequences until your beliefs get to “other people don’t get to have the same rights as me”. The “paradox of tolerance” is BS used by bigots to try and allow them to attack the rights of others with impunity under the guise of accepting other’s beliefs.
It's not about belief for me. People can believe what they want. But there's a sub-group of Nazis that want to topple the government and I think they, including all of their potential networks, should be surveilled. Just like all the leftists, islamists, and other terrorists or extremists. I don't agree with surveillance because of simple beliefs or religions though.
Can you define what "leftist" that should be surveilled when literally all politics is a spectrum of left to right? Certainly in the US the majority of politically motivated violence for decades has been by people explicitly on the right end of the spectrum.
Based on my experience in the US the use of the specific label "leftist" is generally used on people who support policies that are common in much of the liberal world, so coalescing "leftist" with people who promote killing people is a pretty gross choice. Do you want to reconsider your phrasing? Especially given you then say you disagree with surveillance because of "simple beliefs or religions" which is directly in opposition to "surveil all the leftists".
Based on my experience in the US the use of the specific label "leftist" is generally used on people who support policies that are common in much of the liberal world, so coalescing "leftist" with people who promote killing people is a pretty gross choice. Do you want to reconsider your phrasing? Especially given you then say you disagree with surveillance because of "simple beliefs or religions" which is directly in opposition to "surveil all the leftists".
You were quite close but then decided not to do the final proper mental step. When I put leftists in a line with nazis, what kind of leftists could I possibly mean?
Also, I'm German, so I mean people like this for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction There are plenty anti-state leftists group, even in the US. And you probably very well know it, so I'm kind of annoyed at your question tbh.
> Do you want to reconsider your phrasing? Absolutely not. Leftist means in support of left politics. You imply that the political left has no extreme wing this way. Same as with muslims, there's a range of beliefs, and a subset of those groups are not ok.
Also, I'm German, so I mean people like this for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction There are plenty anti-state leftists group, even in the US. And you probably very well know it, so I'm kind of annoyed at your question tbh.
> Do you want to reconsider your phrasing? Absolutely not. Leftist means in support of left politics. You imply that the political left has no extreme wing this way. Same as with muslims, there's a range of beliefs, and a subset of those groups are not ok.
> The “paradox of tolerance” is BS used by bigots to try and allow them to attack the rights of others with impunity
The Jewish philosopher who fled the Nazis was, in fact, a bigot seeking to attack the rights of others?
The Jewish philosopher who fled the Nazis was, in fact, a bigot seeking to attack the rights of others?
No. Popper was not using the "paradox of intolerance" to be a bigot attacking the rights of others. What Popper did was give a name to the behavior bigots were already demonstrating. Bigots don't say "you have to support my beliefs because of the paradox of tolerance", they say "you are not being tolerant if you don't support my intolerance" (for whatever group they're targeting).
It's somewhat disingenuous to present an idea in terms of the circumstances in which it was introduced as being equivalent to that idea after people have had time to actually think about it and discuss it. It implies that no problem can be resolved in the time following its introduction.
When Popper started talking about this as the "paradox of intolerance" it was "how do we resolve this issue where a maximally tolerant society must inherently become intolerant", but that was 80 odd years ago, and in that time the generally accepted answer is that tolerance is a social contract, and part of that is that tolerance is necessarily a two way street, so if your belief is that some other group[s] are not permitted to exist, or have the same rights, then no other group has to tolerate your beliefs. There is no problem of cycles of responsibility, because your intolerance was the initial trigger.
It's somewhat disingenuous to present an idea in terms of the circumstances in which it was introduced as being equivalent to that idea after people have had time to actually think about it and discuss it. It implies that no problem can be resolved in the time following its introduction.
When Popper started talking about this as the "paradox of intolerance" it was "how do we resolve this issue where a maximally tolerant society must inherently become intolerant", but that was 80 odd years ago, and in that time the generally accepted answer is that tolerance is a social contract, and part of that is that tolerance is necessarily a two way street, so if your belief is that some other group[s] are not permitted to exist, or have the same rights, then no other group has to tolerate your beliefs. There is no problem of cycles of responsibility, because your intolerance was the initial trigger.
> What Popper did was give a name to the behavior bigots were already demonstrating. Bigots don't say "you have to support my beliefs because of the paradox of tolerance", they say "you are not being tolerant if you don't support my intolerance" (for whatever group they're targeting).
No, and no. He didn't "give a name to the behavior of bigots", and he didn't posit that bigots demand tolerance on rational grounds. In fact, he says something close to the opposite :
"...for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols"
> in that time the generally accepted answer is that tolerance is a social contract, and part of that is that tolerance is necessarily a two way street
... in that time? That description of tolerance is baked into his argument. The entire paradox, short as it is, revolved around the handling of (ultimately, violent) edge cases who don't care about meeting you anywhere.
I'm not going to continue engaging in this thread, but just for general and future reference here is the footnote we've been discussing :
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. " -- The Open Society & Its Enemies
No, and no. He didn't "give a name to the behavior of bigots", and he didn't posit that bigots demand tolerance on rational grounds. In fact, he says something close to the opposite :
"...for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols"
> in that time the generally accepted answer is that tolerance is a social contract, and part of that is that tolerance is necessarily a two way street
... in that time? That description of tolerance is baked into his argument. The entire paradox, short as it is, revolved around the handling of (ultimately, violent) edge cases who don't care about meeting you anywhere.
I'm not going to continue engaging in this thread, but just for general and future reference here is the footnote we've been discussing :
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. " -- The Open Society & Its Enemies
Can Jewish philosophers who flee Nazis not be bigots? What is the mechanism there?
> The article doesn't have enough details to form an opinion!
It does, unless your interest is in justifying the breaking of law and abuse of powers.
These people were granted amazing powers, are paid from taxes, and yet somehow it's too much to expect that they'd have an ounce of respect for the law and the privacy of their supposed fellow citizens. Unscrupulous individuals who work overtime to figure out ways to abuse their powers.
And it really is unfathomable to me how it's possible for someone to be an agent of government, knowing you're responsible for being that for which no one nowhere should trust their government with any powers, and somehow still being able to go about your daily activities without your conscience tearing you into pieces. Impossible to say enough bad things about these specimens.
It does, unless your interest is in justifying the breaking of law and abuse of powers.
These people were granted amazing powers, are paid from taxes, and yet somehow it's too much to expect that they'd have an ounce of respect for the law and the privacy of their supposed fellow citizens. Unscrupulous individuals who work overtime to figure out ways to abuse their powers.
