Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC News)   U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner:"CBP drones that were deployed during marches were not used to surveil protesters". No word on what they were supposedly doing otherwise   (abcnews.go.com) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Police, United States Department of Homeland Security, Law, Protest, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP Commissioner Mark Morgan, group of law enforcement officers, CBP drones  
•       •       •

928 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2020 at 12:55 PM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



47 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-06-10 12:18:12 PM  
Deliveries, but that's only if you subscribed to CBPrime.
 
2020-06-10 12:21:47 PM  
"They were being used to surveil foreign Antifa agitators..."

CHEXMIX, LIBS!
 
2020-06-10 12:25:55 PM  
Now sit in front of the House and say that under oath.
 
2020-06-10 12:35:41 PM  
Making sure the border was safe?

Where is the nearest border
 
2020-06-10 12:56:29 PM  
Just looking to see if any Canadian illegals slipped in with the protestors, that's all.
 
2020-06-10 12:57:02 PM  
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size

I was taking a little drive along the Texas/ Mexico border recently and saw a few of these tethered out in the desert.
 
2020-06-10 12:57:09 PM  
They were designed to crash, killing and maiming thousands yet plausibly denying any motive.
 
2020-06-10 1:00:28 PM  

Gubbo: Making sure the border was safe?

Where is the nearest border


https://www.ontheborder.com/locations​
 
2020-06-10 1:01:16 PM  

BitwiseShift: They were designed to crash, killing and maiming thousands yet plausibly denying any motive.


I have Masters in Onanism and a PHD from Sodom U. But that Gamorrah shiat? That's a bridge too far.
 
2020-06-10 1:02:02 PM  

dothemath: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x622]
I was taking a little drive along the Texas/ Mexico border recently and saw a few of these tethered out in the desert.


I've talked to agents who work on them. See the black a the bottom? Exhaust from the generators used to run all the electronics. They pull them down every so many hours to refuel.

People also take pot shots at them on the way up and down.
 
2020-06-10 1:02:18 PM  

Gaddiel: BitwiseShift: They were designed to crash, killing and maiming thousands yet plausibly denying any motive.

I have Masters in Onanism and a PHD from Sodom U. But that Gamorrah shiat? That's a bridge too far.


shiat. Wrong thread. This is why I shouldn't fark on my phone.
 
2020-06-10 1:02:22 PM  
They gotta fly somewhere, all the nude beaches are closed.
 
2020-06-10 1:04:33 PM  
"What I would categorize that as just a false narrative," Acting CBP Commissioner Mark Morgan told ABC News. "We were not providing any resources to surveil lawful peaceful protesters. That's not what we were doing," he continued.

There's technical language he'll use to defend his lie.
 
2020-06-10 1:07:44 PM  
One more lie from the most dishonest administration since Nixon.

Nothing is gonna happen...
 
2020-06-10 1:11:30 PM  

dothemath: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x622]
I was taking a little drive along the Texas/ Mexico border recently and saw a few of these tethered out in the desert.


Is it wrong if I want one of those? Purely for research purposes, particularly researching the milf a block over that sunbathes nude.

/ Anti-fap is a terrorist organization. That IS the Prude Boys, right?
 
2020-06-10 1:12:47 PM  

edmo: Just looking to see if any Canadian illegals slipped in with the protestors, that's all.


We are trying to stay as far away from the US as we can right now.
 
2020-06-10 1:13:16 PM  

snocone: They gotta fly somewhere, all the nude beaches are closed.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-10 1:14:10 PM  

Gaddiel: Gaddiel: BitwiseShift: They were designed to crash, killing and maiming thousands yet plausibly denying any motive.

I have Masters in Onanism and a PHD from Sodom U. But that Gamorrah shiat? That's a bridge too far.

shiat. Wrong thread. This is why I shouldn't fark on my phone.


Salty devil.
 
2020-06-10 1:15:23 PM  

dothemath: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x622]
I was taking a little drive along the Texas/ Mexico border recently and saw a few of these tethered out in the desert.


Why on earth would they be tethering a streetlight?
 
2020-06-10 1:19:01 PM  
I don't even know why he'd lie.

"Yes, we were surveiling peaceful protesters. As has been made clear throughout history, peaceful protests can turn violent, and bad actors who aren't an actual part of the movement also join protests with the intent to create chaos of various types. It wouldn't be prudent to wait until after things go bad to start paying attention to what's going on. As law enforcement, we want to protect blah blah blah."  And as you go through the article he almost kind of worked his way there.

