top | item 25344001

Rebekah Jones' house raided at gunpoint

150 points| jacquesm | 5 years ago |twitter.com | reply

42 comments

order
[+] andyjohnson0|5 years ago|reply
Context:

"The Florida department of law enforcement confirmed they had entered Jones’s house on a search warrant. But in a statement the department said the action was related to a recent computer hack of the health department website, in which emergency response coordinators were sent an unauthorised message."

...

"[Jones] told CNN she had come to the conclusion that the raid had been motivated by a desire to root out her source within the state bureaucracy, which is why police took away her phone. “On my phone is every communication I have ever had with someone who works with the state who has come to me in confidence and told me things that could get them fired,” she said."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/07/florida-poli...

[+] aboringusername|5 years ago|reply
> On my phone is every communication I have ever had with someone who works with the state

Why? This information should be stored, encrypted, and be almost impossible to decrypt. You need a dead mans switch (which is tried and tested) to destroy any and all data. In fact, you could have a system where if you don't visit a URL within a few hours, it destroys a part of the method to access the decryption mechanism (or something similar to this, which works in "real time" and acts a nuke. If you're in jail for 24+ hours you have the safety to know your system will work and destroy password.txt/keyfile on a server somewhere and make it harder to access your records).

Storing this data in plain text, on a partition that can be decrypted within seconds is negligent and both parties are at fault. You need to ensure both systems meet strict requirements before you start communicating in any medium (digital, face to face etc)

Snowden knew what was going to happen to him, so he had the good sense to somewhat plan ahead. These people are not your friends, and you should assume as much.

You make the wrong person angry and you will end up in a ditch somewhere. Make preparations, retain a lawyer and for gods sake practice good sec ops; if you have privileged information it's vital you make it as hard as possible for both you and the state to access it.

[+] paganel|5 years ago|reply
This is a police state, pure and simple. And I say that as a guy born in Ceausescu's Romania.
[+] swiley|5 years ago|reply
I'm not sure what the cops think this person did but whatever she was accused of this is an absolutely unacceptable way to handle it in the US.
[+] j4yav|5 years ago|reply
> I'm not sure what the cops think this person did but whatever she was accused of this is an absolutely unacceptable way to handle it in the US.

If you asked me this is exactly how I would assume this sort of thing is handled in the US

[+] greatpatton|5 years ago|reply
Yes American cops don't miss an opportunity to amaze the world... (and make people believe that USA is the less secure place in the world to behave like this).
[+] olliej|5 years ago|reply
She didn't do anything except embarrass the government, so they've now invented a claim she hacked into their emergency system.

She's the scientist that was fired because her reporting included actual numbers rather than the ones invented by the governor.

[+] noxer|5 years ago|reply
There are rumors that she did not open the door for a long time and hang up on them when they called. Obviously we dont know if that is true but if it is the cops had to assume well prepared people inside the house. It would be gross negligence to just walk in and please everyone to come out regardless of what the people did that caused the raid.
[+] zdragnar|5 years ago|reply
I dont think I disagree, but isn't this standard practice when there is suspicion that evidence might be destroyed had they just knocked at the door.

They did the same thing to General Flynn, IIRC.

[+] studius|5 years ago|reply
I'm sure if it were to happen to me, I'd feel similar to the citizen posting this on Twitter, especially if they felt it was unjust and weren't expecting it.

However, from a police procedural point-of-view:

When the subject(s) perceive a threat, it only takes a small amount of time for the adrenaline rush that could make them more dangerous than they typically would be.

Subject(s) that would never usually be a threat can act in ways they don't even expect when they are confronted by something they perceive as a threat.

Even if the first subject is calm, one of the others in the house might react poorly and use whatever is at their disposal to resist or harm the perceived threat.

Let's say instead that a single plain-clothes officer calls or emails asking someone to come downtown, or maybe even comes to a house unexpectedly because they couldn't get in-touch with the person, then asks them to come downtown at their convenience. The subject may shortly after throw the kids in the car and speed off so quickly they run into traffic and kill themselves and another driver. So, when police control the situation, they cause a little more temporary stress in the short-term, but may avoid harm for the individual citizen and the rest of the citizens.

The alternative is a society within which each person acts responsibly on their own, but there are bad actors, and using science to treat or evolve bad actors is:

1. imagined as evil, such as in the fictional works:

Brave New World - example of dual-society, half utilitarian scientist gangbangers and the other half free natives; the reader understands the "evolved" culture as disgusting, scary, and harmful.

A Clockwork Orange - attempt to rehabilitate the psychopath, sex-addict subject, but due to the music choice, the psychopath becomes hurt when they play the music, leaving them where they started- with a psychopath.

2. actually evil in real life, for example: psychological and Eugenics experiments, as well as genocides and holocaust.

In social media bubbles, psychotic elements in the bubble tend to be hushed or hidden; they seem not to exist. In real-life, about 1 in 10 people are not sufficiently altruistic to be trusted to act on societal best interests under duress and about 1 in 100 people are psychopathic to the point of being a greater risk to others on any day of the year.

Even for a fully libertarian society to function, some part of the 90% would have to cover for the 10% and some portion of the 99% would have to cover for that 1% to make things run smoothly. So, we have police. And, if you add wild animals and wide open spaces without assistance into the mix, you understand why the U.S. has the 2nd amendment, and that applies to everywhere because it's meant to cover all cases and likely futures (if disaster happens and infrastructure collapses, we may need to hunt to survive, given the amount of space in the U.S.).

But, I don't want gun violence, and I don't want citizens to be unjustly apprehended.

[+] agotterer|5 years ago|reply
I don’t understand the political motivation here. Let’s say theres actually something to hide. This very public action is certain to have the opposite affect and bring even more attention to Rebekah and her data (Streisand effect).
[+] eloisius|5 years ago|reply
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by blind stupid malice.
[+] LockAndLol|5 years ago|reply
People don't care. It's one scandal amongst many and people stop keeping track, so they just keep on voting for the same people.

Even if there were a website that kept track of all a politician's misdeeds, the majority wouldn't use it or know about it.

[+] jp0d|5 years ago|reply
Wow. George Carlin was correct about "rights"!
[+] permo-w|5 years ago|reply
If you’re really “speaking truth to power”, you aren’t on “@CuomoPrimeTime at about 9:40 tonight”