And it really is unfathomable to me how it's possible for someone to be an agent of government, knowing you're responsible for being that for which no one nowhere should trust their government with any powers, and somehow still being able to go about your daily activities without your conscience tearing you into pieces. Impossible to say enough bad things about these specimens.
The point here is that this is something the intelligence agencies are allowed to do but only if done for a well grounded reason. It seems that step has been skipped.
I'd be miffed if the police sidestepped the law and tracked my whereabouts just because I was in an organisation where a couple of other members have suspicions raised about them.
This really depends on the details.
If, say, one member of a mosque is under surveillance for good reasons and then you extend that to everyone attending the mosque for no particular reason other than "well, maybe we'll catch something, doesn't to try": that's probably not a good thing.
On the other hand, if the imam is preaching violent rhetoric, multiple members are under surveillance for good reasons, and there's good reasons to believe that the violence is an important part of the mosque community in the first place (rather than a relatively small detail): then that's perhaps not such a bad thing. You don't "accidentally" associate with that kind of thing.
Or: you probably don't need detailed reasons to put someone in Don Corleone's employ under surveillance.
If, say, one member of a mosque is under surveillance for good reasons and then you extend that to everyone attending the mosque for no particular reason other than "well, maybe we'll catch something, doesn't to try": that's probably not a good thing.
On the other hand, if the imam is preaching violent rhetoric, multiple members are under surveillance for good reasons, and there's good reasons to believe that the violence is an important part of the mosque community in the first place (rather than a relatively small detail): then that's perhaps not such a bad thing. You don't "accidentally" associate with that kind of thing.
Or: you probably don't need detailed reasons to put someone in Don Corleone's employ under surveillance.
Sidestepping the law is unjustified regardless of the details.
I was just addressing the "tracked my whereabouts just because I was in an organisation where a couple of other members have suspicions raised about them" bit.
But then you're addressing a different point to the one I made!
I don't disagree with what you're saying inherently. But the "sidestepping legal process" is crucial to why this is so problematic.
I don't disagree with what you're saying inherently. But the "sidestepping legal process" is crucial to why this is so problematic.
Suspicion by association.
I guess I'm a suspect for doing banking at a large bank know to also cater for criminals. Should probably look for a different bank. ...Oh, wait.
I guess I'm a suspect for doing banking at a large bank know to also cater for criminals. Should probably look for a different bank. ...Oh, wait.
I think that's exactly how it works. If you associate with sketchy people or groups, you automatically become a target for surveillance.
Being at the same spot doesn't make you "associated" with everyone else that's in that same spot.
I'm no religious person, but I would imagine praying in a mosque is very different to personally knowing everyone else that's praying in the same mosque. Even if you do meet everyone it's not like they're gonna introduce themselves with "hi, I'm $stereotypicalMuslimName, and I plan on doing a terrorist attack next month".
The connection needs to be far more substantial than that to warrant surveillance.
I'm no religious person, but I would imagine praying in a mosque is very different to personally knowing everyone else that's praying in the same mosque. Even if you do meet everyone it's not like they're gonna introduce themselves with "hi, I'm $stereotypicalMuslimName, and I plan on doing a terrorist attack next month".
The connection needs to be far more substantial than that to warrant surveillance.
Not religious either, but my understanding is that churches/mosques/etc are often the hub of social life for religious people, and the regulars definitely know each other.
As someone who attended a couple of churches for many years, it's not necessarily "the hub of social life." Plenty of people show up, sit through the sermon/mass/whatever, and then leave afterwards. If you're really social, you might stick around for a coffee afterwards, but you're probably sitting at a table with the same few people every week.
It's similar to a school. You might have a social group of a dozen peers you're familiar with, and you might or might not ever do anything outside of school with those people. There are also hundreds of other students in different sets or levels of classes who you might not ever learn the name of.
Of course, it will vary between large churches and small churches, and probably between areas with lots of churches and areas with only a few. But I wanted to explain that since it sounds like you had at least an exaggerated idea of how religious people socialize via their places of worship.
It's similar to a school. You might have a social group of a dozen peers you're familiar with, and you might or might not ever do anything outside of school with those people. There are also hundreds of other students in different sets or levels of classes who you might not ever learn the name of.
Of course, it will vary between large churches and small churches, and probably between areas with lots of churches and areas with only a few. But I wanted to explain that since it sounds like you had at least an exaggerated idea of how religious people socialize via their places of worship.
A mosque can have hundreds of worshippers who turn up every Friday like clockwork. Each might know the 20-30 other people from a similar geographic background and barely talk to the rest, let alone have any idea that they're up to something nefarious.
I don’t think we have to live in that kind of world. The problem with that is $GOOD_GROUP and $BAD_GROUP are subjective judgements. That’s why you need cause for an investigation.
One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. See also this famous "Our Blessed Homeland" comic: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/355/607/670
Yes, nothing different between our homeland and theirs, it's not like women are literally property and they have millions of slaves.
Are you referring to the US, where women have no freedom to decide what happens inside their uterus and slavery is still allowed for their millions of prisoners?
[deleted]
Some aspects of every culture are morally reprehensible. This is orthogonal to legality, socially taboo, and other categorizations.
Guilt by association?
Also, some tiny question: People you think you associate with or people the Police think you associate with?
Also, some tiny question: People you think you associate with or people the Police think you associate with?
No, you're not guilty by associating, you're potentially useful and potentially sus.
When investigating serious crimes, there is no such thing as too much information. If you say hello and chit-chat with Bomberman every Sunday, I want to know what you talk about, I want to know what he wears, when he was sick and didn't show up, I want to know how he smells, I want to know everything, and given that you associate with him, I was hoping you could provide some information.
When investigating serious crimes, there is no such thing as too much information. If you say hello and chit-chat with Bomberman every Sunday, I want to know what you talk about, I want to know what he wears, when he was sick and didn't show up, I want to know how he smells, I want to know everything, and given that you associate with him, I was hoping you could provide some information.
This shouldn't be news to anyone
I was just thinking this.
I mean, we're talking about tracking those hanging out at places where terrorists are known to gather, and associating with said terrorists, however casually? That's just military sense. Are we just supposed to let the known terrorist go to the bar, have his/her coded conversations with an unknown subject, and then let that subject go on his/her merry way without looking any further into the matter? That would be naive in the extreme.
