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

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

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

  • Miles O'Brien@startrek.websiteEnglish
    31·
    9 hours ago

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

    Insane bullshit.

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

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

    • James R Kirk@startrek.websiteEnglish
      126·
      9 hours ago

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

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

      • Feyd@programming.dev
        182·
        9 hours ago

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

        • James R Kirk@startrek.websiteEnglish
          1·
          34 minutes ago

          I’m saying by focusing on the irrelevant first aid kit you are playing into the hands of those who seek to discourage the use of private messaging apps.

        • arrow74@lemmy.zip
          32·
          5 hours ago

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

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

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

          • James R Kirk@startrek.websiteEnglish
            1·
            31 minutes ago

            The fact that anyone is even debating the (completely irrelevant) first aid kit means the disinformation campaign is working.