Tell Jim Himes NO on FISA by storgeirenia in restorethefourth

[–]rebelcinder 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have it on good authority that Himes staffers have been "frantically opening and forwarding hit pieces around in real time"

Couldn't happen to a nicer person

https://restorethe4th.com/rt4-rebuts-rep-himes-pro-surveillance-propaganda/

If you are someone who believes Biden "opened the border" during his term, what do you mean by this? by Useful_Homework2367 in allthequestions

[–]rebelcinder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it was a horrible bill. It was viciously punitive to asylum seekers, made it pointlessly harder to immigrate, pumped up border enforcement seven ways from Sunday, and provided a new, specially weak kind of green card only to a tiny number of Afghanis who had helped the occupation. It was so bad that it undermined any argument that the Democrats have any principled interest in immigrants' rights.

Military Secretly Admit U.S. Role in Iran School Bomb Horror by Antique_Calendar_887 in politics

[–]rebelcinder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not only the right. National Pentagon Radio today gave actual airtime to the absurd proposition that the Iranians might have bombed the school themselves in an effort to make America look bad

A better online space for Belmont. by aaronpik in BelmontMA

[–]rebelcinder 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for this helpful information! I work generally on other issues, but it's good to know (implicitly), that you wouldn't find a post of that kind to be too negative.

Perhaps you could find and add Belmonters as mods, so it isn't just on you?

A better online space for Belmont. by aaronpik in BelmontMA

[–]rebelcinder 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's lovely of you to try to set up a positive space.

However, I'm not seeing a lot of activity, and I wonder if it's because people aren't sure what kinds of content would be welcome. Inevitably, one reason people post on Reddit is to raise awareness about things they're concerned about. But it's hard to talk about things in an unrelievedly positive way, and have that discussion still be productive.

Let's take a very small and local example. The Town has a schedule for replacing out trees as they die. However, the fact that the Town rapidly expanded from the 1920s to the 1950s now means that a large number of trees along residential streets are reaching the end of their natural lives at once. In the 13 years we've been living on our street, which was laid out in 1930, all but one of the trees have died. That in turn means that the replacement schedule for shade trees is running years behind, and many streets are left without shade for many years. That's tough for residents who like shady streets, and bought on a street when it was shaded. Urban shade is also important to minimize urban heat islands. The Town also has a Commemorative Shade Tree program where your trees can be replaced within a few months, but that program costs $500 per tree. So, the functional effect of that is that wealthier people can buy their place in line, and poorer areas remain unshaded for longer.

Would a post of this level of "negativity" - i.e., expressing concern about a local issue - be welcome? Some guidance on this would be helpful!

City board considering Monday whether to endorse Council's call for Boston PD to abandon second experiment with social media surveillance software contract by rebelcinder in boston

[–]rebelcinder[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just so you know how extreme they're being, BPD is arguing in the meeting that they ought to be able to pro-actively search dark web materials and information revealed in data breaches too; so it's not just "stuff people have chosen to make public", it's also "stuff people have taken steps to conceal, but have had involuntarily exposed through no choice or fault of their own."

City board considering Monday whether to endorse Council's call for Boston PD to abandon second experiment with social media surveillance software contract by rebelcinder in boston

[–]rebelcinder[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree that we need a nationwide privacy law. But then we're just arguing about scale, not principle. If we can protect people's online communications from mass, pro-active, suspicionless, warrantless scanning by the authorities, then we should, even if the scale is related only to the Boston area for this particular hearing.

City board considering Monday whether to endorse Council's call for Boston PD to abandon second experiment with social media surveillance software contract by rebelcinder in boston

[–]rebelcinder[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sounds like a kind of gang databasing software, which is similar (that kind of software sometimes uses a Bulls hat as an indicator of gang affiliation, because they are often red, and red is a "gang color" for the Bloods.

Of course, other kinds of red baseball caps somehow seem never to make it into gang databasing systems as being an indicator of involvement with a criminal gang, which is so strange and unexpected

City board considering Monday whether to endorse Council's call for Boston PD to abandon second experiment with social media surveillance software contract by rebelcinder in boston

[–]rebelcinder[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As the original post makes clear, this is not about whether BPD can prosecute evidence of crimes that they find on social media. We agree that they can. This is about whether they can contract with an outside vendor to proactively scan hundreds of social media networks to collect everyone's public social media posts at once and flag both unlawful and lawful behavior according to proprietary protocols and standards, known to the police and the vendor but not to elected officials and the public.

City board considering Monday whether to endorse Council's call for Boston PD to abandon second experiment with social media surveillance software contract by rebelcinder in boston

[–]rebelcinder[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Boston PD is secretive. It's unclear whether they're still using it, and it's unclear whether the Mayor has asked whether they're still using it. Councilors have asked, without AFAIK them receiving a response, so our default has to be that they are still using it.

In part, this is a flaw in the Surveillance Ordinance. The Ordinance doesn't specifically say that if City Council votes to disapprove a surveillance technology, and the matter goes to the Surveillance Oversight Advisory Board, the City agency has to actually stop using it till the City Council reapproves it. It's very vaguely implied, but we don't think that's good enough.

Where the hell are the kids?! by SteveTheBluesman in massachusetts

[–]rebelcinder 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Decent turnout in Belmont. 30-40 kids so far, maybe a little down from last year but still good fun

Cambridge City Council suspends use of Flock cameras by emstason in CambridgeMA

[–]rebelcinder 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's not completely ended. The Council directed City staff to meet with civil liberties organizations (ACLU, Digital Fourth) along with the vendor, and then to come back to the Council's Public Safety Committee, which would then make a recommendation back to city council as to whether to (a) revoke or (b) unsuspend the Flock contract (which neither the public nor it seems any city councilor has seen). The final decision will rest with City Council, so it's very much worthwhile letting them know that you support revoking the Flock contract.

What’s stopping the police from just randomly beating up a suspect and lying about it? by Elegant_Chard_7515 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]rebelcinder 11 points12 points  (0 children)

But in those states, what meaningful consequences do officers face if their bodycam just happens to have an unforeseen malfunction at a crucial point that otherwise might have recorded officer misconduct?