I mean, we're talking about tracking those hanging out at places where terrorists are known to gather, and associating with said terrorists, however casually? That's just military sense. Are we just supposed to let the known terrorist go to the bar, have his/her coded conversations with an unknown subject, and then let that subject go on his/her merry way without looking any further into the matter? That would be naive in the extreme.
Firstly we're not talking about "terrorists" but people who intelligence services have "received a signal" about. That's pretty ambiguous but sounds like it could mean an anonymous tip-off or information from another department.
Secondly, no one's suggesting that they let everyone go their merry way without looking into anything. Only that widespread surveillance must be justified e.g. the evidence must pass some threshold and other responses have been ruled out.
Secondly, no one's suggesting that they let everyone go their merry way without looking into anything. Only that widespread surveillance must be justified e.g. the evidence must pass some threshold and other responses have been ruled out.
Might be a legitimate concern, but not enough evidence for Police surveillance. You mention "military sense", but this isn't a war. If there is terrorist suspicion, I'd say it is more in the intelligence jurisdiction.
> We really have a problem with targeted surveillance of specific communities like visitors of a specific mosque? Or a pub frequented by known nazis?
There's one of a hell of a difference between the right to religious expression and the right to drink in a pub.
The former is protected in many constitutions (USA: First Amendment, Germany: Art. 4 Abs. 2 Grundgesetz, Netherlands: Art. 6 no. 1 Constitution) as well as in Art. 18 of the Declaration of Human Rights, the latter is not.
There's one of a hell of a difference between the right to religious expression and the right to drink in a pub.
The former is protected in many constitutions (USA: First Amendment, Germany: Art. 4 Abs. 2 Grundgesetz, Netherlands: Art. 6 no. 1 Constitution) as well as in Art. 18 of the Declaration of Human Rights, the latter is not.
Well, a lot of people, including you, seem to misunderstand me. I had very specific examples in my head with demonstrated (planned) actions against others or the state. I was even thinking about a very specific nazi pub in Germany. It's not about beliefs or religion for me. I couldn't care less and don't agree with "Generalverdacht" or "Sippenhaft" at all. On the opposite.
> We really have a problem with targeted surveillance of specific communities like visitors of a specific mosque?
Yes? Have you opened a history textbook, like ever?
Yes? Have you opened a history textbook, like ever?
The real problem in Europe is that we allow radical mosques funded by shady Middle-Eastern actors to even operate. Or maybe it is the fact we have too many marginalized people who are easily brainwashed to support such ideologies.
Either way, surveillance is just a symptom of deeper political failures.
Either way, surveillance is just a symptom of deeper political failures.
> Either way, surveillance is just a symptom of deeper political failures.
I'd say, limited surveillance is trying to unify tolerance and openness while not putting all people of one belief/religion for example in the same category.
I'd say, limited surveillance is trying to unify tolerance and openness while not putting all people of one belief/religion for example in the same category.
I have, and it's pretty obvious that religion causes a lot of violence
Quite a lot of which could have been avoided by states not having an unhealthy interest in who has which religion.
Religious people often care about such things.
I think it is more correct to say that religion has been used as an easy excuse and a way to bind closer the group causing violence and to dehumanize the victim group.
@dang, one day I would imagine that you can deal with Islamophobia with the same scrutiny you have toward other forms of racism. Maybe in a different world.
Islamophobia is a problematic term, since there is no unified concept of Islam to begin with. What is seen Islamophobic by a radical Muslim of Wahhabi sect (as an exmaple) may be seen as legitimate criticism by a moderate one. Based on my understanding it's mainly mosques with radical teachings and funding from certain countries that are being monitored.
I have not mentioned Islam anywhere, and strongly believe that any organized group that spreads hate and violence needs to be investigated and dealt with.
>any organized group that spreads hate and violence
Such as western war for "freedom and democracy" with bombing the middle east?
I think it's a demonstration of who is 'inside' and who is 'outside'. On HN, if you talk about racism or issues with white males, you get chased away - those are the people here, on the inside.
If you talk about women or Muslims, for example, they are objects of examination - what are they like? what do they do? They aren't participants, mostly; you don't have a lot of women and Muslims posting about it - think about it: if we want to know about Islam, why don't we listen to Muslims, who would actually know from a lifetime of direct experience? What we see is mostly from the perspective of someone looking at Muslims - they are on the outside. A predictable result of the ignorance is stereotypes and prejudice. And even prejudiced and hateful ideas are treated as 'curiosity' - the curiosity of (mostly) white males. Nobody is curious about racism or sexism, for example.
My sense is that what I see on HN, maybe unconciously, is moderated to accomodate the insiders.
If you talk about women or Muslims, for example, they are objects of examination - what are they like? what do they do? They aren't participants, mostly; you don't have a lot of women and Muslims posting about it - think about it: if we want to know about Islam, why don't we listen to Muslims, who would actually know from a lifetime of direct experience? What we see is mostly from the perspective of someone looking at Muslims - they are on the outside. A predictable result of the ignorance is stereotypes and prejudice. And even prejudiced and hateful ideas are treated as 'curiosity' - the curiosity of (mostly) white males. Nobody is curious about racism or sexism, for example.
My sense is that what I see on HN, maybe unconciously, is moderated to accomodate the insiders.
A religion is an ideology, not a race, and should be a fair subject for criticism or dislike
I totally agree that the "normalisation" of Islamophobia is concerning, and the rise since last October is particularly alarming... but the GP didn't mention Islam at all - they were clearly making a blanket statement about all religion.
It’s honestly a bit islamophobic to assume that anyone saying religious violence is bad must be attacking Muslims, isn’t it? Jumping to that conclusion requires a bunch of leaps that I’m not sure are actually true.
I agree, the tree of comments below you just belies these prejudiced and hateful attitudes. Concerned but not surprised that many people interested in tech topics are choosing to discuss how it’s ok to surveil people for their religion and put guilt by association on them… instead of discussing why targeted surveillance of groups based on religion or place of worship is problematic, fueled by bigotry and ignorance.
Religious groups aren't (well, shouldn't) be special. They're just like fans of a sports club and if they cause violence and hate, they should be investigated.
Part of dealing with Islamophobia would be dealing with problematic posts like yours ascribing intentions and emotionally charged sentiments to statements that display no such intention. Go ahead and exactly quote the scrutinizable statement in the post above you, please.
>muh *phobia
There's nothing irrational in fear of islam, since whole "religion" is a call to conquest of others. Try opening a history book for a change instead of larping online about things you never experienced.
