By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Two legal observers have filed a lawsuit against the department and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, seeking an injunction to prevent the use of facial and license plate scanning technology against them. The observers claim agents scanned their information and issued threats, including being placed on a domestic terrorist watchlist, during their monitoring of ICE operations in Portland. The suit also references past incidents where federal agents allegedly harassed observers by visiting their homes and issuing warnings, underscoring concerns about intimidation tactics.
Read the original article here
The governor of South Dakota, Kristi Noem, is facing a lawsuit that alleges federal agents, under her alleged watch, engaged in surveillance of protesters. This legal challenge brings to light serious accusations of government overreach and intimidation tactics employed against individuals exercising their right to protest. The core of the lawsuit centers on claims that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents utilized advanced surveillance technologies, such as facial recognition and license plate readers, to monitor individuals who were observing and documenting the activities of ICE in Portland.
Further details within the lawsuit suggest a pattern of concerning behavior by federal agents. There are allegations that these agents not only monitored but also directly threatened protesters. Specific instances cited involve agents allegedly scanning the faces and license plates of individuals who were present to record ICE operations. In one particularly disturbing account, an agent is reported to have told a legal observer that by attending such events, they would end up on a domestic terrorist watchlist, with the implication of further repercussions, including a visit to their home.
The lawsuit doesn’t stop at describing the Portland incidents; it also points to other documented instances in Maine that illustrate a similar pattern of intimidation. These accounts include an ICE agent driving to the home of a legal observer and repeatedly honking their horn, and in another case, a federal agent visiting the residence of a protester to deliver a direct warning that their presence was known and that they lived at that specific address. These actions, if proven, suggest a deliberate effort to silence dissent and create an atmosphere of fear among those who are critical of federal immigration enforcement.
While the input mentions Kristi Noem “letting” ICE spy, the sentiment expressed in the commentary suggests a stronger level of involvement, with some proposing the wording should be “ordering” or “authorizing and encouraging.” This highlights a common perception that such actions are unlikely to occur without direct or indirect approval from high-ranking officials. The legal challenge is therefore not just about passive allowance but potentially about active direction or tacit endorsement of these surveillance and intimidation tactics by Governor Noem.
The lawsuit also raises questions about the role of social media platforms and their potential liability. The discussion touches upon whether companies like Reddit complied with demands for user information without proper legal authorization, such as warrants signed by a judge. If these companies did provide user data without due process, they could face their own legal challenges, and potentially have harmed their users by facilitating illegal surveillance. This aspect underscores the broader implications of the case, extending beyond the actions of federal agents to the responsibilities of private entities in protecting user data.
There’s a strong undercurrent of frustration regarding the perceived erosion of privacy and civil liberties, particularly when contrasted with past political stances on government surveillance. The commentary reflects on how the very politicians who once decried “big government” and opposed national ID systems now seem to embrace extensive surveillance measures, often under the guise of national security. This shift is seen as hypocritical and deeply concerning, especially when these surveillance capabilities are perceived to be used to target citizens and protesters.
The situation is further complicated by claims that similar tactics are being employed in other locations, such as Minnesota, and that ICE agents are potentially revoking privileges like TSA Precheck for protesters by using facial recognition technology at public gatherings. This suggests that the alleged surveillance and intimidation are not isolated incidents but part of a wider, systemic issue within federal immigration enforcement. The comparison of ICE agents to cartels, as mentioned in one comment, reflects the extreme level of distrust and fear some individuals feel towards the agency.
Ultimately, the lawsuit against Kristi Noem for her alleged role in facilitating ICE surveillance of protesters brings to the forefront critical questions about the balance between national security and individual freedoms, the extent of government power, and the accountability of public officials. The allegations of intimidation and the use of surveillance technologies paint a picture of a government agency potentially overstepping its bounds, and the legal proceedings will aim to determine the truth behind these serious claims and hold those responsible accountable.