CBP So Confused It Seizes Clearly Labeled OnePlus Earbuds, And Falsely Claims They're Counterfeit Apple Airpods

from the can't-tell-your-ass-from-a... dept

Homeland Security and its various sub-organizations have a fairly tragic history of seizing things they shouldn't, claiming that non-infringing works are "counterfeits." And DHS continues to cluelessly push out press releases that only highlight how ignorant they are regarding the basics of the very laws they're supposed to be enforcing.

Usually, our posts on this subject focus on ICE, but it appears that its sister organization, Customs and Border Patrol, wants to get in on the act as well. Last week, CBP put out a ridiculous press release proudly claiming to have "seized" counterfeit Apple Airpods at JFK.

On August 31, CBP officers seized 2,000 counterfeit Apple Airpod Earbuds from Hong Kong destined for Nevada at an air cargo facility located at John F. Kennedy International Airport. If the merchandise were genuine, the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) would have been $398,000.

“CBP Officers are protecting the American public from various dangers on a daily basis,” said Troy Miller, Director of CBP’s New York Field Operations. “The interception of these counterfeit earbuds is a direct reflection of the vigilance and commitment to mission success by our CBP Officers daily.”

Because at some point, CBP may wise up and delete this press release, here's an archived version.

To understand why this is laughable, you have to see the pictures of the seized "counterfeit" Airpods. Conveniently, clueless people at CBP decided to tweet it out:

In case you can't see that tweet and the pictures, those are very clearly and accurately labeled as OnePlus Buds. OnePlus is a popular maker of Android mobile phones (I have one!) and accessories. It may be true that OnePlus's bluetooth earbuds look somewhat similar to Apple's Airpods, but that's true of lots of different Bluetooth earbuds, and since the packaging here clearly shows that these are from OnePlus and not at all attempting to mimic or pretend to be Apple packaging, suggests that CBP, yet again, has seized legitimate products while stupidly insisting that they're counterfeit.

OnePlus even responded to CBP on Twitter:

It's almost depressing how bad DHS, CBP, and ICE are the jobs we've given them. Perhaps it's time to just do away with all of them.

Filed Under: airpods, cbp, competition, counterfeit, dhs, seizures
Companies: apple, oneplus

ACLU Sues Federal Officers Over Excessive Force Deployed Against Portland Protesters

from the feds-chose-the-thug-life dept

The Trump Administration's decision to send federal agents -- led by the DHS -- to Portland, Oregon to handle civil unrest (prompted by yet another killing of an unarmed Black man by a white police officer) continues to generate litigation.

Supposedly sent to protect federal buildings targeted by Portland protesters, the DHS task force -- composed of CBP, ICE, and FPS officers -- rolled into Portland Gestapo-style, sending out unidentified officers to toss people into unmarked vehicles, spiriting them away to undisclosed locations to be subjected to detainment and interrogations that were never documented.

The DHS task force redefined riot police to include rioting federal police. Officers attacked press and legal observers with the same enthusiasm they attacked protesters with. Local journalists sued, obtaining a restraining order against federal agents… one the federal agents immediately violated.

Another lawsuit has been filed, this one accusing the DHS task force of violating the rights of protesters. The ACLU -- along with a number of other plaintiffs (including the "Black Millennial Movement") claims federal officers are deploying excessive force and engaging in unlawful detainments of participants in the ongoing Portland protests.

The complaint [PDF] opens up with a nice little dig at the Administration's unwillingness to properly staff its departments, reminding the court (and readers) the DHS still doesn't have a legally appointed director.

As part of a federal mission known as “Operation Diligent Valor,” spurred by President Donald J. Trump and directed by the purported Acting Director of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Chad Wolf, the federal government deployed more than a hundred federal law enforcement officers or agents employed by a variety of federal agencies in an alleged effort to “quell” the protests, which were occurring near the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse (the “Hatfield Courthouse”) in the center of Portland.

As befits an administration that likes the concept of "rule of law" as long as no one applies it to the administration, the DHS task force began violating laws and rights as soon as it set foot in Oregon.

Such federal law enforcement officials, heavily armed and clad in military-type camouflage or dark uniforms, indiscriminately used violent tactics on lawful protesters, including shooting them in the head and body with impact munitions and pepper balls, spraying them directly in the face with pepper spray, shoving them to the ground, hitting and beating them with batons, firing massive clouds of tear gas at them, and, in some instances, arresting and detaining them without any lawful basis.

