Everyone knows the evidence and information supporting the raid was nonsense. She refused to bend the knee to a conservative administration while people were dying, and the political machine decided to lash out.
Having not read the court filing that granted the search warrant I know nothing about the information supporting the seizure.
I know that she tried to make an emotional appeal on social media, I know that she has been accused of really sketchy behavior with a coworker, and I know that people who read her messaging are going to jump to conclusions about her being wronged with no information besides her being fired by republicans.
What evidence was presented which got the warrant granted? Why was it nonsense, and what led the judge to grant it anyway?
Why did she delay officers executing a legally granted search warrant for twenty minutes, hanging up on them and refusing to answer the door?
It very much strikes me as a “more than meets the eye” kind of situation that jumping to conclusions based on political affiliation does not do justice.
>Why did she delay officers executing a legally granted search warrant for twenty minutes, hanging up on them and refusing to answer the door?
I can think of several reasonable reasons why she might do so:
1. To contact the court WRT the validity of such a search warrant;
2. To contact an attorney to obtain legal advice WRT how to respond to an attempt to enter and search her home;
3. To remove her small children (who obviously have no involvement) and protect them from the police;
4. To put on appropriate clothing so as to be fully dressed when police enter her home.
I'm sure there are a myriad of other reasonable reasons she might have delayed answering her door.
I don't know if any or all of the above (or any other) reasons are relevant, but it seems to me that such a delay doesn't imply wrongdoing on her part.
23 minutes. The police showed overwhelming restraint in not breaking the door down. Whatever she was doing, she could have been trying to destroy evidence the entire time. The police serving a warrant aren’t supposed to wait outside for half an hour for you to answer the door.
>23 minutes. The police showed overwhelming restraint in not breaking the door down. Whatever she was doing, she could have been trying to destroy evidence the entire time. The police serving a warrant aren’t supposed to wait outside for half an hour for you to answer the door.
You wouldn't happen to be a member of the Arizona Republican Party[0], would you? I shouldn't be surprised if you were.
Allegedly sending messages[0] to former colleagues is now hacking? The credentials for accessing the system to send such messages was shared by hundreds, if not thousands of people and posted on intranet sites.
So sending messages (albeit unauthorized ones) using a widely-known set of shared credentials is worthy of a whole bunch of cops descending, guns drawn, on a couple with young children?
I'd also point out that the biggest ISP in that area is Comcast, which routinely sets up free wifi for anyone in range[1] by sharing their customers' links.
As such, any one who had access to the credentials (hundreds to thousands of people) could have just driven over to her house and used her Wifi.
And the cops come with guns drawn? With small children in the house?
From the linked article:
"The search was part of a criminal investigation into unauthorized messages sent last month to a group of health department employees using an internal emergency alert system.
[...]
According to the affidavit, the users on the emergency alert group account shared the same username and password, which cybersecurity experts said left the system vulnerable to a breach that could be difficult to trace."
There's the video, they're all wearing khakis, the officer talking to the woman has a not-so-stylish short sleeved plaid shirt, and one of them has some kind of stick? Not exactly a SWAT raid.
Claim an IP was found by examining logs (no logs shown)
Claim they used “investigative procedures” to identify the IP as belonging to Ms Jones.
Both seem weak but I don’t know usual practice.
Seems odd no actual logs (easily forged) are included. Also odd they don’t just say “Comcast said at time X the IP belonged to her” so unclear what strength of evidence they really had.
That seems reasonable enough. Look at your logs, find an IP that did the unauthorized thing, do a WHOIS, then call the ISP and ask who had that IP at the time.
Is it possible to fabricate all of this evidence? Sure, but finding the lady's IP in order to have it confirmed by Comcast seems pretty sophisticated without a pretty advanced conspiracy. One would assume a lot of that would come out at trial, if the defense could convince a jury of those doubts.
But this is a search warrant, that's all some pretty convoluted fraud of the justice system to smear this woman. Criminals are pretty stupid usually, intimidation would take a lazier form. Keeping with the "criminals are stupid" line, a person with an axe to grind posting on a work network after being fired from their home? That seems about right.
Lots of downvotes are going on around here that make it evident that people only really care about their political alignment and their ideas of justice depend on whether or not a person is on their side. I thought people were generally above that here.
