|
So, the New York Times reports that the FBI was monitoring the Occupy Wall Street movement.
I happen to think, based on the article, that getting outraged about this is kind of a reach.
It's worth noting that they did not infiltrate the movement, or wiretap people, or anything like that; they did discuss information on Occupy movement web discussions and the like, but you know, they're allowed to do that. If it's on the internet, publically viewable, there is no special restriction that says it counts as illegal or invasive surveillance if law enforcement read it too.
The article mentions that the FBI documents record that an internet thread discussed when it's okay to shoot a police officer. This, too, is something that I really don't have a problem with law enforcement taking special note of, because a) seriously, your viewable-by-anyone web forum is not a private conversation b) your not-private conversation is about shooting law enforcement officers, which means you are thinking about shooting law enforcement officers, which is something law enforcement officers both want and need to know about.
But the thing is?
This:
The F.B.I. was concerned that the movement would provide “an outlet for a lone offender exploiting the movement for reasons associated with general government dissatisfaction.”
That is, seriously, exactly what the FBI should be doing when a mass protest movement is under way. Not stopping it or interfering with it at all, not infiltrating it, not anything that jeopardises the rights of the protesters, but monitoring it because if some psycho brings one of the millions of guns knocking around America and starts setting up a body count, it would be kind of a plus if the FBI were ready for that, instead of just looking pointedly the other way.
Sometimes it's not oppression for law enforcement to monitor activist groups. Sometimes, it's just law enforcement.
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}