This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.privacyguides.org/press-releases/2026/01/31/a-message-regarding-ice-in-minnesota-and-the-usa-from-privacy-guides-program-director-jonah-aragon
27 Likes
Alternative link for proxied viewing
Can’t seem to watch this anywhere (YT or proxied) without getting blocked on Sign in to confirm you're not a bot. Can view other videos. Coincidence, big G? 
3 Likes
If you haven’t seen the video and would like to watch it, the timestamp is 1:50:20 in the livestream. Here is the streamyard link.
I think the reason they are using YouTube is because this video is clipped from the livestream and uploaded to a Youtube only channel, Privacy Shorts.
It it actually also on PeerTube at https://neat.tube/w/ahVwJwrXRu5xQ9WrPRLRiz but PeerTube is somewhat broken for some reason. Here’s another one:
5 Likes
Streamyard delivered MBs of analytics from a dozen domains just to 403 and zombie on the video stream. Peertube plays like a charm on first try from here. Ty!
1 Like
With all that’s happened and is happening, to continue to say and claim PG is impartial doesn’t feel right.
I think there comes a time where one should take a stance and choose and be open about the choice of being on one side or another.
With all that we discuss here, clearly the subject matter of privacy and security itself is political and ideological. We here are on the side of freedoms and rights. The current fascist government is not. And still you say PG is impartial? Is it for those non critical thinkers on the other side who may not question PG’s position once they read this? I think you should just come out and say it. And stick with it. And be proud of it as all supporters of PG are and as I have been for years.
This is no more a time for diplomatic responses, I feel.
14 Likes
I think there is an important distinction between impartial to anything, and non-partisan.
PG’s obviously is not impartial when it comes to the topic of privacy or its core values. But it is strictly non-partisan in that it does not take political stances of one party versus another.
This statement is absolutely taking a moral stand against government overreach and abuse of power. But it, correctly in my view, is also extremely careful in making it about the principle of what the government is doing while staying clear of making it seem like a partisan red/blue position.
12 Likes
Right. This is I think where I feel it is reasonably okay to conflate the two - PG doing what it does and all that it stands for is by default operating with one side already chosen. Hence my comment like that and the discrepancy I still feel when I read “impartial”.
Yes, I concur.
Yeah.. again, I feel slightly differently here and there is a technical difference you’re making it out more than it is and hence why my conflation is more appropriate.
2 Likes
I think it is a very important point. As Jonah mentioned, PG has called out both parties when they engage in misbehavior. Standing against a bad action being committed by one partisan actor does not mean you are therefore siding with the other partisan group.
In other words, it’s often PGs position to say everyone is the asshole without saying which one is more or less of one.
Conflating this is dangerous to PGs integrity and dangerous to the privacy cause if privacy as an issue gets coded as red/blue you instantly lose 50% of the domestic U.S. audience that prefers the other team.
10 Likes
Haha, yeah.. I’ve noticed that too. Good way to put it.
–
I see what you’re saying. I can’t disagree for the most part. But I hope you also see where I am coming from and how my line of thinking may also be what many others may still be feeling.
It is a fine line. I guess I am just the type of person who would prefer certainty and clarity instead of what we often have otherwise which most are unable to critically think about that brings them to their own conclusions about important matters, at least appropriately.
5 Likes
I think we 100% agree on substance. We’re just expressing preference for messaging strategy.
2 Likes
I also acknowledge it is hard for PG and Jonah to find the words for issue that to me has been ineffable so good job on that part from them indeed.
But I suppose it would have been hard if not impossible anyway to find the right words and frame it most appropriately that makes sense while not aggravating anyone too much. It’s almost impossible to do in the best of circumstances.
1 Like
“Extrajudicial killings” is an interesting and totally impartial way to phrase it.
Constitutional rights to attack and disrupt federal agents performing lawful duties.
I do dislike how illegal immigration is being used as justification for more surveilance.
This has nothing to do with party affiliation and everything to do with when this technology became available. This is happening in my country too, but our government doesn’t deport anyone, despite continuously granting themselves more power to interfere in our lives.