>... I thought people were generally above that here.
This place has never, not once, been "above that". What you are astonished at is that the discourse is anti-right wing. Other times when it is pro-right-wing/an-cap/libertarian/anti-POC you don't notice it because that's the baseline for normalcy for the userbase.
There's a difference between having a political slant and straight up denying reasonable action because it is against someone of your political alignment.
>She refused to bend the knee to a conservative administration while people were dying, and the political machine decided to lash out.
Nope, that isn't what happened at all. The facts [1] show that she got the wrong end of the stick when the state epidemiologist asked to temporary remove one data field in order to validate the data (according to the emails seen). She didn't have all the facts, and she then incorrectly assumed that the data was being censored.
It's not. I never even mentioned that. The article was supporting my comment above by showing the emails between the state epidemiologist and her dept. I havent found any better source for those emails.
>Also your article goes literally against what you said.
No, it doesn't, if you read the article you will see it supports the facts I gave (see my other comment in this thread).
If you look at the first article, you will see that it does in fact support the facts I presented:
[1] The state epidemiologist asked her supervisor to temporily remove the data: "“Per Dr. Blackmore, disable the ability to export the data to files from the dashboard immediately. We need to ensure that dates (date fields) in all objects match their counterpart on the PDF line list published,”"
[2] Rebekah assumed this was censorship: “This is the wrong call,”
[3] Her supervisor asked her to re-instate the data one hour later: "Then, just after 6 p.m., the I.T. director emailed both Jones and Dr. Blackmore. “Re-enable for now please.”"
Your correct, but she became a useful tool for MSNBC and the Democratic party in the effort to turn any GOP governor who wanted to open their states up into evil, callous villains. As a result, any attempt to inject the reality of her being completely wrong and rightfully fired immediately solicits downvotes from the resident partisan hacks on HN. They don't get the fact that she made false claims in May about a conspiracy to hide deaths, and has a history of being sensationalist and dishonest.
Rebekah Jones reminds me of Alex Jones:
Loyal following, every bad thing that happens to her further bolsters her conspiratorial claims, and she grossly exaggerates her own credentials.
You're not saying she deserved the police raid and neither am I. We are just trying to point out the reality that she isn't some whistleblower hero but that doesn't fit the political narrative that the partisan hacks on here have accepted so we will be downvoted into oblivion.
The partisan hacks will continue to call her a data scientist when she never even called herself that and is not remotely trained for that because it makes their narrative more powerful. That's what politicization does:
any statement of fact that counters the narrative will be ignored or rejected or reacted to with hostility.
Your facts support the claim of censorship. As noted in the article you cite, the reason the state epidemilogist wanted the data removed was to stop journalists from asking about covid confirmation dates, which were earlier than the state was claiming. Rebekah pushed back with her supervisor, who agreed that the request was censorship. The state (not her supervisor), acting at the behest of the governor, then removed Rebekah the following morning, alleging a "pattern" of insubordination though they could only ever document the 1 instance. (The governor's involvement was confirmed by the governor's press office giving the press release informing the public of her termination.)
>the reason the state epidemilogist wanted the data removed was to stop journalists from asking about covid confirmation dates
No, that is just your assumption, but is not supported by the facts. According to the article, the data disappeared for an hour, and then came back again. That is hardly censorship.
> then removed Rebekah the following morning, alleging a "pattern" of insubordination though they could only ever document the 1 instance.
Given that she has been booked on police battery, and has 3 felonies (one for sexual cyberstalking, and another for robbery), it wouldn't really be surprising.
Having not read the court filing that granted the search warrant I know nothing about the information supporting the seizure.
I know that she tried to make an emotional appeal on social media, I know that she has been accused of really sketchy behavior with a coworker, and I know that people who read her messaging are going to jump to conclusions about her being wronged with no information besides her being fired by republicans.
What evidence was presented which got the warrant granted? Why was it nonsense, and what led the judge to grant it anyway?
Why did she delay officers executing a legally granted search warrant for twenty minutes, hanging up on them and refusing to answer the door?
It very much strikes me as a “more than meets the eye” kind of situation that jumping to conclusions based on political affiliation does not do justice.