295
submitted 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) by mistermodal@lemmy.ml to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

Even State Department-funded Human Rights Watch admits that authorities combine legal and illegal methods to obtain convictions: https://text.hrw.org/report/2018/01/09/dark-side/secret-origins-evidence-us-criminal-cases

Combining dragnet surveillance with device hacking is intended in the design of both tools. Hence, State Department-funded Signal dupes you into handing over your identity as part of the population-centric mapping. In custody, your phone will be hacked when it is taken away if it's important.

https://xcancel.com/hannahcrileyy/status/2034273723667161480#m

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SARGE@startrek.website 35 points 11 hours ago

The prosecution used the presence of the first aid kit they carried

Insane bullshit.

I have a kit with me every day of my life, and I've had to refill it many times due to using it on others.

It would be pure coincidence that I happen to be carrying a first aid kit on any given day, and if I'm going to a peaceful protest I'm bringing my trauma kit because the entire fucking world knows how cops treat protesters.

[-] Kirk@startrek.website 7 points 10 hours ago

I agree that bringing a first aid kit to a peaceful protest is not evidence that someone is planning violence.

I disagree that bringing a first aid kit along with explosives and assault weapons to a planned confrontation is evidence someone was attending a peaceful protest.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 19 points 10 hours ago

You completely dodged the actual question. Is a first aid kit evidence of planned terrorism?

[-] Kirk@startrek.website 1 points 2 hours ago

I'm saying by focusing on the irrelevant first aid kit you are playing into the hands of those who seek to discourage the use of private messaging apps.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 1 points 2 hours ago

I agree. You are the one that made specific comments about what carrying a first aid kit means for evidence that are completely irrelevant to the trial.

[-] Kirk@startrek.website 1 points 1 hour ago

you agree it's a distraction but continue to bring it up ๐Ÿค”

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 1 points 1 hour ago

At this point you're just trolling ๐Ÿ™„

[-] arrow74@lemmy.zip 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

They didn't dodge anything. They answered your question quite clearly. The answer is context matters.

A first aid kit alone is not proof of that. The commentor did not claim that nor did the prosecution of the case. When taken in context with the other evidence and the actual actions they were able to use it as supporting evidence.

Now in my opinion their actions were based, but obviously illegal. If I were on the jury I would have let them walk, but that's all beside the point.

[-] Kirk@startrek.website 0 points 2 hours ago

The fact that anyone is even debating the (completely irrelevant) first aid kit means the disinformation campaign is working.

[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 10 hours ago

I don't think it was a question, really

this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2026
295 points (87.2% liked)

Privacy

47265 readers
988 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS