Leaf&Core

DHS Requests Everyone’s Online Activity to Track Those Critical of Government

Danielle from Leaf and Core
Reading Time: 8 minutes.
A zine on "How to Report ICE"

I wrote about how hosting this zine on Google Docs could endanger them. The DHS thought so too

One of the scariest aspects of fascism is the inability to speak out against it. Until that right to safe and free speech is taken away, you have a chance to reverse course. You can speak out, protest, spread knowledge, and vote to remove the fascist party from power. But if you can’t do that, you’re stuck with the fascism.

The Trump administration is reportedly making it increasingly dangerous to speak out against it and ICE. The violence and even killings of peaceful protesters was a deterrent to free speech before, but now the Department of Justice is reportedly collecting info on people who report ICE activity or speak out against ICE’s violence. The threat of targeted state violence has never been so real. DHS has reportedly reached out to Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, as well as Reddit, Discord, and even Google, asking them to turn over information on people organizing against ICE. The result of which could lead to violence against these people who have not broken laws, but may be targeted anyway.

The Trump administration has chipped away at free speech again, and it’s only going to get worse.

What’s Being Requested?

A Border Patrol agent shot Marimar Martinez five times in Chicago last year, claiming she rammed an ICE vehicle. Due to a court order, we now have video that shows the officers were not boxed in or in danger, as they claimed, and that they turned into her prior to shooting her. Text messages show the shooter, Charles Exum, seemed proud of his actions, bragging, “I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys.” Why such contempt for someone who wasn’t a danger, as video seems to indicate? As it turns out, CBP had information on Ms. Martinez prior to shooting her, listed in documents that, “identified social media postings … and people that are believed to be a threat to officers.”

They knew of her before they tried to kill her, all from a repost from an “ICE watch” page, which have sprung up online, often focused on individual cities, to help people avoid interactions with ICE or protest them. Whether or not she was targeted as a result of that gathered data is uncertain.

We now know the DHS has been collecting data on who supports anti-ICE sentiments, even if the sentiment was something as simple as a joke comment. Martinez reshared a video about an ICE agent who was also a Youtuber, joking on Facebook that “they found him lol.” That obviously harmless joke comment was enough to have her added to a list. Later, as Exum bragged, she was shot five times. It’s hard not to make that connection between tracking her for showing anti-ICE sentiment and the violence against her, though we have no proof she was targeted. We know ICE can do verification of license plates, and would likely do so for anyone who was reporting on their whereabouts or actions. If that was connected to the same database tracking Ms. Martinez, then it’s possible they decided she wasn’t worth being careful around.

Reporting Shows How Deep Tracking Goes

Google, Reddit, Discord, and Meta, who owns Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp, have all received requests from the government to reveal information about who has shared anti-ICE sentiment. All but Discord have complied so far with some of the requests. It’s official policy for some of these companies to reach out to users who have been subpoenaed. They’d then wait 10-14 days to respond to the subpoena. Meta, for example, gives users just 10 days to respond with proof that they’ve filed a lawsuit against the government to stop the subpoena. For most people, especially people who had that email end up in the junk folder, that’s not enough time. And that’s the point, because it’s much easier for these tech companies to respond with this data than to fight the government on it.

Not that it’s hard to fight the government on this. People have had success blocking these subpoenas, with the ACLU reporting that they’ve successfully stopped the request of data for a client before. Apparently, the DHS has not once tried to fight back, dropping the case the instant any defense is mounted.

According to the tech companies and anonymous sources from within the government, the DHS has sent “hundreds” of these kinds of subpoenas for information. It’s important to note that that doesn’t mean they’ve only collected information on hundreds of people. After all, they seemingly had Marimar Martinez’ information without a subpoena. They only need to request information on the identity of who is holding the account if it’s an anonymous account. If there doesn’t seem to be any publicly identifying information on the account that the DHS cannot easily get without a subpoena, they’ll take that next step.

The information they request is anything that can be used to identify the individuals making the posts. This includes their real names, email addresses, phone numbers, or any other affiliations that could point the DHS in the right direction. Even if you don’t upload your own information to Meta, they can infer your identity from your friends who do share this information. As a result, they likely know the real identity of any account you create with them, regardless of how anonymous you try to make it.

The DHS wants information on people reporting ICE activity or protesting it online. They’ve even been using facial recognition at protests to build a database, according to some agents in candid videos. They’re looking to build a list of dissenters, and that never goes well for the people who aren’t in support of the fascist regime doing the data collection.

Stifled Speech

“What you can’t have is the government being able to crack down on any speech they don’t like just by saying that, it hypothetically could lead to some harm. That’s an invitation for the government controlling whatever it wants about our speech when we criticize or speak about the government.”

– Colin McDonell, attorney at Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)

People are less likely to exercise their free speech if they know there are repercussions for it. My mother has asked me not to go to protests because she’s seen police brutality towards protesters. Many people only feel safe expressing themselves online because either police or ICE or some other agent of the Trump regime is more than willing to kill anyone who disagrees with them. Self-preservation will lead to people staying silent, even when that silence will only enable future violence.

Two ICE sighting pages in Chicago have been shut down, apparently after pressure from the U.S. government. That seems to be a perfect example of how people will back down under threat of violence. We do not have freedom of speech if you have to put yourself in harm’s way, whether it’s “5 shots, 7 holes,” or multiple shots to the face or even those into your back as you lie on the ground. A government that protects the people who kill protesters has turned its back on free speech.