All pretty unlawful. And that's if you accept the assumption that the DHS has the legal authority to perform duties normally performed by local law enforcement. And there's no reason you should accept that because [taps link discussing Chad Wolf's illegitimately obtained position].

“Operation Diligent Valor” was not legally authorized. Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. § 1315(a), the Acting Secretary of DHS has limited statutory authority to designate DHS employees to “protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal Government . . . and the persons on the property.” Defendant Wolf, however, had no such authority because he was not properly designated and serving as the Acting Secretary of DHS under the requirements of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. § 113(g), and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act., 5 U.S.C. § 3348. As a result, he had (and still has) no authority whatsoever under 40 U.S.C. § 1315 and his designation of DHS officers pursuant to “Operation Diligent Valor” was null and void.

If the court chooses to believe Chad Wolf was legitimately appointed, this won't change much.

[E]ven assuming “Operation Diligent Valor” had been properly authorized, the DHS officers conducting the operation exceeded their limited powers under 40 U.S.C. § 1315, which does not allow making warrantless arrests or taking actions such as detaining individuals or suppressing protests in locations that are away from, or not required to protect, federal property.

The officers brought in to settle things down riled them up instead. They shot protesters in the face with "less lethal" munitions, flooded the streets with tear gas whether or not the situation demanded extreme crowd control, expanded their "perimeter" far past the federal buildings they were supposed to protect, and snatched people off the streets (and, sometimes, right out of their vehicles).

The DHS task force also ignored local politicians' demands they leave the city and allow the Portland Police to handle ongoing protests. An agreement was reached between the Trump administration and the governor of Oregon for federal officers to leave downtown Portland. They didn't.

DHS confirmed that although federal officers had not interfered with peaceful protesters during the preceding days, “[t]here has been no reduction in federal presence; federal law enforcement officers remain in Portland at augmented levels.” “[T]he increased federal presence in Portland will remain until [DHS] is certain that federal property is safe.”

[...]

On August 7, 2020, OPB also reported that federal officials speaking off the record said that some of the forces might be drawn down, depending on how the weekend went, but an elevated force would likely remain in Portland through the November election.

Here's a sampling of the abuse suffered by Portland protesters under the purported command of Chad Wolf's DHS:

Federal officials were clearing nonviolent protesters in SW Third Avenue immediately in front of the Hatfield Courthouse, some 15 to 20 yards away from where Mr. Smiff was standing. Mr. Smiff was approximately 10 feet away from any other protesters. When Mr. Smiff looked down at his phone to send a tweet, he was shot in the right side of his face with an indelible hard-cap paintball, just below the line of his helmet and just above a face mask he was wearing.

[...]

On July 24, 2020, she was personally subjected to such unlawful tactics when she had a tear gas cannister hurled into her head, causing a three-inch gash to her forehead that ultimately required 11 stitches. Ms. Denison had come to the protests that evening as a member of the Wall of Moms, an unincorporated association with a mission to support Black Lives Matter, and to protect protesters supporting Black Lives Matter from being subject to excessive use of force by the federal government.

[...]

Mr. David then attempted to ask the officers what they were doing and why they were not honoring their oath to support the Constitution. The officers did not verbally respond or instruct Mr. David to move, but one of the officers trained his firearm on Mr. David’s chest and then lowered it, after which another officer plowed into Mr. David to knock him back.

Mr. David stumbled backwards in the street to recover his balance. Two federal officers then approached Mr. David, one after the other, and struck him with their batons while one of them deployed a canister of chemical irritant spray directly into Mr. David’s face. Mr. David was able to knock the cannister away in self-defense only to have another officer approach and spray him in the face again.

[...]

A flash-bang grenade then went off at Mr. McNulty’s feet, and the area began to fill with tear gas, which was blowing towards Mr. McNulty. To escape from the tear gas, Mr. McNulty moved through the intersection of Main Street and SW Third Avenue, crossing in front of the federal officers. As he crossed the intersection, his eyes and face began to burn. The federal officers then shot Mr. McNulty four times: three times with rubber bullets and one time with a pepper ball. He was given no warning and was not disobeying any orders or engaging in any violence before he was shot.

Mr. McNulty was bleeding, in considerable pain, and unable to move easily. He sought out volunteer medics who could assist him. The medics provided Mr. McNulty with short-term treatment and sent him to a hospital emergency room. At the emergency room, Mr. McNulty learned that one of the munitions that struck him in the back had not only gone through his clothes, but pierced his skin, fat layer, and at least one layer of muscle. The wound was severe enough that Mr. McNulty had to have a CT scan to confirm that it had not punctured his peritoneal cavity.