Not as much as police.
I'm guessing you're american, so maybe this absurd statement is true in your perceived reality, but no, the police do not cause more violence.
If theft is a form of violence, then American police do commit more of that form of violence than robbers do.
That's factual. For feds at least - it likely is for local police too but we don't have numbers to evaluate.
That's factual. For feds at least - it likely is for local police too but we don't have numbers to evaluate.
CamperBob2(1)
So does politics, sports teams, newspapers, TV, radio, various websites and humanity generally.
We surveil everyone all the time then?
We surveil everyone all the time then?
It's a matter of severity. If (fans of) a sports team frequently vandalizes a town after their team plays then yes, they absolutely should be surveilled.
Maybe everyone who worships divine literature that calls for indiscriminate violence, seems like a good start.
Those occur way less than the religious pipeline of radicalization.
Then the question is: is that down to the religion as a whole, or individuals therein? Is it morally defensible to target a whole demographic based on the actions of a few?
Think hard on that one, it says a lot about what kind of person you are, what your morals and personally held values are.
Think hard on that one, it says a lot about what kind of person you are, what your morals and personally held values are.
You can boil down anything to individuals. The war in Ukraine would not be happening if every individual refused to partake. But you know very well that is not how society works.
People share beliefs, they join a movement, and they do that mostly via small organizations like religious groups, political parties, friendship circles, internet forums and so on.
People share beliefs, they join a movement, and they do that mostly via small organizations like religious groups, political parties, friendship circles, internet forums and so on.
Your logic is the same as the kind one expects from Twitter posts about having one poison M&M in a bowl of M&Ms, so let’s throw out the entire bowl. Here’s why it’s stupid to think like that:
1) People are not borgs or hive mind enjoined entities. Yes, they may share beliefs or have friendship circles etc. but it’s irresponsible and reaching to believe that everyone thinks or will act the same simply by virtue of being in the same mosque or temple or church etc.
2) So because people are not borgs, there is a lot of factionalization, even in the same religious group, political party, Internet forum.
3) Even still, unless someone is actively going out to do something for some organization, you cannot penalize them for thought crimes by their association. Why? Because doing so usually leads to spread of authoritarian control.
This is a rough response to your comment because people already know these things on some level. I think some people willfully choose to be stupid because of their biases.
1) People are not borgs or hive mind enjoined entities. Yes, they may share beliefs or have friendship circles etc. but it’s irresponsible and reaching to believe that everyone thinks or will act the same simply by virtue of being in the same mosque or temple or church etc.
2) So because people are not borgs, there is a lot of factionalization, even in the same religious group, political party, Internet forum.
3) Even still, unless someone is actively going out to do something for some organization, you cannot penalize them for thought crimes by their association. Why? Because doing so usually leads to spread of authoritarian control.
This is a rough response to your comment because people already know these things on some level. I think some people willfully choose to be stupid because of their biases.
I never said anything like that. I’m opposing the idea that you should not look into that bowl because “not all M&Ms are poisoned”.
I am strongly opposed to surveillance in general and happy that they unearthed this as a violation, but at some point people will inevitably fall into buckets when an investigation is happening. There is nothing new about this.
A tip comes in about someone who frequents church X organizing a terrorist attack. Do you do a background check on church goers, look for suspicious activity, or sit back and twiddle your thumbs because this is “unfair targeting”?
Several attacks have actually happened in NL over the past decades, and recently scary connections with extremist groups found. It’s not hypothetical.
I am strongly opposed to surveillance in general and happy that they unearthed this as a violation, but at some point people will inevitably fall into buckets when an investigation is happening. There is nothing new about this.
A tip comes in about someone who frequents church X organizing a terrorist attack. Do you do a background check on church goers, look for suspicious activity, or sit back and twiddle your thumbs because this is “unfair targeting”?
Several attacks have actually happened in NL over the past decades, and recently scary connections with extremist groups found. It’s not hypothetical.
> A tip comes in about someone who frequents church X organizing a terrorist attack. Do you do a background check on church goers, look for suspicious activity, or sit back and twiddle your thumbs because this is “unfair targeting”?
Obviously no one will agree that the situation you described merits inaction. Preemptive surveillance “in case there is a terrorist” is a human rights violation because no one should be deprived of their privacy. Privacy is fundamental to psychological well being, creativity and self-determination.
Moreover, what’s to stop ideological enemies of one faction from sending false tips? Or to prevent progressive political action. For example, the FBI certainly considered civil rights activists as terrorists at one point (some still do, in different contexts). What if someone creates false flag terrorists to target a whole race? What if someone radicalizes someone by targeted harassment and stalking, and then blames their religion or culture if the target does something violent?
Yes, violence is scary and psychopaths doubly so. The response to violence and psychopaths is not to sacrifice human rights. We need to understand people and create more social cohesion. I think this also means understanding and identifying psychopathic and anti-social behaviors.
I don’t think killing people or locking them away from society is ever the answer because we will never run short of people to kill or lock away. We need less barbaric ways to deal with people, while also understanding the need for justice and revenge that being subject to such violence can create. The solution is not brute force surveillance. All this does is create resentment and political strife, and might lead to genocide.
Obviously no one will agree that the situation you described merits inaction. Preemptive surveillance “in case there is a terrorist” is a human rights violation because no one should be deprived of their privacy. Privacy is fundamental to psychological well being, creativity and self-determination.
Moreover, what’s to stop ideological enemies of one faction from sending false tips? Or to prevent progressive political action. For example, the FBI certainly considered civil rights activists as terrorists at one point (some still do, in different contexts). What if someone creates false flag terrorists to target a whole race? What if someone radicalizes someone by targeted harassment and stalking, and then blames their religion or culture if the target does something violent?
Yes, violence is scary and psychopaths doubly so. The response to violence and psychopaths is not to sacrifice human rights. We need to understand people and create more social cohesion. I think this also means understanding and identifying psychopathic and anti-social behaviors.
I don’t think killing people or locking them away from society is ever the answer because we will never run short of people to kill or lock away. We need less barbaric ways to deal with people, while also understanding the need for justice and revenge that being subject to such violence can create. The solution is not brute force surveillance. All this does is create resentment and political strife, and might lead to genocide.
Re: (1), disagree. Much of behavior is statistically predictable!
Maybe, but there are nuances to this. Emergent properties of various factors (biological or otherwise) make this somewhat useless.
Yes I have. Look for other comments from me for nuance.
