8 ms·

I'm dismayed at the comments here of "if Amazon/Microsoft/Google don't work for ICE, someone else will". That argument doesn't fly. If you stop helping ICE, t

by gasull 8y ago

I'm dismayed at the comments here of "if Amazon/Microsoft/Google don't work for ICE, someone else will". That argument doesn't fly. If you stop helping ICE, they will have to get worse software from likely more expensive vendors (less market competition for the contract). Which will make ICE less efficient in its goal to criminalize, separate and deport immigrants.

bb88 8y ago
Your anger is misdirected. The fight isn't whether or not ICE should have facial recognition software. The fight is to make ICE act in accordance with our values. Some agency (ICE or whatever replaces it) will still need to protect the borders, and that protection will require facial recognition software. If you hate ICE, you should also probably hate defense contractors more, because they have very little moral qualms about accepting contracts from the government, even ones that may violate human rights. And that's where that money is going to go now.
- confounded 8y ago
  Not sure if the parent expressed anything approaching either anger or hate. > ... that protection will require facial recognition software. Why? Lots of things are effective, but life in a free country means that we don’t do some of them. We could put cameras in every home, make them illegal to disable. Ban encryption. Censor the web. Ban cars that can’t be remotely disabled. Free societies are free because there is slack in the system. This freedom is how norms evolve. Gay sex could put you in jail when my parents were teenagers. Supporting Nelson Mandela when he was in jail was supporting the leader of a terrorist organization. Heaven forbid smoking a joint. The status quo is not divined. My point is, that regardless of your issue, authoritarianism is not a good answer. Even if you think it might swing things in your favor today, there are no guarantees that it will tomorrow.
  - bb88 8y ago
    If you were an honest debater, you would have discussed the pros and cons of facial recognition software instead of labeling my position as somehow inherently evil without argument.
    - confounded 8y ago
      No need to assume I’m out to get you. Are there benefits of facial recognition cameras for law enforcement which can’t be said of other mass surveillance techniques? Are there specific pros you want to be acknowledged?
      - bb88 8y ago
        I didn't realize you have the PhD to diagnose me as paranoid as well. Again, if you want an honest debate, I'm willing to have one. But I think in your quest to make a popular rhetorical argument, you've lost the moral high ground.
        whatyoucantsay 8y ago
        I think confounded makes some good points.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > My point is, that regardless of your issue, authoritarianism is not a good answer. Your assumption that this software would be used for authoritarian ends is exactly the problem the OP was trying to point out.
    - jstanley 8y ago
      The argument is that use of this software is inherently authoritarian, in and of itself.
      - bb88 8y ago
        No object ever in society is "inherently authoritarian". Authoritarianism is a behavior of a country's leaders, not a label on some unwanted technology. E.g. Sniper rifles are not authoritarian in an of themselves. The use of sniper rifles to snuff out dissent is. And that's why this debate is dishonest. Because if you support facial recognition software for the police as another tool for the good guys, you get smeared as supporting authoritarianism. When in fact, if you deeply wanted to remove authoritarian behaviors, you would add more checks and balances to the system to prevent unchecked behavior from our leaders. The founding father's knew that and designed the constitution that way.
        jstanley 8y ago
        I agree that the existence of the software is benign. I said the use of it is authoritarian. And sure, I didn't make it explicit, so let me make it explicit now: the use of the software to identify real people is authoritarian. If you use it to classify random cat pictures then that's obviously not authoritarian.
        bb88 8y ago
        First, thanks for responding. But saying two things are equivalent doesn't make it so. My phone tags people in them. Are you saying that is authoritarian? Because to me, it seems like a really nice tool to tag people in photos.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
smsm42 8y ago
ICE does not "criminalize immigrants" and can't do that. ICE ignores legal immigrants, as it should, and prosecutes illegal immigrants, according to laws passed by Congress. ICE is executive branch, it has no legislative powers and can't "criminalize" anything.
- confounded 8y ago
  I don’t mean to sound pompous, but you may have misunderstood the meaning of the word criminalization. Unlawful presence (being “an illegal”) is a civil matter, and not a crime. Use of the term with regards to immigration is established. Here’s an (old) NYT oped as an example (other outlets available via your favorite search engine): https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27fri2.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27fri2.html
  - smsm42 8y ago
    Unlawful presence (being “an illegal”) is a civil matter, and not a crime. US legal system seems to disagree with you. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-enter-illegally.html http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-ent... https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33351.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33351.pdf It is true that some of the illegal immigrants (e.g. those overstaying visas) may not be guilty of criminal infractions, but most of the illegal border crossers are. As you can see, this question has little to do with ICE as these conditions are written in law, not ICE policies. Here’s an (old) NYT oped as an example NYT is not exactly a neutral arbiter of correct word usage, especially in highly politicized matter in which NYT is fully engaged. Additionally, if you do read the article, right from the start it points out that the change from criminal handling to civil is a target of a future reform, not a current state of affairs: A bedrock premise of smart immigration reform is the sharp distinction it draws between criminal aliens and Americans-in-waiting. While it acknowledges that illegal immigrants need to get right with the law, it treats illegal status as a civil matter to be resolved by the machinery of naturalization, not by the police and prisons. Nobody would need a "reform" if the above would already be the case. In any case, ICE has no power to decide any of these matters, beyond very narrow band of operative focus (i.e. how to allocate prosecutorial and prevention resources, etc.) - if something is criminal, ICE can not "decriminalize" it, and if something is not, ICE can not "criminalize" it. That's why the very article you quoted talks about "bills" - i.e. legislative actions - that can do exactly that.