The ACLU and other plaintiffs are asking the court to find federal officers violated the rights of protesters by subjecting them to excessive force and curtailing their ability to protest peacefully. The ACLU is also wants the court to compel the release of records related to the unlawful arrest of one of the plaintiffs, which includes anything accessed by officers on the phone they seized during his arrest.

The federal government's interlopment in Portland has been 100% ugly. And it's been encouraged by the Commander-in-Chief, someone who appears to feel the "rule of law" should be applied rapidly and harshly against those questioning decades of abuse at the hands of law enforcement.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, dhs, excessive force, police, portland, protests, unlawful detainment
Companies: aclu

Appeals Court Says Not Allowing Federal Officers To Pepper Spray Journalists Makes Law Enforcement Too Difficult

from the protecting-the-right-to-be-tear-gassed dept

The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has just stripped away the protections granted to journalists and legal observers covering ongoing protests in Portland, Oregon. After journalists secured an agreement from local police to stop assaulting journalists and make them exempt from dispersal orders, the DHS's ad hoc riot control force (composed of CBP, ICE, and Federal Protective Services) showed up and started tossing people into unmarked vans and assaulting pretty much everyone, no matter what credentials they displayed. Shortly after that, a federal court in Oregon granted a restraining order forbidding federal agents from attacking journalists and observers.

Not that granting the restraining order did much to prevent federal officers from beating journalists with batons, spraying them with pepper spray, or making sure they weren't left out of any tear gassings. The plaintiffs were soon back in court seeking sanctions against federal violators of the order. The DHS said it couldn't identify any of the officers and stated it had punished no one for violating the order. This prompted the judge to add more stipulations to the order, including the wearing of identification numbers by officers engaging in riot control.

Unfortunately for journalists and legal observers, the restraining order is no longer in place. It was rolled back by the Appeals Court in a very short order [PDF] with the court finding that a blanket order protecting journalists and observers from being assaulted makes things too tough for federal cops. (via Courthouse News)

Based on our preliminary review, appellants have made a strong showing of likely success on the merits that the district court’s injunction exempting “Journalists” and “Legal Observers” from generally applicable dispersal orders is without adequate legal basis. Given the order’s breadth and lack of clarity, particularly in its non-exclusive indicia of who qualifies as “Journalists” and “Legal Observers,” appellants have also demonstrated that, in the absence of a stay, the order will cause irreparable harm to law enforcement efforts and personnel.

DHS personnel will still have to comply with the stipulation of the now dead restraining order requiring them to ID themselves:

This order does not disturb the portion of the district court’s August 20, 2020 order directing the parties to confer regarding identifying markings…

The equally short dissent disagrees. The restraining order has been in place for more than a month at this point and the federal task force hasn't found itself unable to engage in crowd control and riot suppression efforts.

In light of the deferential review accorded to the district court’s factual finding at this stage, the district court’s extensive factual findings with respect to journalists and legal observers, including the finding that the injunction would not impair law enforcement operations to protect federal property and personnel, and the fact that a temporary restraining order has been in place since July 23, 2020, the government has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate either an emergency or irreparable harm to support an immediate administrative stay.

This will be appealed. And it may end up being something the Supreme Court will feel like addressing. There's a question that needs to be answered since the future will contain plenty of protests and plenty of people covering them. This was how the district court judge explained it in an earlier hearing:

Simon initially said at a hearing Tuesday that the question of whether journalists have different rights under the First Amendment than those of protesters, who legally must leave an area after a riot has been declared, was likely to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

But Judge Simon took a pass on that question in his decision -- the one now rejected by the Appeals Court.

Someday, a court may need to decide whether the First Amendment protects journalists and authorized legal observers, as distinct from the public generally, from having to comply with an otherwise lawful order to disperse from city streets when journalists and legal observers seek to observe, document, and report the conduct of law enforcement personnel; but today is not that day.

With this rejection by the Appeals Court, that "someday" may be much closer than it was a little more than a week ago, when journalists and observers were still shielded from being assaulted by federal officers. The gloves are off now and federal agents are free to treat them like the rest of the crowd when deploying force.

Filed Under: 9th circuit, dhs, due process, journalists, portland, protests, restraining order

CBP Is Still Buying Location Data From A Company Currently Being Investigated By Congress

from the dodging-oversight-from-two-other-branches dept

Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal revealed that ICE and CBP were buying location data from third-party data brokers -- something that seemed like a calculated move to dodge the requirements of the Supreme Court's Carpenter decision. There's a warrant requirement for historical cell site location data, but the two agencies appear to believe gathering tons of "pseudonymized" data to "help identify and locate" undocumented immigrants isn't a Fourth Amendment problem.

