It's the whole "freedom to fail only applying to the layperson" thing that we're behind on.
EDIT:
Western nations/Common Law countries, I should specify.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There is a vast gap between what the cops can do in general and what holds up in court, but to a first approximation: the things they aren't allowed to do because it would taint the case are in general explicitly spelled out, and if it isn't spelled out it's legal to use as a stepping stone to conventional, more-understood-protections police tactics. Thus arresting someone for a general Twitter post is probably off-limits (the incitement-to-riot or sedition laws are narrowly tailored), but taking someone online who says "Hey let's all get together and do a riot" seriously, and allocating police resources to prepare for it as if they're telling the truth about their intentions, is almost certainly legal.
(This is the battleground that the ACLU fights on in this day and age).
Walking around and talking to each other? Constitutionally protected.
That could very well be true, though there's also the possibility that there are people there who are subjects of investigations. The article doesn't really say; it just mentions that it's a possible threat to civil liberties. And to be fair, it very well can be, particularly in the hands of the current administration.
you may be ok with that ("i don't have anything to hide", "i trust the police/government", "the free market will prevent abuses [by companies like Dataminr]" are some rebuttals i've heard recently), but it undermines our constitutional rights, setting a dangerous precedent and chilling free speech/association (per the ACLU). additionally, how else is this collected information being used by the police and Dataminr? what are their retention policies? what other kinds of analysis are being done (fta, there seems to be a not-insignificant number of false positives)?
I'm a long-time, hardcore civil libertarian so I share your concerns about potential law enforcement abuse. However, in the instance being cited here, I'm not seeing a clear violation of 4th amendment rights. Posting on openly shared social media is not only public speech, these days it's advertising and promotion. I assume you wouldn't have a problem with law enforcement subscribing to a press release monitoring service that would notify them if someone is sends out media press releases promoting their protest in that agency's jurisdiction. Arguably, not having any situational awareness of open-to-the-public mass gatherings planned in their area might be something they'd even be blamed for if overcrowding turned into a public safety situation at a book signing or something and they were oblivious.
So, while I want to restrict police overreach as much as possible, the challenge is in how we might craft guidelines of what's allowable vs not allowable which are clear and consistent.
At the end of the day if you want privacy, don't broadcast your activities on open platforms that were DESIGNED to observer and record you.
But back to my original question, why are the police monitoring constitutionally protected activity?
Again, why are the police in this case monitoring constitutionally protected activity?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Walkers and strollers and wanderers may be going to or coming from a burglary. Loafers or loiterers may be "casing" a place for a holdup. Letting one's wife support him is an intra-family matter, and normally of no concern to the police. Yet it may, of course, be the setting for numerous crimes. The difficulty is that these activities are historically part of the amenities of life as we have known them. They are not mentioned in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. These unwritten amenities have been, in part, responsible for giving our people the feeling of independence and self-confidence, the feeling of creativity. These amenities have dignified the right of dissent, and have honored the right to be nonconformists and the right to defy submissiveness. They have encouraged lives of high spirits, rather than hushed, suffocating silence.
If we step back and look at what's happening at "pro palestine" protests across the world, much of it is toxic and unwelcome by the wider community. Law enforcement sees the negative energy and responds using passive tracking tools and other measures. They're seeing escalating "decolonizing" associations too, as these groups try to merge with their socialist friends and agendas.
In my country Australia, they've taken the Aboriginal flag and Palestine flag and joined them together, parading them along the street screaming about colonisation. Many contain raised fist graphics and calls for resistance. And you wonder why cops are monitoring?
Barely qualifying as activity worth "protecting" in many cases. In particular, the terror-aligned rhetoric by masked mobs screaming about global intifadas, "resistance by any means necessary" and other stuff unrelated to peace or anything remotely "anti-war". No peace symbols in the crowd but plenty of Hamas flags, is the answer to your question.
What is the probability? I'm not saying it never happens, but a 'high probability'? Let's see some data!
Maybe there's a bias based on what you see in the news - they naturally cover the violent ones (and then depict them as the entire protest instead of something that happened off to the side that most people didn't even know occurred).
What does that have to do with Gaza-related protests? If you are saying it applies to them, you haven't established that there is a significant level of violence.
Luckily the police showed up to protect the Zionists so they could keep committing violence.
All the violence I've seen has been from police, and one case of counter-protestors throwing clods of dirt. Which continued for hours since the police did not stop it and the pro-palestine protestors did not escalate or even fight back.
No matter one's stance on I/P, the pro Gaza crowd is absurdly militant.
[1] https://www.reporter-ohne-grenzen.de/pressemitteilungen/meld...
Sometimes I get annoyed how US-centric the conversations can be on here but given the subject is american police using a US-made surveillance tool against protestors in the united states I think it makes some amount of sense this time.
Thanks for the info about another area though, it is interesting to me.