StreamBright 8y ago
First of all, I am an immigrant. I am not sure why you think that ICE criminalize anybody? How is this even possible? People violate the law are criminals. Trying to enter the US illegally is a crime. Pretty plain simple. I do not like the ICE but I had pleasant experience with them even when I tried to enter the US (unknowingly) illegally once. They helped me through the process, fined me (following the law) and I was pretty ok with that.
- wencha 8y ago
  For some reason, the conversation here and in some other places is dominated by people who want open borders, and therefore don’t believe entering a country without permission is illegal. Such an argument would never fly in real life, so I don’t know why so much time is wasted arguing with them. It feels like some kind of elaborate trolling, saying something super crazy and waiting for answers (baiting).
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Most people appalled at what's going on aren't arguing for open borders. They do want borders, and some degree of border security. What they're saying is that at some point, the amount of suffering you have to cause to reach that level of security is simply morally unacceptable.
    - andrewmcwatters 8y ago
      Oh, those poor criminals.
- KirinDave 8y ago
  Until recently it was a federal misdemeanor of minor import. There really is no reason to run excessive immigration centers from a logistical standpoint in a modern society. It's a legacy concept from days when things like air travel were not readily available to the masses. You assume that there NEEDS to be some kind of border enforcement. It's not clear why that needs to include detention camps, armed guns, tent cities for children, no logistical support for reuniting asylum seekers with their children, or intimidation tactics. That is, unless you think South Americans are fundamentally different and less worthy than their North American cousins in some axiomatic way that says, "Only the top N% of you are worthy of joining our society." This is especially true because the US really doesn't have substantial social services (or those that we do have are teetering on the edge of collapse) to fund compared to other first world countries who proportionally spend much more of their budget on entitlements. Seriously? What makes YOU more entitled to be here than someone else? The answer is: there are probably many people who'd like to be here that would have similar positive (or negative) impacts on society. It's only because of implicit exceptionalism in American culture that we assume there is chaff to filter out.
pandem 8y ago
If ICE has to get worse software that just means you and everyone else need to pay more in taxes. The government has the means to get what it wants usually
- int_19h 8y ago
  Usually that just translates to more and better Potemkin villages. Ultimately, knowledge and skills are a limited resource, and money is not a replacement for it.
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago
  That argument can be used to justify supporting any atrocity. IBM and other companies helping the nazis used that argument.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  That's only a problem if "minimize taxes" is the only metric you care about.
derping_hacker 8y ago
Illegal immigration costs US federal and state governments close to 135 billion annually. Free college education for every American would cost 50-60. Why should I value criminals more than my fellow Americans. What legal obligation do I have to have the money I work for used to pay for illegal immigrants? We could educate every american and have another 60 billion to spare to help the African-American community. https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-b...
- pjc50 8y ago
  > Illegal immigration costs US federal and state governments close to 135 billion annually. This is such a ridiculous number that it should be discounted out of hand. It also sounds like you're not counting the benefits of, work done by, and taxes paid by, these people. Immigration enforcement is never going to get you free college. That's not how the politics works.
  - derping_hacker 8y ago
    If you read the source provided you would see the net loss is still 113 billion to the US government. As for myself I got a full ride scholarship based on test scores and makes 200k in my early 20s, I just don't like seeing my taxes pay for people who cheat the system.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      I don't know why I'm bothering to engage with an anti-immigration "think tank" that's obviously going to be a pit of dishonesty, but I had a look at the linked PDF: "The overall population that we analyze, for the purposes of determining the costs of illegal immigration, also includes about 4.2 million American-born minor children of illegal aliens. Although, the U.S.- born children of illegal aliens are, under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, de jure U.S. citizens, they are also typically “targeted low-income children,” who are eligible for a variety of federal benefits. While not counted as illegal aliens, these children are a signifi cant part of illegal immigration’s fi scal impact on the U.S. taxpayer. Because they would not be present in the United States but for their parents violation of American immigration law, we consider them to be appropriately considered part of the cost of illegal immigration. " Right. So they're counting US-born children, who they admit are constitutionally Americans, as part of the cost of illegal immigration. So I guess the next step is finding a way to deport or cage those US-born American children of illegal immigrants?
troubador55 8y ago
Your argument doesn't fly either. ICE is removing illegal immigrants from the US. If it was removing legal citizens or legal immigrants for some arbitrary reason then people would be much more sympathetic to your position. In reality however, because ICE is not rounding up "immigrants" as you say in an intentional effort to obscure the truth by avoiding the necessary word "illegal", most people in the US are in support of ICE's mission. ICE will continue to carry out that just and necessary mission with or without the assistance of some naive and privileged ideaologues that work at tech companies. Your position on this issue is rooted firmly on the wrong side of history.