At this point, they're probably right. They may not be correct but they don't have court precedent telling them they can't do this. Not yet. So, they're doing it. It may not be immediately invasive as approaching a cell service provider for weeks or months of location data related to a single person, but this concerted effort to avoid running anything by a judge suggests even the DHS feels obtaining data this way is quasi-legal at best.

In late June, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform opened an investigation into Venntel's sale of location data to ICE and CBP. The Committee asked Venntel to hand over information about its data sales, whether or not it obtained consent from phone users to gather this data, and whether it applied any restrictions to the use of data by government agencies. The answers to the Committee's questions were due in early July. So far, Venntel has yet to respond.

Venntel's business hasn't slowed despite being investigated by Congress. Joseph Cox reports for Motherboard that CBP has just signed another deal with the data broker.

Earlier this month U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) paid nearly half a million dollars to a company that sells a product based on location data harvested from ordinary apps installed on peoples' phones, according to public procurement records reviewed by Motherboard.

[...]

CBP paid just under $476,000 for "Venntel Software" on August 5, according to the public procurement record.

Venntel's data collection does have limitations that makes it more useful for these agencies than others that have tried it.

The office of Senator Ron Wyden found that the criminal investigation unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tried to use Venntel data to identify and track potential criminal suspects. The IRS failed to locate any targets of interest during the year-long contract.

The Venntel data is more useful for tracking "herds of people," the second former worker told Motherboard. The Wall Street Journal's February report mentioned agencies have used Venntel data to identify border crossings and then arrest people.

But even with these limitations, it's still powerful enough to be of concern, especially when it appears federal agencies are willing to buy data from brokers rather than approach service providers with subpoenas and warrants. Venntel's "product" comes from cellphone apps that collect location data. Venntel generates its own identifiers for each device to tie location data together. Customers like ICE can either ask for all data gathered at certain locations or search by identifier to collect all data tied to that device.

And it's not just about securing the border. ICE and CBP are also authorized to use Venntel's data to assist in "law enforcement operations." Venntel claims it doesn't sell access to local law enforcement agencies, but it appears CBP and ICE have the capability -- and presumably the willingness -- to perform proxy searches for agencies Venntel won't sell to.

If it's questionable for a private company to sell data to the federal government while under investigation from another branch of that same government, it's doubly questionable for a federal agency to continue doing business with a company being investigated by Congress. But people without papers must be caught, I guess, even if some rights must be violated (or evaded) to do it.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, cbp, data brokers, dhs, ice, privacy, warrant
Companies: venntel

Shitbirds Of A Feather Flock Together: ICE Signs $274,000 Contract With Clearview

from the voted-Most-Hateable-for-two-years-running! dept

ICE continues to not care what anyone thinks of it. Its tactics over the past few years have turned it into one of the federal government's most infamous monsters, thanks to its separation of families, caging of children, unfettered surveillance of undocumented immigrants, its fake university sting created to punish students trying to remain in the country legally, its sudden rescinding of COVID-related distance learning guidelines solely for the purpose of punishing students trying to remain in the country legally… well, you get the picture.

Perhaps it's fitting ICE is buying tech from a company that appears unconcerned that most of the public hates it. Clearview -- the facial recognition software that matches uploaded facial images with billions of images scraped from the open web -- is one of the latest additions to ICE's surveillance tech arsenal.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) signed a contract with facial recognition company Clearview AI this week for “mission support,” government contracting records show (as first spotted by the tech accountability nonprofit Tech Inquiry). The purchase order for $224,000 describes “clearview licenses” and lists “ICE mission support dallas” as the contracting office.

That its new partner is being sued in multiple states (including a suit filed by the Vermont Attorney General) doesn't appear to concern ICE, which is itself often on the receiving end of lawsuits. Clearview may be making good on its promise to pull out of the private market and sell only to government agencies, but that just means it will be only governments using unproven AI and scraped images to pursue investigations and arrest people.

Clearview's statement to The Verge about its contract with ICE makes it appear this is all about the children:

“Clearview AI’s agreement is with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), which uses our technology for their Child Exploitation Unit and ongoing criminal investigations,” Clearview AI CEO Hoan Ton-That said in an emailed statement to The Verge. “Clearview AI has enabled HSI to rescue children across the country from sexual abuse and exploitation.”