It is such an easy slam dunk.  And what are protesters going to do? Claim they don't want to be seen while in public protesting? The moment a protester says they don't want cameras on them they'll be immediately dismissed. Nobody gets to pick which cameras get to look at you in public and which don't.
 
2020-06-10 1:20:47 PM  
I dunno guys, this seems like a really good deal for a bridge. I heard bridges almost always increase in value and how likely are we to find a bridge at this price point in this location?
 
2020-06-10 1:24:15 PM  

Giant Clown Shoe: "What I would categorize that as just a false narrative," Acting CBP Commissioner Mark Morgan told ABC News. "We were not providing any resources to surveil lawful peaceful protesters. That's not what we were doing," he continued.

There's technical language he'll use to defend his lie.


I will spell it out.  The police do not view the protests as lawful and will gladly twist themselves in knots to find laws to charge protestors with.  A really handy one is the curfew itself which is arguably an infringement on constitutional rights, but good luck arguing as they will claim other motives for it.   So when the police kettle a group of protestors, block access to mass transit, or slash tires in entire parking lots full of cars, they now have protestors that are literally unable to disperse for curfew and are therefore not lawfully.  Peaceful protestors? Just lie and say they aren't... Or if that weighs to heavily on your conscience, have the cops instigate by shoving protestors until someone shoves back.  Plenty of video evidence of both.
 
2020-06-10 1:28:28 PM  

dothemath: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x622]
I was taking a little drive along the Texas/ Mexico border recently and saw a few of these tethered out in the desert.


They used to have one in southern AZ as well, managed out of Ft. Huachuca. My dad said there was one down between Deming (NM) and Palomas as well. I'm sure they have/had them elsewhere. I'm guessing that at this point they've been replaced with UAVs costing ten times as much.
 
2020-06-10 1:29:36 PM  

dothemath: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x622]
I was taking a little drive along the Texas/ Mexico border recently and saw a few of these tethered out in the desert.


That's really turning up the dystopia to 11.
 
2020-06-10 1:33:15 PM  

Smackledorfer: I don't even know why he'd lie.

"Yes, we were surveiling peaceful protesters. As has been made clear throughout history, peaceful protests can turn violent, and bad actors who aren't an actual part of the movement also join protests with the intent to create chaos of various types. It wouldn't be prudent to wait until after things go bad to start paying attention to what's going on. As law enforcement, we want to protect blah blah blah."  And as you go through the article he almost kind of worked his way there.

It is such an easy slam dunk.  And what are protesters going to do? Claim they don't want to be seen while in public protesting? The moment a protester says they don't want cameras on them they'll be immediately dismissed. Nobody gets to pick which cameras get to look at you in public and which don't.


Because if he had said what you suggested it would have been an open admission they were breaking the law and operating well outside of their jurisdiction.  So that would be the primary reason why he would lie, I'd imagine.
 
2020-06-10 1:36:12 PM  

Gaddiel: Gaddiel: BitwiseShift: They were designed to crash, killing and maiming thousands yet plausibly denying any motive.

I have Masters in Onanism and a PHD from Sodom U. But that Gamorrah shiat? That's a bridge too far.

shiat. Wrong thread. This is why I shouldn't fark on my phone.


That's okay.  It's the sort of comment that would fit in anywhere.
 
2020-06-10 1:38:32 PM  

edmo: Just looking to see if any Canadian illegals slipped in with the protestors, that's all.


media1.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-10 1:40:05 PM  
They were only gathering the metadata on meta protestors.


Copious amounts of metamucil needed to come up with this complete bullshiat.  You are the enemy.    All they spying, all the hacking, all the data.  It is on you.
 
2020-06-10 1:40:40 PM  

Giant Clown Shoe: "What I would categorize that as just a false narrative," Acting CBP Commissioner Mark Morgan told ABC News. "We were not providing any resources to surveil lawful peaceful protesters. That's not what we were doing," he continued.

There's technical language he'll use to defend his lie.


Even if it's true, WTF does it have to do with their mission/jurisdiction? Did the reporter/interviewer not press him on that?

And once he started into his "the brave men and women of law enforcement blah blah blah" spiel, they should have cut him off and said, "we're not here to be an outlet for your distractions, propaganda or opinion column, we're here because you are a public servant and need to answer serious questions about what you're doing and why. Anything else is irrelevant."

And if he continued it anyway, simple solution... just cut it from the broadcast. Just say "the *acting* commissioner refused to answer other questions related to the incident" and move on.
 
