“I'm 10-15”: the secret CBP Facebook group

The original investigation refers to more than 2 examples: https://www.propublica.org/article/secret-border-patrol-face...

Given this has then sparked an internal investigation into the group, it seems very likely that it was.

A story about a groups organizing on facebook isn't about tech?

> There are many holocaust survivors and decedents who take extreme offense to this characterization.

I haven't personally come across this, only the opposite, but I suspect I'm in a bubble of sorts. Can you provide any verifiable sources for this?

"Concentration camp" is not limited to the death camps like Auschwitz, and it is a label used by the U.S. for its own camps in past times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_inte...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cave-markings-tell-ch...

You cannot speak for everybody.

> When she saw the segregation of African-Americans, whether at a lunch counter or in the school system, that was, for her, like the prologue to the Nazi holocaust. Whereas many Jews now say, Never compare (Elie Wiesel’s refrain, ‘It’s bad, but it’s not The Holocaust’), my mother’s credo was, Always compare. She gladly and generously made the imaginative leap to those who were suffering, wrapping and shielding them in the embrace of her own suffering.

-- Norman Finkelstein

From the guidelines:

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

I'd argue this qualifies for "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon". At least this is news to me.

too many of us work for companies willing to support this. We workers could put pressure on our employers not to. In fact, maybe we have to.

When we're talking about a law enforcement group that has near complete power in the 100 mile border zone?

These are people who aren't restricted by the constitution in their exercise of authority. They don't have to have probably cause to detain, don't have to get warrants to search, can pretty much do whatever they want to you.

So when they turn out to be deeply biased, yea, that's news and it's scary.

The FB group members aren't just random people -- they're composed of CBP employees who are talking about their employment-related matters in a disgusting manner.

There may not be a crime here but it's directly relevant to the work they do as government employees and deserves attention.

For the average citizen, sure, it could be considered thought policing. But when we're talking about citizens that have been granted additional privileges in order to fulfill certain duties, we need to hold them to a higher standard for as long as they hold those additional privileges.

It's the same problem as previous exposure of other Facebook groups. We need government agencies with police powers to treat people with some neutrality and respect. If they groups are commonly making racist sexist comments about politicians and those they have power over, they are at the very least suspect. It's not a normal workplace thing to have fake oral sex pics of politicians.

Well you could argue then, that Peter Strzok was just sending private texts to his lover.

Don't forget that Customs started asking about account names for social media. Trying to police a private group goes even further than that.

But at least it lends validity to the social media account request. ;)