by gasull 8y ago

bb88 8y ago

Your anger is misdirected. The fight isn't whether or not ICE should have facial recognition software. The fight is to make ICE act in accordance with our values. Some agency (ICE or whatever replaces it) will still need to protect the borders, and that protection will require facial recognition software. If you hate ICE, you should also probably hate defense contractors more, because they have very little moral qualms about accepting contracts from the government, even ones that may violate human rights. And that's where that money is going to go now.

confounded 8y ago
Not sure if the parent expressed anything approaching either anger or hate. > ... that protection will require facial recognition software. Why? Lots of things are effective, but life in a free country means that we don’t do some of them. We could put cameras in every home, make them illegal to disable. Ban encryption. Censor the web. Ban cars that can’t be remotely disabled. Free societies are free because there is slack in the system. This freedom is how norms evolve. Gay sex could put you in jail when my parents were teenagers. Supporting Nelson Mandela when he was in jail was supporting the leader of a terrorist organization. Heaven forbid smoking a joint. The status quo is not divined. My point is, that regardless of your issue, authoritarianism is not a good answer. Even if you think it might swing things in your favor today, there are no guarantees that it will tomorrow.
- bb88 8y ago
  If you were an honest debater, you would have discussed the pros and cons of facial recognition software instead of labeling my position as somehow inherently evil without argument.
  - confounded 8y ago
    No need to assume I’m out to get you. Are there benefits of facial recognition cameras for law enforcement which can’t be said of other mass surveillance techniques? Are there specific pros you want to be acknowledged?
    - bb88 8y ago
      I didn't realize you have the PhD to diagnose me as paranoid as well. Again, if you want an honest debate, I'm willing to have one. But I think in your quest to make a popular rhetorical argument, you've lost the moral high ground.
      - whatyoucantsay 8y ago
        I think confounded makes some good points.
- naasking 8y ago
  > My point is, that regardless of your issue, authoritarianism is not a good answer. Your assumption that this software would be used for authoritarian ends is exactly the problem the OP was trying to point out.
  - jstanley 8y ago
    The argument is that use of this software is inherently authoritarian, in and of itself.
    - bb88 8y ago
      No object ever in society is "inherently authoritarian". Authoritarianism is a behavior of a country's leaders, not a label on some unwanted technology. E.g. Sniper rifles are not authoritarian in an of themselves. The use of sniper rifles to snuff out dissent is. And that's why this debate is dishonest. Because if you support facial recognition software for the police as another tool for the good guys, you get smeared as supporting authoritarianism. When in fact, if you deeply wanted to remove authoritarian behaviors, you would add more checks and balances to the system to prevent unchecked behavior from our leaders. The founding father's knew that and designed the constitution that way.
      - jstanley 8y ago
        I agree that the existence of the software is benign. I said the use of it is authoritarian. And sure, I didn't make it explicit, so let me make it explicit now: the use of the software to identify real people is authoritarian. If you use it to classify random cat pictures then that's obviously not authoritarian.
        bb88 8y ago
        First, thanks for responding. But saying two things are equivalent doesn't make it so. My phone tags people in them. Are you saying that is authoritarian? Because to me, it seems like a really nice tool to tag people in photos.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

smsm42 8y ago

ICE does not "criminalize immigrants" and can't do that. ICE ignores legal immigrants, as it should, and prosecutes illegal immigrants, according to laws passed by Congress. ICE is executive branch, it has no legislative powers and can't "criminalize" anything.