2020-06-10 1:50:04 PM  

full8me: Because if he had said what you suggested it would have been an open admission they were breaking the law and operating well outside of their jurisdiction.  So that would be the primary reason why he would lie, I'd imagine.


Breaking what law?

Is there a law against using drone's to surveil innocent people? None that I'm aware.

Operating outside of jurisdiction? If you are talking about the 100 mile thing, be aware that one part of the INA saying "they can do X in area Y" doesn't mean they get 100% of their statutory authority from that.  They can do X in area Z, they can do W in area Y, etc.  CBP isn't even restricted to being employed and working in the United States. They have people in multiple foreign countries assisting other governments in a variety of capacities.  While those are likely very rarely hands on enforcement of laws, in this case we are talking about the flying of drones. That isn't going to be an enforcement action, unless you think a helicopter flying overhead is violating your 4th amendment rights anytime it looks at you without appropriate reasonable suspicion.

If you are saying that it falls outside the scope of CBP to do anything non-border crossing/immigration related or whatever you imagine they are limited to, you'd be grossly incorrect. But EVEN IF you were correct for circumstances where the agency acts on its own, it, like any other law enforcement group, is able to assist and work alongside other law enforcement groups. Many states even grant them peace officer status.

I think I hit the two big ones you might believe are true. I'll let you explain your claim to me before I go down that rabbit hole any further.
 
2020-06-10 1:56:21 PM  

BretMavrik: WTF does it have to do with their mission/jurisdiction?


Federal agencies are well within their authority to assist other federal and local agencies in their tasks. A border patrol agent can hop on wildlife vessel to back them up and vice versa. A border patrol agent can ask the federal wildlife guys to take them to a location their boats cannot reach, or to give them an extra boat, and things of that nature. A border patrol canine officer can and often does assist local cops when their dogs are off duty, and vice versa.  Air and Marine operations, in particular, have a history of lending aid to other agencies. You are certainly welcome to not like it, but that's how it is.

I have a more detailed post here that I already made today.

https://www.fark.com/comments/1084214​2​/Customs-Border-Control-are-making-the​se-weird-flight-patterns-across-United​-States#new

Real life isn't dukes of hazard.

BretMavrik: And once he started into his "the brave men and women of law enforcement blah blah blah" spiel, they should have cut him off and said, "we're not here to be an outlet for your distractions, propaganda or opinion column, we're here because you are a public servant and need to answer serious questions about what you're doing and why. Anything else is irrelevant."

And if he continued it anyway, simple solution... just cut it from the broadcast. Just say "the *acting* commissioner refused to answer other questions related to the incident" and move on.


I don't disagree with any of that. News organizations are so petrified they'll get locked out by administrations that they give them an excessive platform in these situations. There may have been an argument for that back in the newspaper days.  In the modern day, if the government wants a platform to get information out they've got plenty of websites of their own and anyone interested in what they have to say can find it all there.
 
2020-06-10 1:56:38 PM  

dothemath: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x622]
I was taking a little drive along the Texas/ Mexico border recently and saw a few of these tethered out in the desert.


i've seen these out over the water off of Key West while sailing
 
2020-06-10 2:00:21 PM  
Way back when we were protesting the impending Gulf War, the cops stood there filming the protesters with a video camera. They weren't trying to hide it. In fact, it felt like it was an intimidation technique. I'm sure there's all kinds of police surveillance of protesters going on, including facial recognition. Of course, they'll do the right thing if the video shows evidence of police wrongdoing. To cops, "do the right thing" means "announce that we have investigated ourselves and found no evidence."
 
2020-06-10 2:02:47 PM  
If I was doing drone surveillance I would totally put a box of tacos under my surveillance drone.
 
2020-06-10 2:04:15 PM  
Who cares if they were.
 
2020-06-10 2:24:53 PM  

dothemath: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x622]
I was taking a little drive along the Texas/ Mexico border recently and saw a few of these tethered out in the desert.


A few years ago they were testing something like that at Aberdeen proving grounds and it got lose. I think it almost got to Baltimore.
 
2020-06-10 2:41:35 PM  

dothemath: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x622]
I was taking a little drive along the Texas/ Mexico border recently and saw a few of these tethered out in the desert.


Is that surveillance or one of the Google / Facebook ISP-in-the-clouds blimps?
 
2020-06-10 2:44:55 PM  
Mini-chemtrails, duh.

Today's modern chemtrails components are so much more potent, we only need a dinky lil drone instead of a full blown aircraft to achieve effective distribution.
 