I'm thinking about extremists and terrorists. So you're against surveillance of a mosque that is known to interact on the regular with terrorists? Or a nazi pub where attacks on the state are planned?
I'm thinking about extremists and terrorists. So you're against surveillance of a mosque that is known to interact on the regular with terrorists? Or a nazi pub where attacks on the state are planned?
That's quite a straw man. Looking back at Berlin Christmas Market terrorist attack, we can see what a failure of surveillance can result in.
I have a problem with surveillance on any criteria that's only marginally more specific than 'people the government doesn't like' or 'people who don't like the government'.
I would think that the biggest problem in the Netherlands is organized crime around drug imports.
>We really have a problem with targeted surveillance of specific communities like visitors of a specific mosque?
That's the very definition of the thing we should have a problem with.
That's the very definition of the thing we should have a problem with.
Would it be ok to surveil you just because you are a Twitter user, a known place for nazi gatherings? I'd say it's not ok.
Why stop there? I hear Nazis use the internet. By that logic, all internet users should be tracked.
All internet users are tracked, either by American and American-allied intelligence services or their own governments, all the time. If you're in the Western sphere of influence everything you say and do on any internet connected device goes to an NSA server for analysis, assuming they don't simply have direct access to your data through PRISM or secret warrants. And we kill people over metadata.
You can assume that what the Dutch are doing here is standard operating procedure everywhere, and that any laws to the contrary are just a facade.
You can assume that what the Dutch are doing here is standard operating procedure everywhere, and that any laws to the contrary are just a facade.
>All internet users are tracked, either by American and American-allied intelligence services or their own governments, all the time. If you're in the Western sphere of influence everything
Curious how you imply in both of these statements that this is a uniquely "western sphere" government activity.
I suppose that the governments of China, Russia and all the myriad states that aren't part of the western sphere are simply privacy and freedom-loving paragons of not being irresponsible with state power?
Curious how you imply in both of these statements that this is a uniquely "western sphere" government activity.
I suppose that the governments of China, Russia and all the myriad states that aren't part of the western sphere are simply privacy and freedom-loving paragons of not being irresponsible with state power?
They most likely have mass surveillance programs there too. But as far as I know, there's no smoking gun like there was with the Snowden leaks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disc...
>Curious how you imply in both of these statements that this is a uniquely "western sphere" government activity.
I didn't. The purpose of the clause "or their own governments" in the part of the comment you copied was to contrast the clause "American and American-allied intelligence services" (collectively referring to the "western" sphere of influence), inclusive of non-western spheres of influence, such as China and Russia.
Please, put in the minimum effort to read and understand all of the words people write, rather than simply scanning them to find some bad-faith interpretation from which to engage in political sniping. I am not the strawman living rent-free in your head. I never said anything about any non-Western government being freedom-loving paragons.
I didn't. The purpose of the clause "or their own governments" in the part of the comment you copied was to contrast the clause "American and American-allied intelligence services" (collectively referring to the "western" sphere of influence), inclusive of non-western spheres of influence, such as China and Russia.
Please, put in the minimum effort to read and understand all of the words people write, rather than simply scanning them to find some bad-faith interpretation from which to engage in political sniping. I am not the strawman living rent-free in your head. I never said anything about any non-Western government being freedom-loving paragons.
Twitter has over 300 million users. A pub frequented by known Nazis has 5 or 6 orders of magnitude less users.
I'm biased though. Spy on me all you want, i got nothing to hide
What happened with previous way where countries (was it "Seven Eyes"?) would spy on each others citizens, as a way to workaround such "You shall not warantlessly mass-spy on your own citizens" limitations?
From the top of my head, I recall at least USA, UK, Australia and Netherlands were among those 7.
From the top of my head, I recall at least USA, UK, Australia and Netherlands were among those 7.
I believe you’re thinking of Five Eyes.
Maybe 9 eyes?
The countries involved in the 5 Eyes, 9 Eyes, and 14 Eyes alliances and their partners
The countries involved in the 5 Eyes, 9 Eyes, and 14 Eyes alliances and their partners
Five Eyes countries: United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand
Nine Eyes countries: The Five Eyes plus Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, and France
Fourteen Eyes countries: The Nine Eyes plus Italy, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, and Spain
Partners of the 14 Eyes: Israel, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, British Overseas TerritoriesAnd it's actually hard to find much that looks like original news articles I thought I read.
This is close enough https://www.pcworld.com/article/448520/dutch-civil-society-g...
Though in my fuzzy memory there were some more specific examples/cases that were reported on.
This is close enough https://www.pcworld.com/article/448520/dutch-civil-society-g...
Though in my fuzzy memory there were some more specific examples/cases that were reported on.
Ah yes 9 eyes - I was thinking there were 5 and then 7 eyes (and recalled NL wasn't in the first group).
While trying to find years old news articles that mentioned some specific instances of Dutch doing "quid pro quo spying" for another countries ... So far I ran into https://www.jns.org/dutch-agency-spying-on-holocaust-survivo...
And holocaust survivors fits description of OP news article? /Note I didn't read this JNS article, nor know if website is credible/
While trying to find years old news articles that mentioned some specific instances of Dutch doing "quid pro quo spying" for another countries ... So far I ran into https://www.jns.org/dutch-agency-spying-on-holocaust-survivo...
And holocaust survivors fits description of OP news article? /Note I didn't read this JNS article, nor know if website is credible/
The Five Eyes (FVEY) is an Anglosphere intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
[deleted]
The first rule of intelligence services is that law is flexible, anyone that belives otherwise is in for a surprise.
I'm more surprised this even surfaced. I get a feeling in most other countries, this wouldn't be known about and everyone would just assume it happens.
I don't believe there can be a real expectation of secrecy nowadays, everything seems to surface at some point. Unless it doesn't and I would never know what I missed :)
Somewhat. It becomes a cat and mouse game of who knows what and will expose that if this is exposed. Once exposed the weight of the threat is lost. Similar to bringing the Gatling gun to the battlefield or MAD.
There are a lot of mitigations built in to protecting the things that need protection at an exceedingly high cost.
There are a lot of mitigations built in to protecting the things that need protection at an exceedingly high cost.
I would suggest, as a kind of an amusing game in possible scenario ideation, to assume that the people who wrote and published this article are running with the presumption that people already know these things are happening. So the main goal of this, therefore, would not be to enlighten an ignorant audience.
