Black Lives Matter "profiled" on Twitter

[Perd Hapley]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/oregon-attorney-general-appalled-probe-black-lives-matter-015350436.html


I'm not down with a general warrant, or with a surveillance state. On the other hand, are there specific crimes linked to the BLM in Oregon, for which they were looking for evidence? Is a warrant required for reading Twitter feeds?

[Brad Johnson]

Considering BLM has direct involvment, by association or design, with several high profile urban violence cases I see it as a legitimate concern. Gun owners get profiled by any number of Dumb.Gov agencies under far less valid reasonings.

Brad

[Perd Hapley]

Considering BLM has direct involvment, by association or design, with several high profile urban violence cases I see it as a legitimate concern.

That was my first thought.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I don't get it.

Twitter doesn't have privacy settings like Facebook does (that I know of). If you post, then you've made a public statement. I don't see how searching a hastag that is related to serious social unrest to be "profiling", unless they are going out willynilly and arresting anyone who used the hastag.

Basically, as far as I can tell, anything you post on Twitter is fair game for LEOs under any circumstances.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't get it.

Twitter doesn't have privacy settings like Facebook does (that I know of). If you post, then you've made a public statement. I don't see how searching a hastag that is related to serious social unrest to be "profiling", unless they are going out willynilly and arresting anyone who used the hastag.

Basically, as far as I can tell, anything you post on Twitter is fair game for LEOs under any circumstances.

I think there may still be 4th amendment issues with police surveilling people without probable cause, warrants, etc. For example, I don't think they're allowed to just follow you around in public places, w/o a good reason.

But I'm no expert.

[Boomhauer]

Good. *expletive deleted*ck the BLM aholes.

[vaskidmark]

I think there may still be 4th amendment issues with police surveilling people without probable cause, warrants, etc. For example, I don't think they're allowed to just follow you around in public places, w/o a good reason.

But I'm no expert.

Cops can follow you around in public all they want.  Over the past few years there have been some limitations imposed on their use of technology to track you, as opposed to follow you.

BTW - you can follow cops in public right back.

stay safe.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Cops can follow you around in public all they want.  Over the past few years there have been some limitations imposed on their use of technology to track you, as opposed to follow you.

BTW - you can follow cops in public right back.

stay safe.

Exactly.

Plus, "good reason" is relative. Plenty of times, LEO's think they have a great reason behind such actions and they don't, so I really wouldn't consider that to be a watermark for any 4th amendment argument.

[Perd Hapley]

Exactly.

Plus, "good reason" is relative. Plenty of times, LEO's think they have a great reason behind such actions and they don't, so I really wouldn't consider that to be a watermark for any 4th amendment argument.

"Good reason" was my terminology. I believe the courts use terms like "probable cause," "warrant," and "reasonable suspicion," when discussing the fourth amendment.

[TechMan]

If the cops want to see the underlying data of the Twitter account (I.e. IP address of the poster, etc.) then they are going to need a warrant.