Clearview leans on the children here, but the statement says a couple of other interesting things I'm sure Ton-That would rather slide by unnoticed. First: "and ongoing criminal investigations." ICE considers every undocumented immigrant to be a criminal, which means the agency is going to use this software to track down people in the US for committing the civil violation of staying in the country without the proper paperwork. ICE has not been able to find enough dangerous immigrants to make the administration's public statements about rampaging hordes of bad hombres come true, so it has decided to go after everyone, including students here on visas.

Second, Clearview claims it has "enabled" HSI to "rescue children across the country." I'd say we'd just have to take its word on this but we certainly don't have to take its word on this because it's said things like this in the past only for the named law enforcement agency to contradict Clearview's claims when asked for comment. That may be what Clearview hopes its partnership with ICE/HSI will do, but it's difficult to believe the recently signed contract has already produced results or that ICE/HSI are really using this mostly to fight child sexual exploitation rather than just uploading photos of brown people and hoping for hits.

Either way, we can safely conclude both partners here suck. ICE is bad and keeps getting worse, and Clearview isn't ever going to improve and is presumably still scraping sites for "content" it can sell to its customers.

Filed Under: dhs, facial recognition, for the children, hsi, ics, surveillance
Companies: clearview, clearview ai

DHS Agencies Are Taking Millions In Cash From Travelers Every Year, Can't Be Bothered To Stop Any Crimes

from the taking-taxpayers'-dimes-on-the-taxpayers'-dime dept

In a little over 15 years, DHS agencies interacted with millions of travelers passing through our nation's airports… and relieved them of over $2 billion in cash. (And that's just agencies like the CBP and ICE. The DEA also lifts cash from airline passengers -- something it loves doing so much it hires TSA agents to look for money, rather than stuff that could threaten transportation security.)

That's just one of several disturbing findings in the Institute for Justice's (IJ) new report [PDF] on the DHS's ability to separate travelers from their money. Utilizing the Treasury Department's forfeiture database, the IJ discovered the DHS is a fan of taking cash and does so more frequently at certain airports. The most popular airport for cash seizures is, by far, Chicago's O'Hare. In 2014, the airport accounted for 34% of all cash seized despite handling only 6% of all air travelers.

More travelers means more opportunities, which explains some of the increase in seizures over the past decade. But as the IJ points out, seizures are outpacing the bump in travel stats.

Between 2000 and 2016, the number of air travelers increased 46%, while the inflation-adjusted value of currency seized at airports by DHS agencies increased 140% and the number of airport currency seizure cases grew 178%.

Any international airport will be patrolled by CBP and ICE agents looking for cash to seize. And they're not looking to catch drug dealers, human traffickers, or any other criminals that might be carrying cash around. No, the most common criminal activity to result in forfeitures is nothing more than a reporting violation.

Federal law requires travelers to declare any currency over $10,000 when traveling into or out of the country. It's pretty easy to get this done when traveling into the US, as arriving visitors will be required to go through Customs and declare anything they're bringing into the country, including cash. Outbound travelers may not realize this applies to them and since they're not required to pass through Customs on the way out, they may have no idea they're violating the law. That's an opportunity DHS agencies are more than happy to capitalize on. Half of all seizures between 2000-2016 were for violating this reporting requirement.

In fact, serious criminal activity is something no one seizing money seems very concerned about. Asset forfeiture isn't about dismantling criminal empires. It's about taking cash from people who have limited means to fight back. If the government has all your cash, it's pretty tough to hire a lawyer and fight an uphill battle against a system that dispenses with the property's former owner completely to engage in litigation against the cash itself.

Overall, 69% of DHS agency airport currency seizure cases were not accompanied by an arrest, regardless of the alleged offense. This means less than a third of the time was an offense egregious enough, or the evidence strong enough, to warrant an arrest.

This isn't just a DHS thing. It's an everybody thing.

In 2017, the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General conducted an in-depth study of a sample of 100 Drug Enforcement Administration forfeiture cases. The study found that only 44 of those cases advanced or were even related to a criminal investigation. That same year, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reviewed a sample of 278 cases in which currency was seized under “structuring” laws, which prohibit conducting bank transactions below $10,000 to evade federal reporting requirements. The law is in place to prevent crimes like money laundering, but the study found that in 91% of cases, the seized funds were from a legal source, such as a family-owned business. The study also found that IRS agents were encouraged to conduct “quick hits,” where property was easier to seize, “rather than pursue cases with other criminal activity (such as drug trafficking or money laundering), which are more time-consuming.”

