By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The FBI spied on a private Signal group chat of immigrants’ rights activists who were organizing “courtwatch” efforts in New York City. Law enforcement records show the FBI gained access to a Signal group coordinating volunteers monitoring federal immigration court proceedings and labeled the court watchers as “anarchist violent extremist actors.” The FBI’s report, which did not clarify how they accessed the group or provide evidence of the “extremist” claims, was shared with other law enforcement agencies. Critics have condemned the surveillance, noting the non-violent nature of courtwatch efforts and likening the actions to past FBI overreach.
Read the original article here
The FBI Spied on a Signal Group Chat of Immigration Activists, Records Reveal
It seems the FBI has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar, or rather, the encrypted Signal chat. Recent revelations suggest the bureau was monitoring a Signal group used by immigration activists. The details are still emerging, but the core takeaway is clear: the government was, in some capacity, accessing private communications. The initial reports strongly indicate that the FBI didn’t crack the app’s encryption, but rather, they used an informant inside the group to gain access.
The Fourth Amendment, guaranteeing the right to be secure in one’s persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, is being brought up again. There is no question that this action is alarming, especially for those involved in organizing and advocating for immigration rights. The fact that law enforcement seems to be prioritizing the surveillance of activists over other groups raises concerns about potential bias and targeting of specific political viewpoints. Some are understandably skeptical and calling for caution.
The information came from a joint report from the FBI and the New York Police Department, that specifically characterized the activists as “anarchist violent extremist actors”. This description is particularly concerning, as it could be used to justify further surveillance and even potential legal action. The report quoted from the Signal chat, which shows that the government had access to the private communications. The FBI has offered no specifics or evidence to explain why they would characterize these people as “anarchist violent extremists”, adding to the worry.
The fact that the FBI could get access to this kind of chat shouldn’t come as a huge surprise. The agency has a long history of monitoring various groups, and this instance seems to follow a familiar pattern. The article points out that the FBI is likely to do the same thing and that they were likely utilizing an informant to get into the group. This could mean that the government prioritized human intelligence over technological feats. It’s a reminder that even the most secure technology can be vulnerable when dealing with people and that the government might be using more rudimentary methods to do its spying.
The details of how the FBI accessed the Signal group are still murky, but this case raises broader questions about privacy, security, and the role of government surveillance. The fact that the FBI characterized the activists as “violent extremists” without providing evidence is highly concerning. This is not about some theoretical debate, the implication of the events is that they’re surveilling political opponents.
The case also brings to the forefront the importance of operational security, or “opsec.” The old saying “loose lips sink ships” very much applies here. While Signal is considered a secure messaging platform, it’s not foolproof. The open-source nature of Signal’s code, while beneficial for transparency and security, also means that potential vulnerabilities can be identified and exploited. It’s just a matter of time.
This story serves as a reminder that the government can and does engage in surveillance, and that the Fourth Amendment is often tested. This may also call for people to change the way they are communicating. Given the current state of technology and law enforcement tactics, relying solely on technology to protect your privacy might not be enough. There is also the Third-Party doctrine to consider. The Third-Party doctrine says that if you share information with a third party, the government has the right to get that information. It would appear that it’s more likely they found someone who volunteered to spy on the group.
The focus should be on how the FBI’s actions impact the rights of the activists and whether there was a legitimate basis for the surveillance. The implications of this are very large and if it is shown that the FBI could read messages in Signal that were not supposed to be in the chat, there are going to be a lot of questions. One can assume this will lead to a conversation on the proper checks and balances for government surveillance.