Hacker News Reader

Comment by mmcgaha | Hacker News Reader

If they had not been monitoring intelligence and something big happened then they did not do enough; if they do enough and nothing big happens then they are abusing their power. No matter which way it goes we all get to wiggle our finger and be outraged.

View on HN

This is an odd comment because it reads like something you would post on a thread about the FBI or CIA. I have to assume you didn't read the article and just posted something in response to the headline. This is a system to surveil protestors and protect status quo among the police. Literally the first sentence in the article would tell you such:

> Law enforcement agencies in Minnesota have been carrying out a secretive, long-running surveillance program targeting civil rights activists and journalists in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd in May 2020. Run under a consortium known as Operation Safety Net, the program was set up a year ago, ostensibly to maintain public order as Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin went on trial for Floyd’s murder.

I did read it and I use intelligence instead of "secretive, long-running surveillance" because it is a word that describes the same thing without spicing it up with evil intent.

But it /is/ evil intent!

I don't get it. By "something big" do you mean another incident of police misconduct? Or the natural, outraged response to that misconduct?

Otherwise how is this catch-22 relevant to the events surrounding George Floyd's murder and the surveillance measures established in response to the protests?

I can not enumerate the list of possible threats but at the extremes would be plans use molotov cocktails on police cars up to plans to blow up public buildings (think Oklahoma City level). Anything between these extremes is possible and in a situation as hot as the Floyd murder protests, the police are expected to protect the public even if they caused the problem to begin with.

What is your suggestion for what they should have done then?

Culturally we need to decide what our priorities are: do we sacrifice privacy and freedom for the appearance of safety or do we accept less promises of safety for more freedom and privacy.

You're right, we can't have it both ways.

not murdering people and then setting up massive surveillance of the people protesting the murders would be a good start.

My point was not to support the decision the police made. It was, rather, let's not give the police a pass because they're "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

I agree with you. I would rather the police have a principaled stand for freedom and privacy, and not murder people. Then if something big happens, as GP opined, we as a society need to not crucify them. The police are not and should not be a guarantee that bad things won't happen. We should hold them accountantable for what they do, not hold them responsible for preventing all evils.

If we get to vote on it, I vote to limit government surveillance of citizens. Short of society making that decision and understanding the consequence, I will try to have empathy for the folks who have to make hard decisions that have no correct answer.

You get to vote every day when you continue to contribute taxes which pay for the schemes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com