Taking money from people has always been easier than fighting crime. That much has been obvious for years. The IRS said the quiet part loud on accident. This report says everything the government isn't willing to admit to the public, much less itself: the point of forfeiture programs is to enrich those performing the forfeitures. That's it. That's the entire thing. Any reductions in criminal activity are purely coincidental.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, cbp, civil asset forfeiture, dhs, ice, legalized theft, tsa

Gullible Maine & DHS Intel Officers Believed Teen TikTok Video Was Serious Terrorist Threat

from the this-just-keeps-getting-dumber dept

We've been noting for a few weeks that much of the hysteria surrounding TikTok is kind of dumb. For one, banning TikTok doesn't really do much to thwart Chinese spying, given our privacy and security incompetence leaves us vulnerable on countless fronts. Most of the folks doing the heaviest pearl clutching over TikTok have opposed efforts at any meaningful internet privacy rules, have opposed funding election security reform, and have been utterly absent or apathetic in the quest for better security and privacy practices over all (the SS7 flaw, cellular location data scandals, etc.).

Even the idea that banning TikTok meaningfully thwarts Chinese spying given the country's total lack of scruples, bottomless hacking budget, and our own security and privacy incompetence (the IOT comes quickly to mind) is fairly laughable. Banning TikTok to thwart Chinese spying is kind of like spitting at a thunderstorm in the hopes of preventing rain. Genuine privacy and security reform starts by actually engaging in serious privacy and security reform, not (waves in the general direction of Trump's bizarre, extortionist, TikTok agenda) whatever the hell this is supposed to be.

I see the entire TikTok saga as little more than bumbling, performative nonsense by wholly unserious people more interested in money, politics, leverage, and power than privacy or national security. Case in point: desperate to create the idea that TikTok is a serious threat, a new document leak reveals that the Department of Homeland Security has spent a good chunk of this year circulating the claim that a nineteen year-old girl was somehow "training terrorists" via a comedy video she posted to TikTok.

According to Mainer, the video in question was sent to police departments across Maine by the Maine Information and Analysis Center (MIAC), part of the DHS network of so-called "Fusion Centers" tasked with sharing and and distributing information about "potential terrorist threats." The problem: when you dig through the teen in question's TikTok posts, it's abundantly clear after about four minutes of watching that she's not a threat. The tweet itself appears to have been deleted, but it too (duh) wasn't anything remotely resembling a genuine terrorist threat or security risk:

"In the TikTok clip, Weirdsappho first displays a satirical tweet from the stand-up comedian Jaboukie Young-White, a correspondent for The Daily Show, that “thanks” police for “bringing in the army” to combat peaceful protests against police brutality. The tweet encourages protestors to throw “water balloons filled w sticky liquids (esp some sort of sugar/milk/syrup combo)” at tanks, in order to “support our troops."

And yet, after the clip got picked up and spread around by a handful of Qanon conspiracy cultists, it was, in turn, picked up and spread around by utterly unskeptical and uncritical agents at DHS and MIAC, who have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to far right extremism (for what should be obvious reasons), but can be easily worked into a lather where the vile menace "antifa" is concerned:

"Fusion Centers like MIAC, which is headquartered in Augusta and run by the Maine State Police, are engaged in a pattern of spreading misinformation, based on far-right rumors, that raise fears of leftist violence at peaceful protests against police brutality. Earlier this month, Mainer exposed how two social media posts by unreliable sources became fodder for official warnings about anarchist “plots” to leave stacks of bricks at protest sites for use as weapons against police.

In a July 15 article based on the BlueLeaks files, The Intercept revealed how DHS and its fusion centers are hyping far-fetched plots by alleged anti-fascist “antifa” activists despite evidence that far-right extremists pose actual threats to law enforcement personnel and protesters."

The idea that law enforcement and "intelligence officials" can't (or just won't) differentiate between joking political teen videos and serious terrorism threats should be terrifying to anybody with a whit of common sense. But it's not just part and parcel for a law enforcement and intel community that apparently can't behave or think objectively, it's par for the course for this wave of TikTok hysteria that's not based on much in the way of, you know, facts.

Filed Under: comedy, dhs, maine, satire, terrorist content, terrorist threat
Companies: tiktok

DHS Obtained Protesters' Encrypted Messages, Used Them To Craft 'Intelligence' Reports

from the and-lied-to-oversight-about-them dept

The more the DHS inserts itself into the ongoing civil unrest, the more unrestful it gets. President Trump sent his federal forces to Portland, Oregon -- the first of many "democrat" cities the president feels are too violent/unrestful -- to protect federal buildings from violent graffiti outbursts or whatever. When the DHS arrived -- represented by the CBP, ICE, US Marshals, and other federal law enforcement -- it announced its arrival with secret police tactics straight out of the Gestapo playbook.