The smaller numbers before party column is average annual deportations/apprehensions. These figures only go up to 2019.
| Jimmy Carter | 105,378 | 26,345 | Democrat | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ronald Reagan | 168,364 | 21,046 | Republican | 8 |
| George Bush | 141,326 | 35,332 | Republican | 4 |
| Bill Clinton | 869,646 | 108,706 | Democrat | 8 |
| George W. Bush | 2,012,539 | 251,567 | Republican | 8 |
| Barack Obama | 3,066,457 | 383,307 | Democrat | 8 |
| Donald J. Trump | 551,449 | 275,725 | Republican | 2 |
https://www.cato.org/blog/deportation-rates-historical-perspective
1 Like
Also, just to point out, misbehavior in other countries. Not many of us at Privacy Guides are American at all 
However, when it comes to broader current events like this, unlike I think many virtue signaling creators online, we tend to only comment on things that our team has direct/first-hand experience with or knowledge about.
This is why we have not in the past, for example, released similar statements condemning any parties involved in the wars in Ukraine or the Middle East, etc., even though there are even larger atrocities and certainly privacy-related angles in such cases as well. This is simply because we do not have any team members in these countries who’ve witnessed it themselves.
Merely repeating what we read in the mainstream media or from other organizations, even if some or all of our team agrees with it personally, does not add anything to the conversation I feel.
On the other hand, what is happening in Minneapolis I can observe and judge for myself, and land at a position accordingly. And if our own team members in the UK or Australia or elsewhere were experiencing similar things in their home town or country, I would happily read a similar statement from Privacy Guides on their behalf.
I hope this is some assurance to people regardless of their political views that this team will remain laser-focused on privacy rights and advancing them based on our own team’s strengths, rather than mindless repetition of others’ opinions.
We are impartial towards all people who are advancing privacy rights in any form. We do not have preferred winners and losers, we evaluate all people/products/organizations based only on the facts we can observe. Our impartiality is a guarantee we make to this space where so many publications have financial biases.
Now, those facts will reveal some people or solutions are better or worse than others. Our mission to be impartial does not mean we treat everyone the same, we merely treat them fairly. I think other organizations forget this and believe impartiality means a lack of preference.
Furthermore, we are extremely partial against people who are dismantling the rights to privacy in our society. This has always been true, and in this regard we are certainly a political activism group
It’s best to stick solely to the facts, which this is. Based on your next sentence I am not sure whether you’re making this statement genuinely or sarcastically
I can always count on the Privacy Guides forum to be the most good faith group of people on the internet 
14 Likes
Thanks so much for speaking up, @jonah great work.
4 Likes
I really enjoyed it! Great job highlighting governmental overreach while staying non‑partisan.
It does feel a little odd that you chose to make a video about the situation in Minnesota, given that government abuses occur regularly in many places often even more egregious than the incident in Minnesota. I suspect the extensive media coverage and the fact that it happened in your home state played a role. Still, let’s keep calling out government abuse wherever it occurs.
I can’t even imagine the privacy situation in a country at war. Like, there would be solid government justification to spy on citizens looking for spies. Or have you hand over passwords for an inspector to review all your files for saboteur or treason activities.
1 Like
I saw that YT had changed something so Invidious and other proxies were running into snags a couple days ago. Seems to be worked out at this point.
Thanks for linking to a non-YT version
Just saw this video linked below posted by Dutch historian Rutger Bregman. He encourages everyone to quit ChatGPT, arguing that quitting ChatGPT is one of the best ways to deter ICE, as OpenAI is Donald Trump’s biggest funder, and ChatGPT is used by ICE:
Twitter: https://x.com/rcbregman/status/2019036775004701046
BlueSky: @rutgerbregman.com on Bluesky
The video is not on his YouTube channel yet, but I am sure it will be soon, and I will update this post when it’s published.
I think this is a great idea! I agree with everything Bregman says in the first 2 minutes, less so, with what he says after with his suggestion of alternatives, as I’m an AI skeptic.
Despite my disagreements with the latter part I think this video is worth sharing if you want to deter ICE. Even if you don’t pay for ChatGPT quitting it will send a message. Please do so.
5 Likes