4 ms·

The end result of this new system: government agents will be able to more readily query other government agencies about foreign citizens. This seems... reasonab

The end result of this new system: government agents will be able to more readily query other government agencies about foreign citizens. This seems... reasonable? > "that allows ICE agents, including those in the agency’s primary deportation force, the Enforcement and Removal Office, to query information across several large government databases simultaneously" But Peter Thiel, the new boogeyman, is involved, so this is somehow supposed to be worrisome news.

tptacek 10y ago
No, the special problem here is that the CIA is enjoined by law against conducting surveillance against US citizens. You can't simply build a system that allows ICE to query CIA data; the two are supposed to be siloed. It is a problem that DHS is using Palantir to violate that rule. It is also a problem if Palantir is knowingly selling technology for the purposes of violating those rules. But it's doubtless also true that many other tech companies with less interesting names are involved in the same project and profiting from it in the same way.
- knz 10y ago
  > the special problem here is that the CIA is enjoined by law against conducting surveillance against US citizens. Laws only matter if they are enforced or if the loopholes used to exploit them are closed.
  - pc86 10y ago
    To what loophole are you referring? Or better yet, can you explain the difference between a loophole and a deliberate choice of language intending to make one thing legal and another very similar thing illegal?
    - knz 10y ago
      I meant in a general sense but practices like having other five eyes partners or a private company surveil US citizens to avoid a US agency doing anything illegal come to mind. The only difference is in the intent of the author or when the law was written. The fourth amendment seems quite clear but we give that up at the border for some apparent reason.
      - pc86 10y ago
        The Supreme Court is the only body charged with interpreting the Constitution, and they've been very consistent and clear that for the most part the fourth amendment doesn't apply at the border. 4A protects against unreasonable searches. Searching people entering the country at an international border is entirely reasonable, so 4A doesn't apply. Obviously there's debate about considering a state road 98 miles inside the country a "border zone," and I don't think border rules should apply there, but at the border is pretty much settled law.
- strictnein 10y ago
  You need to read the article I guess, because the CIA isn't conducting surveillance against US citizens and providing that data to ICE. The CIA has data on foreign citizens and is providing that info to a system that ICE will have access to.
- pc86 10y ago
  You seem to have replaced the phrase "foreign citizens" with "US citizens." They're obviously very different but especially in this context.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  It would be nice if a line could be drawn here, since we've been told for decades that a line had been drawn here. At this point, can anyone really see the line? If the point were to keep us secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, would the giant papers-and-effects-vacuuming-up machine really have been built?
ganfortran 10y ago
> But Peter Thiel, the new boogeyman Well he is quite vocal about his political opinion, and he is rich. Maybe that is what he wants anyway.
alexandercrohde 10y ago
For those that don't understand the concern: a lot of us have an interest in the government being inefficient at tasks. You may think to yourself "So what, keep the terrorists away?" But when I hear stories about border agents asking to inspect peoples' phones, and taking notes if somebody has an app for hookups and asking them about it next time they cross that border it concerns me. Sometimes making an irresponsible system more efficient is a bad thing. Hitler was only able to exterminate 2/3rds of the Jewish race because there was registry of Jews.

tptacek 10y ago

No, the special problem here is that the CIA is enjoined by law against conducting surveillance against US citizens. You can't simply build a system that allows ICE to query CIA data; the two are supposed to be siloed. It is a problem that DHS is using Palantir to violate that rule. It is also a problem if Palantir is knowingly selling technology for the purposes of violating those rules. But it's doubtless also true that many other tech companies with less interesting names are involved in the same project and profiting from it in the same way.

knz 10y ago
> the special problem here is that the CIA is enjoined by law against conducting surveillance against US citizens. Laws only matter if they are enforced or if the loopholes used to exploit them are closed.
- pc86 10y ago
  To what loophole are you referring? Or better yet, can you explain the difference between a loophole and a deliberate choice of language intending to make one thing legal and another very similar thing illegal?
  - knz 10y ago
    I meant in a general sense but practices like having other five eyes partners or a private company surveil US citizens to avoid a US agency doing anything illegal come to mind. The only difference is in the intent of the author or when the law was written. The fourth amendment seems quite clear but we give that up at the border for some apparent reason.
    - pc86 10y ago
      The Supreme Court is the only body charged with interpreting the Constitution, and they've been very consistent and clear that for the most part the fourth amendment doesn't apply at the border. 4A protects against unreasonable searches. Searching people entering the country at an international border is entirely reasonable, so 4A doesn't apply. Obviously there's debate about considering a state road 98 miles inside the country a "border zone," and I don't think border rules should apply there, but at the border is pretty much settled law.
strictnein 10y ago
You need to read the article I guess, because the CIA isn't conducting surveillance against US citizens and providing that data to ICE. The CIA has data on foreign citizens and is providing that info to a system that ICE will have access to.
pc86 10y ago
You seem to have replaced the phrase "foreign citizens" with "US citizens." They're obviously very different but especially in this context.
jessaustin 10y ago
It would be nice if a line could be drawn here, since we've been told for decades that a line had been drawn here. At this point, can anyone really see the line? If the point were to keep us secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, would the giant papers-and-effects-vacuuming-up machine really have been built?

ganfortran 10y ago

> But Peter Thiel, the new boogeyman Well he is quite vocal about his political opinion, and he is rich. Maybe that is what he wants anyway.

alexandercrohde 10y ago

For those that don't understand the concern: a lot of us have an interest in the government being inefficient at tasks. You may think to yourself "So what, keep the terrorists away?" But when I hear stories about border agents asking to inspect peoples' phones, and taking notes if somebody has an app for hookups and asking them about it next time they cross that border it concerns me. Sometimes making an irresponsible system more efficient is a bad thing. Hitler was only able to exterminate 2/3rds of the Jewish race because there was registry of Jews.