Since that wasn't martial state enough, the federal officers turned things up, opening fire on journalists and legal observers. Literally. Local journalists were tear gassed, hit with pepper spray/pepper balls, and shot with "non-lethal" projectiles. The journalists and observers sued the federal government, securing a restraining order forbidding federal officers from continuing to violate the Constitution. Federal officers refused to stop (their) rioting and now may face sanctions for their actions. They will definitely be facing additional lawsuits since the restraining order made it clear willful violators would not be granted qualified immunity.

As if all of this wasn't enough, news leaked out that DHS was compiling "intelligence reports" on local journalists, as well as journalists located elsewhere in the nation who had published leaked DHS documents. One day after breaking the news about the journalist-targeting "intelligence reports," the Washington Post broke more news -- again with the aid of a leaked DHS document. This one shows the DHS is (still) on the wrong side of the First Amendment. It also appears to show the agency lying to its oversight.

A senior Department of Homeland Security official told a Senate committee earlier this month that the department had not collected, exploited or analyzed information from the electronic devices or accounts of protesters in Portland, Ore.

But an internal DHS document obtained by The Washington Post shows the department did have access to protesters’ electronic messages and that their conversations were written up in an “intelligence report” that was disseminated to federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, as well as state and local governments.

This news broke on July 31. On July 23, acting DHS undersecretary Brian Murphy told the Senate Intelligence Committee the agency's Intelligence and Analysis division had "neither collected nor exploited or analyzed information" obtained from "accounts" belonging to protesters or detainees.

Murphy had to have known his statements to the Intelligence Committee were false.

A DHS Open Source Intelligence Report dated six days before Murphy’s briefing to the committee shows that the I & A office analyzed messages that protesters exchanged on the Telegram messaging app. They discussed which routes to take during marches and how to avoid the police.

The messages quoted in the so-called "Open Source" report don't detail any planned wrongdoing. (Also: Telegram's encrypted messaging system cannot honestly be called "open source." It's not like viewing public accounts on social media, which is what "open source" usually means in this context.) Instead, the "analyzed" messages show protesters pointing out the obvious to each other. Walking towards or through residential neighborhoods draws less federal law enforcement attention. This makes sense because the feds are only there to defend the federal buildings located in downtown Portland. They're not in Portland to conduct normal law enforcement work Here's a representative quote:

“Seems they’re less inclined to go into residential neighborhoods which makes sense.”

And here's how those communications -- possibly obtained from an informant or undercover officer with access to the Telegram group -- were portrayed by DHS I&A.

[d]iscussing [...] TTPs [tactics, techniques and procedures] to evade law enforcement when being pursued…

The DHS has no business infiltrating groups participating in protected speech, just like it has no business compiling dossiers on journalists. Whatever pressure it may be feeling from an administration seemingly hellbent on portraying organic anti-police protests as organized antifa riots doesn't excuse these actions. The DHS may want to please its boss by bringing him some evidence of paid protesting, but it can't just ignore the Constitution until agents find what they're looking for.

Filed Under: dhs, encryption, intelligence reports, lies, protests, secret police, surveillance
Companies: telegram

The Latest Targets Of DHS Surveillance Are Journalists Who Published Leaked Documents

from the can't-secure-a-homeland-without-breaking-a-few-amendments dept

Is there anything the DHS can't turn into a debacle while pretending to secure the homeland? It would appear it's impossible for America's least essential security agency to move forward without stepping in something.

As protests in Portland neared the 60-day mark, the DHS was tasked with protecting federal property like courthouses and… um… statues. ICE, CBP, Federal Protective Services, and US Marshals all arrived in Portland ready to go to war with people exercising their First Amendment rights. You only have one chance to make a first impression, and the unidentified officers from unknown agencies throwing protesters into unmarked vehicles was one hell of a first impression.

The federal agencies went to war, firing tear gas and projectiles at protesters, rioters, journalists, and legal observers. It made no difference to the DHS which was which. But it did make a difference to a federal judge, who issued a temporary restraining order forbidding federal officers from attacking, gassing, assaulting, or arresting journalists and observers who were just trying to do their jobs.