We “know” that news are orchestrated. They’re not really news because they’re often planned weeks or months in advance. We “know” that the media is there to shape public opinion. But what could they write to appeal to our biases? Perhaps make a subset of us feel righteous, angry, or smug, on a given day? Play to our vices just to play with us and keep us occupied and entertained?
Think about every person who posts something like “panem et circenses,” as a response, and imagine the smugness they feel at being so clever, has been a planned-for response from the people setting it all up.
We “know” that news are orchestrated. They’re not really news because they’re often planned weeks or months in advance. We “know” that the media is there to shape public opinion. But what could they write to appeal to our biases? Perhaps make a subset of us feel righteous, angry, or smug, on a given day? Play to our vices just to play with us and keep us occupied and entertained?
Think about every person who posts something like “panem et circenses,” as a response, and imagine the smugness they feel at being so clever, has been a planned-for response from the people setting it all up.
The main problems with laws is that there are too many of them and no one knows them all. I guess you could call that flexible because they keep adding new ones.
The Dutch also have a law that they cannot involve a civilian in long term observation for more than a year and then they need to provide them with a contract in advance but they don’t give a shit. I know that they have kept this up for more than 10 years and is not left at surveillance but also involves harassment and criminal offences. And also against none criminally involved people.
They have their laws and they have what they do. The laws are just to pacify people. But they are structurally ignored.
They have their laws and they have what they do. The laws are just to pacify people. But they are structurally ignored.
Around 20 years ago there was a big affair in the Netherlands called "The IRT affaire", Where the government themselves were becoming the biggest drug dealer. I know about this because I built the search engine for this dossier (file) for the NRC handelsblad at the time, a very large Dutch newspaper (Before later building one of the first national search engines for the Netherlands, Search.NL (https://www.eindhovenfotos.nl/1/ilse.nl.html)). This caused a huge shit storm.
Then there was a silence for 4 years, then they started again but learned from their experience. This time they shared the blame and formed the RIEC, an intelligence agency. The RIEC actually carries out their work through "their partners", police, council etc. This shared the blame, learning from their mistakes going on here. They also have deniability, they only give the partners instructions to follow, no reasons, they are instructed to keep only the bare minimum of information in their computers (Only what is absolutely necessary, which could in principle mean everything, it could be all done by word of mouth). So they keep that secret and the partners just do what they are told, doesn't matter how immoral it is. And finally, the organisation itself was formed without a human representative as the head. This technicality makes it be above the law in the Netherlands, you cannot sue an organisation if it doesn't have a human representative at the top. So the information about all of these activities are stored in computers by the RIEC, out of touch from accountability.
This new structure was a success, and they have been undermining democracy ever since. This started around the end of 2005 and the formal organisation was started around 2008.
When 9/11 started they started to empower the word "terrorism" to allow them to use the word to justify any new laws and powers they wanted. For the Dutch and this new approach they clearly saw the power of the word and came up with their own version called "undermining". And they claim that organised crime is undermining the fabric of society and in order to fight them to prevent this it's no longer sufficient to find evidence and convict criminals, now they need to intervene and take direct action against this. No evidence needed, anything goes. So now the government itself have become the organized criminals. And when it goes wrong, it goes horribly wrong and they simply cover everything up. This is where the press are supposed to be the counter balance for all of this. Unfortunately, the Netherlands have very good muzzles for the press and the press are no where near as proactive at printing stories about this sort of thing than they should be, so they get away with it and democracy itself is undermined more by the government than by the criminals. And the Dutch pushed this approach to neighboring Belgium and Germany who have a RIEC now as well.
Why do I know so much about this? Because I was a victim of when it goes horribly wrong. In 2004, I bought a house who's entrance passed literally between 2x other houses. Then end 2005 the guy in right house was busted for growing weed and the the guy in left house strangely appeared to be harrassing him three months before. This harrassment spread to us simply because we complained. Then after more than 10 years of serious harrassment and criminality against me I forced the case to court. It took 5x years (So then 13 years later)! (https://www.limburger.nl/cnt/dmf20180522_00062344). We only got to stop it at all by interrupting a live telecast of a council meeting (https://www.1limburg.nl/nieuws/1369805/boze-families-verstor...). Video of the protest here: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8RBSKi-UNk).
When it got to court, the prosecutor lied to the courts tried to blame it on me and then he retired, in 2018. Strangely there was a burst of prosecutors leaving their roles this year and no press investigated as to why (https://www.1limburg.nl/nieuws/1357826/leegloop-bij-justitie...). After this, once I recovered from the trauma, I investigated as to why a prosecutor would deliberately fail a case and that's when I discovered he was the former head of the RIEC and then all of the clues and events and people fell into place. And I discovered that he had lied in court before (https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1039807/liegende-officieren-...). The entire time this guy was actually being run by the Dutch government itself. I even took the police to court, they appealed, this also took 5x years and I won the appeal as well, I got to see over 1000 pages of police files, in there was evidence the the government were running and protecting the person doing the harrassing for more than 10 years (https://www.limburger.nl/cnt/dmf20180221_00056384). The rest is a huge story, which I won't put here, but in any case there was absolutely no accountability possible ever and I did not put a trivial amount of effort into this. So much for the power of the press...
Once I researched this it all make's sense. You have to find a stalking case suspicious when for more than 10 years of harrassment, attempted grevious bodily harm, theft and more the prosecutor only asked for 2 months provisional community service! WTF!! During this period, evidence vanished twice. The prosecutor had the role "recherche officier van justitie" part of whose job was to alignment with the head of team interventions as to what interventies they were going to carry out. The head of this department had migrated to be on the board of directors of the court of Maastricht before my case came to court. This same person (former head of team interventions) is also implicated in a case where 9x innocent people were put into jail on fabricated evidence (Search de villamoord https://kro-ncrv.nl/programmas/villamoord), when she was the head of the organised crime unit in Arheim before moving to become the head of the organised crime unit in Maastricht in 2010, the time at which the police had been instructed to never respond to my calls anymore.
The press were crap here, ignoring my attempts to get this published, mostly just ignoring all E-mails. No press in the Netherlands are willing to print my story. Mostly because they have ignored all of my attempts to communicate with them, but ones that didn't still wouldn't write about it.I even sent a message to the chief editor of the New York times about it who came to the Netherlands to talk to the press about how the press were the guardians of democracy. Unfortunately, she didn't didn't answer my mail. So much for that.
So don't go thinking that there seems to be a lot of press on this subject in the Netherlands, there is no where near enough.