ICE has shown time and time again that they are willing to use bullets to silence anyone speaking out against them. We don’t have free speech if they’re allowed to do this, and especially not if the government is helping them track people who speak up online while ensuring those who are guilty of killing protesters never face punishment of it.

Gross Abuse of Subpoenas

There have been no serious injuries or deaths caused by protesters against ICE. In fact, only one ICE officer has ever been shot to death by someone else on duty. They were killed in Mexico by cartel members. The only other ICE officer to be shot on duty ever, in its over two decades of existence, was a self-inflicted accidental discharge. A vast majority of ICE agents die from one cause: COVID-19. Not a single immigrant or protester has killed an ICE agent. Perhaps that’s because they mostly target immigrants, who are less likely to be violent than U.S.-born Americans.

Despite zero serious injuries or deaths, the DHS is claiming they need this information to keep officers safe. These posts are not being targeted for violent speech. Ms. Martinez’ post was laughing at an officer whose YouTube page was discovered, for example. Obviously this wasn’t a threat of violence. They added her to a list anyway.

Since officer safety clearly isn’t a concern, the most likely cause has been the Trump administration’s views on critics. Trump has always worked to silence critics.

During Trump’s first term, he attempted to use subpoenas to get information on a Twitter account that was critical of Trump. Back then, a Trump sycophant and ally had not yet purchased the social media platform, and Twitter sued to block the release of data. The administration backed down. They always do.

These kinds of subpoenas, which do not come with search warrants and are not signed off on by a judge, are typically only used in the most extreme cases, when there’s a threat of violence to Americans. They are not used to single out people and silence them for their for political views. Freedom of speech is dangerous to fascists, and they treat it as such. Fortunately, they can’t say that part out loud.

DHS Won’t Defend Subpoenas

Administrative subpoenas are not warrants. They don’t require authorization from a judge. As a result, they’re mere requests for data. The person who is targeted by them can fight it. The DHS has reportedly backed down from every single one of these fights.

That’s likely because they don’t want to set a precedent. If they push one of these through, no judge will side with them. They’d have to reveal that they’re trying to obtain information on people who disagree with the political violence the president is encouraging. That’s not defensible. It could make future subpoenas like this harder to enforce and could lead to them counting as harassment. In every case, the DHS has backed down. That’s because their targets don’t want violence. Everyone who is protesting ICE wants to stop violence and make communities safe again. It’s hard to claim these people are criminals when they’re begging agents to follow the law, restrict use of violence, or disband violent groups altogether. The case simply isn’t one the government can defend.

But just because they can’t defend it, doesn’t mean they won’t use it. Trump is allegedly no stranger to using lawsuits to try to silence people. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suits, are often lawsuits that a public figure or corporation file against a small defendant who cannot hire a team of lawyers to defend themselves. Victims of a SLAPP suit usually settle out of court and go silent. Some claim Trump has used them for most of his life, and it seems he’s carried that attitude over to his administration. If speech is the enemy, frivolous and harassing lawsuits are a way to silence people. They work, but the government has more laws restricting their ability to restrict free speech than private institutions. The same strategy doesn’t work if the constitution protects the victims of these strategic lawsuits.

Companies Demand Personal Data on Users While Facing Subpoena Swarms?

It’s hard not to see a dangerous collection of issues here. We have companies demanding actual identification from users to “protect the children” (while actually putting them in harm’s way). Then we have the government asking these corporations if they have identifying information on their users. Finally, we have people who were in a database being shot and the violence against them being celebrated by government officials. It’s hard not to see how our government is attacking anonymity online in order to better track people and use the threat of violence to silence dissenters. Online ID checks in the name of “age verification” are dangerous enough when they force people into darker corners of the web and silence abuse victims—often children—from finding help. But when they’re also used to silence free speech, they become a deadly threat to the foundation of democracy and freedom itself. So why are companies like Discord, who faced these subpoenas from the government, going along with them?

Corporations may not have identifying information on someone. Some websites don’t require even an email address to sign up. Others will gladly accept any email address provided. However, if these companies have to collect your actual ID to allow you to use them, they suddenly become places where it is not safe to speak online. This is why anyone who has any level of knowledge about technology has been fighting with everything we have to protect the free internet from “age verification” laws that truly seek to de-anonymize the internet for profit and control.

Protect Yourself: Limit Your Exposure

I usually try to end these articles on a hopeful note. Some way to instill a feeling of control and safety. It’s getting more difficult. Social media companies have had all of your data for years. There are ways to protect your anonymity online, but one little mistake made back in 2017 on your account, perhaps it was uploading a photo of yourself, or liking an IRL friend’s post, or just letting your mother follow you would have been enough to reveal information about your identity. The companies that profit from knowing everything about you certainly tracked that information. You can take steps now, but for many people, it’s too late.

Obviously don’t upload personally identifying information to social media. Remove the metadata from any images you upload. Don’t upload photos of your face or at least make sure your face is covered at least from your brow area to the bottom of your cheekbones.

Perhaps create an account solely for following and interacting with news, as having the “wrong” beliefs may get you targeted now. Try not to use the apps for a service, because the apps can link your accounts together, while a browser with containers like Firefox can keep them separated. But even then, corporations can see that these accounts are closely related due to the IP addresses you access them from.

Obviously, never upload your ID to a service to use it.

Limit the data you share, it might help reduce the ability of companies to track you. Because those companies are just one tiny threat of a lawsuit or tariffs away from complying with whatever potentially illegal request they receive. Corporations aren’t your friend, they will turn on you to make a buck, give them as little information as you can.

Sources:
Exit mobile version