2020-06-10 2:50:28 PM  

groppet: dothemath: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x622]
I was taking a little drive along the Texas/ Mexico border recently and saw a few of these tethered out in the desert.

A few years ago they were testing something like that at Aberdeen proving grounds and it got lose. I think it almost got to Baltimore.


Isnt that the plot for 12 Monkeys?
 
2020-06-10 2:52:55 PM  
Read carefully: they are not surveilling "peaceful protestors." The second curfew is up and they've declared you an unlawful protester, probably while preventing you from leaving, these farking things are sucking up your personal information and biometrics by the bucketload.
 
2020-06-10 3:04:49 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-10 3:15:44 PM  

Anonymous Bosch: Read carefully: they are not surveilling "peaceful protestors." The second curfew is up and they've declared you an unlawful protester, probably while preventing you from leaving, these farking things are sucking up your personal information and biometrics by the bucketload.


I'm still waiting for someone to explain how it legally matters whether they are surveilling peaceful or non-peaceful protesters, rioters, criminals, antifa, balugaboyz, or whatever the fark else.

The following possibilities exist:

1. It isn't a 4th amendment violation to do that search without suspicion (lots of precedence exists for this, but mostly with helicopters. Will that translate into a persistent overhead open field search ruling, or be considered something else? To my knowledge, courts haven't answered that and nobody has brought such a case). And I'm not sure a protest would count as a persistent violation - usually the law talking folk discussing such future caselaw are referring to 24/7 eyes on a location or person, not a temporary event. In an actual event, an expectation of privacy seems unlikely to exist: news choppers should be assumed to be out and about.

2. It is a 4th amendment violation to fly overhead and look at stuff without proper levels of suspicion.

3. If it is a violation, then what would be legal justifications to put eyes in the sky.  Would the government need the justification to have eyes on just one thing going on below, and then once they had that foot in the door they would be ok to look at everything else? Or, would they need to individually justify everyone they looked at? The later seems extremely unlikely to me. Usually search law is about 1. Lawful presence to be in a spot followed by 2. Can they poke around?

So you get case law like, "cop hears someone scream, turns out they were just doing some crazy S&M, but the scream justifies entering a home, then while there the mountain of cocaine becomes visible, cops legally seize the cocaine that they legally looked at because they were legally there"

Even in the shenanigans of this guy running his mouth to the press, he has articulated a couple things:
1. That crimes are somewhat likely to occur in protest situation.
2. Their surveillance is a provable aid to law enforcement on the ground for those outbreaks.

They are only going to need to be looking for one non-peaceful protester to justify putting a drone up and looking around, and everything else is collateral coincidence.  Assuming they need to legally justify it at all, which I don't believe they do.

This is all fairly cut and dried afaict.

Can anyone in this thread who is complaining about them using drones explain, aside from the fact that you don't like it, why it this is a violation of anyone's rights? Because if it isn't a violation of anyone's rights, it then just becomes a matter of voting for government who officials who stop doing it. Those are all the options there.

/I'm not a fan of the surveillance state either, before anyone starts conflating "he thinks X is legal" with "he likes X". I don't break the law, but I do have things I want to hide.
 
2020-06-10 3:20:29 PM  
Riiiiiiight. You were just out taking pictures of the flowers. Or was it bird watching.

/jerkoff_motion.jpg
 
2020-06-10 3:21:01 PM  
"We were not providing any resources to surveil lawful peaceful protesters. That's not what we were doing," he continued.

"What we were doing was TESTING the provision of resources to surveil lawful peaceful protesters.[sic] "
 
2020-06-10 3:22:37 PM  
GardenWeasel
Now sit in front of the House and say that under oath.


Since when has being under oath stopped them from lying. The way they see it, if they say it under oath then you have to believe them.
 
2020-06-10 8:20:24 PM  

dothemath: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x622]
I was taking a little drive along the Texas/ Mexico border recently and saw a few of these tethered out in the desert.


Those were great for overwatch of fobs in afghanistan.  We had a couple of them going.  We knew pretty far in advance when mortars were going to start dropping or when when they were massing for an attack.

They were great for our artillery support to rain effective hell on them before they realized they even knew that we knew they were there.

Taliban and Al Qaeda weren't the brightest at times.
 
2020-06-11 1:14:22 AM  
So 3+ biatchy threads about CBP drones in a couple weeks, and ZERO people saying what laws and rules they are breaking.

Look fellas, when the us gov does things you don't like, but those things aren't illegal, the only redress is to vote.

Vote.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.