Then there was a silence for 4 years, then they started again but learned from their experience. This time they shared the blame and formed the RIEC, an intelligence agency. The RIEC actually carries out their work through "their partners", police, council etc. This shared the blame, learning from their mistakes going on here. They also have deniability, they only give the partners instructions to follow, no reasons, they are instructed to keep only the bare minimum of information in their computers (Only what is absolutely necessary, which could in principle mean everything, it could be all done by word of mouth). So they keep that secret and the partners just do what they are told, doesn't matter how immoral it is. And finally, the organisation itself was formed without a human representative as the head. This technicality makes it be above the law in the Netherlands, you cannot sue an organisation if it doesn't have a human representative at the top. So the information about all of these activities are stored in computers by the RIEC, out of touch from accountability.
This new structure was a success, and they have been undermining democracy ever since. This started around the end of 2005 and the formal organisation was started around 2008.
When 9/11 started they started to empower the word "terrorism" to allow them to use the word to justify any new laws and powers they wanted. For the Dutch and this new approach they clearly saw the power of the word and came up with their own version called "undermining". And they claim that organised crime is undermining the fabric of society and in order to fight them to prevent this it's no longer sufficient to find evidence and convict criminals, now they need to intervene and take direct action against this. No evidence needed, anything goes. So now the government itself have become the organized criminals. And when it goes wrong, it goes horribly wrong and they simply cover everything up. This is where the press are supposed to be the counter balance for all of this. Unfortunately, the Netherlands have very good muzzles for the press and the press are no where near as proactive at printing stories about this sort of thing than they should be, so they get away with it and democracy itself is undermined more by the government than by the criminals. And the Dutch pushed this approach to neighboring Belgium and Germany who have a RIEC now as well.
Why do I know so much about this? Because I was a victim of when it goes horribly wrong. In 2004, I bought a house who's entrance passed literally between 2x other houses. Then end 2005 the guy in right house was busted for growing weed and the the guy in left house strangely appeared to be harrassing him three months before. This harrassment spread to us simply because we complained. Then after more than 10 years of serious harrassment and criminality against me I forced the case to court. It took 5x years (So then 13 years later)! (https://www.limburger.nl/cnt/dmf20180522_00062344). We only got to stop it at all by interrupting a live telecast of a council meeting (https://www.1limburg.nl/nieuws/1369805/boze-families-verstor...). Video of the protest here: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8RBSKi-UNk).
When it got to court, the prosecutor lied to the courts tried to blame it on me and then he retired, in 2018. Strangely there was a burst of prosecutors leaving their roles this year and no press investigated as to why (https://www.1limburg.nl/nieuws/1357826/leegloop-bij-justitie...). After this, once I recovered from the trauma, I investigated as to why a prosecutor would deliberately fail a case and that's when I discovered he was the former head of the RIEC and then all of the clues and events and people fell into place. And I discovered that he had lied in court before (https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1039807/liegende-officieren-...). The entire time this guy was actually being run by the Dutch government itself. I even took the police to court, they appealed, this also took 5x years and I won the appeal as well, I got to see over 1000 pages of police files, in there was evidence the the government were running and protecting the person doing the harrassing for more than 10 years (https://www.limburger.nl/cnt/dmf20180221_00056384). The rest is a huge story, which I won't put here, but in any case there was absolutely no accountability possible ever and I did not put a trivial amount of effort into this. So much for the power of the press...
Once I researched this it all make's sense. You have to find a stalking case suspicious when for more than 10 years of harrassment, attempted grevious bodily harm, theft and more the prosecutor only asked for 2 months provisional community service! WTF!! During this period, evidence vanished twice. The prosecutor had the role "recherche officier van justitie" part of whose job was to alignment with the head of team interventions as to what interventies they were going to carry out. The head of this department had migrated to be on the board of directors of the court of Maastricht before my case came to court. This same person (former head of team interventions) is also implicated in a case where 9x innocent people were put into jail on fabricated evidence (Search de villamoord https://kro-ncrv.nl/programmas/villamoord), when she was the head of the organised crime unit in Arheim before moving to become the head of the organised crime unit in Maastricht in 2010, the time at which the police had been instructed to never respond to my calls anymore.
The press were crap here, ignoring my attempts to get this published, mostly just ignoring all E-mails. No press in the Netherlands are willing to print my story. Mostly because they have ignored all of my attempts to communicate with them, but ones that didn't still wouldn't write about it.I even sent a message to the chief editor of the New York times about it who came to the Netherlands to talk to the press about how the press were the guardians of democracy. Unfortunately, she didn't didn't answer my mail. So much for that.
So don't go thinking that there seems to be a lot of press on this subject in the Netherlands, there is no where near enough.
> So, theoretically, the police intelligence services may have been spying on visitors to a certain mosque or protesting farmers.
Is this really that unreasonable? Im not sure I agree with any surveillance infrastructure but if you have it aren’t these the first places to start? I think it’s more a question of if surveillance is OK at all.
Is this really that unreasonable? Im not sure I agree with any surveillance infrastructure but if you have it aren’t these the first places to start? I think it’s more a question of if surveillance is OK at all.
Surveillance like that is not unreasonable. The part that has gotten the intelligence services in hot water is doing quite broad surveillance like that without good reason.
You can surveil a mosque if you suspect it to be a meeting ground for terrorists. You cannot surveil a mosque just because you feel like it.
You can surveil a mosque if you suspect it to be a meeting ground for terrorists. You cannot surveil a mosque just because you feel like it.
That's not quite the implication of the article though. If you need good cause to surveil a community and individuals then the fact that its a community is irrelevant.
I'll be honest, I've not read this specific article. The topic was all over the news for a few days here though so I've read plenty about the issue.
I feel like there's disproportionate coverage of Dutch intelligence drama/failures relative to size of the country. I'm assuming this is because their media is extra transparent or their intelligence extra leaky.
I think it's rather to do with the fact that the Dutch language corner of the Internet is relatively super small when compared to the other well connected European nations like Germany or France. We tend to mingle with the English language platforms more.
Pretty much this.
Plus there are a few “news” websites that bother translating Dutch news articles into English for expats and the like.
You see this happen less with French or German news, those are typically picked up by bigger US outlets and get drowned out by the plethora of news from the US and global news that is deemed more relevant to the US market.
Plus there are a few “news” websites that bother translating Dutch news articles into English for expats and the like.
You see this happen less with French or German news, those are typically picked up by bigger US outlets and get drowned out by the plethora of news from the US and global news that is deemed more relevant to the US market.