The federal officers immediately violated the restraining order. Or, more accurately, they never stopped doing the stuff that earned them the restraining order in the first place. Apparently, the DHS feels it hasn't violated First Amendment rights hard enough. The latest black eye for the DHS is more targeting of journalists, this time with surveillance.

The Department of Homeland Security has compiled “intelligence reports” about the work of American journalists covering protests in Portland, Ore., in what current and former officials called an alarming use of a government system meant to share information about suspected terrorists and violent actors.

Over the past week, the department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis has disseminated three Open Source Intelligence Reports to federal law enforcement agencies and others, summarizing tweets written by two journalists — a reporter for the New York Times and the editor in chief of the blog Lawfare — and noting they had published leaked, unclassified documents about DHS operations in Portland. The intelligence reports, obtained by The Washington Post, include written descriptions and images of the tweets and the number of times they had been liked or retweeted by others.

Ironically, one of the leaks involved discussions of other leaks. An internal memo leaked to Benjamin Wittes, who runs the Lawfare blog, complains about earlier leaks.

Here's an excerpt from the leaked memo about leaked memos.

[T]he ongoing leaks related to our work in Portland remain of great to concern as it distracts from our mission and creates opportunities for others to exploit this information for their own benefit. This is wrong and we must make every effort to protect our information and prevent our work from being manipulated in any way.

Not sure what this official thinks journalists are "exploiting" and "manipulating." One of the leaked documents published by Lawfare gave DHS components permission to engage in domestic surveillance on behalf of statues and monuments. There doesn't appear to be any spin here.

It appears the DHS will stop doing this thing it supposedly only just started doing just this one time, allegedly without the knowledge of the guy acting like he's running the place. An angry statement was issued after the [acting] boss was just right now informed about these things.

“Upon learning about the practice, Acting Secretary Wolf directed the DHS Intelligence & Analysis Directorate to immediately discontinue collecting information involving members of the press,” a department spokesman said in a statement. “In no way does the Acting Secretary condone this practice and he has immediately ordered an inquiry into the matter. The Acting Secretary is committed to ensuring that all DHS personnel uphold the principles of professionalism, impartiality and respect for civil rights and civil liberties, particularly as it relates to the exercise of First Amendment rights.”

But see the ongoing violations of the restraining order that was supposed to force federal officers to "uphold the principles of professionalism" and "respect civil rights and liberties." See also the DHS's arguments in court, where it claimed protecting the government's stuff was more important than protecting citizens' rights.

The Federal Defendants intend to keep dispersing journalists and legal observers. See ECF 67 at 20 (arguing that allowing journalists and legal observers to remain "is not a practicable option"). The actions by the federal agents described by Plaintiffs are part of a pattern of officially sanctioned conduct. The Federal Defendants argue that such conduct is necessary to protect federal property.

This is why I'm not falling for Acting Director Chad Wolf's "I'm shocked, SHOCKED to discover there is disrespect for civil liberties in my agency" shtick. That and all the other times the federal government -- including agencies under the DHS's roof -- have engaged in domestic surveillance targeting journalists. And it wasn't just open source intel gathered from publicly available sites. It was also journalists' communications.

A senior Department of Homeland Security official told a Senate committee earlier this month that the department had not collected, exploited or analyzed information from the electronic devices or accounts of protesters in Portland, Ore.

But an internal DHS document obtained by The Washington Post shows the department did have access to protesters’ electronic messages and that their conversations were written up in an “intelligence report” that was disseminated to federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, as well as state and local governments.

This all looks very bad. But under this administration, harming journalists and/or curtailing their rights is probably fine. The President thinks most of them are "fake news" purveyors. Trump also believes most protesters are anarchists and "antifa." The DHS is under considerable pressure to make the Commander-in-Chief's conspiratorial dreams come true.

Officials who are familiar with the reports, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss them, said they are consistent with the department’s aggressive tactics in Portland, and in particular the work of the Intelligence and Analysis Office, which they worried is exceeding the boundaries of its authority in an effort to crack down on “antifa” protesters to please President Trump.

All of this is troubling. If it's leak investigations, the DHS needs to keep that in-house and stop violating the Constitution. If the agency is fishing for (nonexistent) evidence of anarchists embedded in local newspapers, it's even more problematic.

The DHS was asked to rein in protests in Portland -- something the President blames on the city and state's "liberal" leadership. The DHS has failed to do anything but make itself -- and everyone involved with its response -- look worse. And every new move it makes only causes more reputational damage. The DHS needs to leave Portland before it hurts itself again.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, ben wittes, dhs, journalists, surveillance