> I'm assuming this is because their media is extra transparent or their intelligence extra leaky.
No, there is nothing extra transparent about the general media in the Netherlands. And because they seem to cater for readers with a short average attention span, the articles are generally short and, unfortunately, too often lacking depth and perspective.
As an illustration, the NOS (https://nos.nl) which has nothing of the quality of, for instance, their German counterparts. (Their cycling, ice-skating and football coverage is excellent though)
Also, the modern Dutch are not a nation of philosophers, and that shows in they way they think (or do not think) about problems.
This might also explain why these intelligence drama/failures come up more often. They will generally not hesitate a single instant to clearly (for foreigners, it is often felt as "bluntly") tell you what is on their mind, and perhaps some employees didn't hesitate to express loudly the complaints she or he might have had about certain law-braking approaches.
No, there is nothing extra transparent about the general media in the Netherlands. And because they seem to cater for readers with a short average attention span, the articles are generally short and, unfortunately, too often lacking depth and perspective.
As an illustration, the NOS (https://nos.nl) which has nothing of the quality of, for instance, their German counterparts. (Their cycling, ice-skating and football coverage is excellent though)
Also, the modern Dutch are not a nation of philosophers, and that shows in they way they think (or do not think) about problems.
This might also explain why these intelligence drama/failures come up more often. They will generally not hesitate a single instant to clearly (for foreigners, it is often felt as "bluntly") tell you what is on their mind, and perhaps some employees didn't hesitate to express loudly the complaints she or he might have had about certain law-braking approaches.
There is absolutely not a disproportionate about of news on this. In fact what makes is to the news is just tip of the ice berg.
And their media is nothing like transparent. In fact there’s a lot if resistance to printing anything like this. If it gets a little old due to delaying tactics on cover up’s then it’s not printed at all. Even if it’s really damning.
And their media is nothing like transparent. In fact there’s a lot if resistance to printing anything like this. If it gets a little old due to delaying tactics on cover up’s then it’s not printed at all. Even if it’s really damning.
This will be a problem as long as there is surveillance.
And despite this big brother surveillance, they cannot protect their princess from the mafia?
Wait it’s not that monitoring an entire community is illegal, it’s just that they didn’t haven’t sufficient justification in some cases? Wtf
The lead:
> In the four-month period between February 23 and July 1, 2022
In the body:
> Between February 2023 and July 1, 2022
Somebody needs to use less chatgpt. At least read it before publishing, geez.
> In the four-month period between February 23 and July 1, 2022
In the body:
> Between February 2023 and July 1, 2022
Somebody needs to use less chatgpt. At least read it before publishing, geez.
NLTimes is (in my opinion) a trash site that's just publishing autogenerated translations. Very clickbaity with all the CAPITALS :P I don't know anyone that actually uses them as a news source.
I think it was linked to because all the real media are in Dutch.
https://dutchnews.nl is a way better site for English speakers.
I think it was linked to because all the real media are in Dutch.
https://dutchnews.nl is a way better site for English speakers.
Seems like this is a translation of another article (https://nos.nl/artikel/2508037-inlichtingendiensten-onderzoc...). The source does not have the error.
That's actually very likely. Besides famous example where actual people get confused - like "half drie" is "half past two" or "two thirty" (so if Dutch person is telling me time or number in English, I double check by repeating it to them in Dutch).
In my experience Google Translate often does silly things like mix up AM/PM, day and month, and often enough it even flips the meaning (say "not required" somehow becomes "required") when translating Dutch to English.
So every now and then (when it's really important stuff) I also double check the original Dutch version.
And yeah I should do it more often, or even just turn off automatic NL to EN translations...
In my experience Google Translate often does silly things like mix up AM/PM, day and month, and often enough it even flips the meaning (say "not required" somehow becomes "required") when translating Dutch to English.
So every now and then (when it's really important stuff) I also double check the original Dutch version.
And yeah I should do it more often, or even just turn off automatic NL to EN translations...
> Between February 2023 and July 1, 2022
These are Dutch Timecops. The suspects were seen fleeing into the past.
These are Dutch Timecops. The suspects were seen fleeing into the past.
Please refrain from baseless accusations of using AI, they (along with dutchnews.nl) are only a small company doing important work, not like large scale mainstream media outlets.
AI is in the midst of a gold rush period. Practically every media company everywhere is trying to find a way to profit from AI, not just large scale mainstream media outlets. At this point 10% of all content on the internet is AI generated, and that number is only bound to increase exponentially until the current AI hype cycle crashes.
I don't know if dutchnews.nl is or isn't using AI, but neither their size nor the "importance" of their work has any bearing on whether or not they might. If they aren't now, chances are they will sooner or later.
I don't know if dutchnews.nl is or isn't using AI, but neither their size nor the "importance" of their work has any bearing on whether or not they might. If they aren't now, chances are they will sooner or later.
> At this point 10% of all content on the internet is AI generated
[citation needed]
It's very low-effort autotranslated, and clickbaity with all the capitals though. Being a small outfit doesn't excuse them in my opinion.
Dutchnews.nl is very different because they have their own community. They make their own content, have guides for expats on how things are working there etc. They get a thumbs up from me for that, and I would recommend them to expats.
Dutchnews.nl is very different because they have their own community. They make their own content, have guides for expats on how things are working there etc. They get a thumbs up from me for that, and I would recommend them to expats.
That seems like the kind of error humans have made basically forever. Editing is hard.
Inspired by the US government ?
Lol? If they think this is a story just wait til they workout what the 5 eyes have been upto. Whole pop group? Pleb numbers.
Cross borders whole nation states is where it's at.
Cross borders whole nation states is where it's at.
[deleted]
It was back in the time of the SLA terrorism and Patty Hearst kidnapping. One of the brothers in East Oakland casually mentioned to a cop "What are all these hippies doing in our neighborhood?" (It turns out they were having a strategy meeting.) This got reported up the chain of command and OPD intelligence set up traffic stops all around the neighborhood perimeter. That was it. They just asked for ID of everyone leaving the neighborhood and recorded them, with special interest in anyone White.
When the sh!t hit the fan and the FBI got involved (soon thereafter) the OPD chief told the FBI they knew exactly who was involved. The FBI was dismissive and wasted valuable time. When the FBI hit a blank wall in regards to identifying SLA members they finally swallowed their pride and asked the OPD for the list. That's how the SLA membership was identified.