confounded 8y ago
I don’t mean to sound pompous, but you may have misunderstood the meaning of the word criminalization. Unlawful presence (being “an illegal”) is a civil matter, and not a crime. Use of the term with regards to immigration is established. Here’s an (old) NYT oped as an example (other outlets available via your favorite search engine): https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27fri2.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27fri2.html
- smsm42 8y ago
  Unlawful presence (being “an illegal”) is a civil matter, and not a crime. US legal system seems to disagree with you. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-enter-illegally.html http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-ent... https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33351.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33351.pdf It is true that some of the illegal immigrants (e.g. those overstaying visas) may not be guilty of criminal infractions, but most of the illegal border crossers are. As you can see, this question has little to do with ICE as these conditions are written in law, not ICE policies. Here’s an (old) NYT oped as an example NYT is not exactly a neutral arbiter of correct word usage, especially in highly politicized matter in which NYT is fully engaged. Additionally, if you do read the article, right from the start it points out that the change from criminal handling to civil is a target of a future reform, not a current state of affairs: A bedrock premise of smart immigration reform is the sharp distinction it draws between criminal aliens and Americans-in-waiting. While it acknowledges that illegal immigrants need to get right with the law, it treats illegal status as a civil matter to be resolved by the machinery of naturalization, not by the police and prisons. Nobody would need a "reform" if the above would already be the case. In any case, ICE has no power to decide any of these matters, beyond very narrow band of operative focus (i.e. how to allocate prosecutorial and prevention resources, etc.) - if something is criminal, ICE can not "decriminalize" it, and if something is not, ICE can not "criminalize" it. That's why the very article you quoted talks about "bills" - i.e. legislative actions - that can do exactly that.

StreamBright 8y ago

First of all, I am an immigrant. I am not sure why you think that ICE criminalize anybody? How is this even possible? People violate the law are criminals. Trying to enter the US illegally is a crime. Pretty plain simple. I do not like the ICE but I had pleasant experience with them even when I tried to enter the US (unknowingly) illegally once. They helped me through the process, fined me (following the law) and I was pretty ok with that.

wencha 8y ago
For some reason, the conversation here and in some other places is dominated by people who want open borders, and therefore don’t believe entering a country without permission is illegal. Such an argument would never fly in real life, so I don’t know why so much time is wasted arguing with them. It feels like some kind of elaborate trolling, saying something super crazy and waiting for answers (baiting).
- int_19h 8y ago
  Most people appalled at what's going on aren't arguing for open borders. They do want borders, and some degree of border security. What they're saying is that at some point, the amount of suffering you have to cause to reach that level of security is simply morally unacceptable.
  - andrewmcwatters 8y ago
    Oh, those poor criminals.
KirinDave 8y ago
Until recently it was a federal misdemeanor of minor import. There really is no reason to run excessive immigration centers from a logistical standpoint in a modern society. It's a legacy concept from days when things like air travel were not readily available to the masses. You assume that there NEEDS to be some kind of border enforcement. It's not clear why that needs to include detention camps, armed guns, tent cities for children, no logistical support for reuniting asylum seekers with their children, or intimidation tactics. That is, unless you think South Americans are fundamentally different and less worthy than their North American cousins in some axiomatic way that says, "Only the top N% of you are worthy of joining our society." This is especially true because the US really doesn't have substantial social services (or those that we do have are teetering on the edge of collapse) to fund compared to other first world countries who proportionally spend much more of their budget on entitlements. Seriously? What makes YOU more entitled to be here than someone else? The answer is: there are probably many people who'd like to be here that would have similar positive (or negative) impacts on society. It's only because of implicit exceptionalism in American culture that we assume there is chaff to filter out.

pandem 8y ago

If ICE has to get worse software that just means you and everyone else need to pay more in taxes. The government has the means to get what it wants usually

int_19h 8y ago
Usually that just translates to more and better Potemkin villages. Ultimately, knowledge and skills are a limited resource, and money is not a replacement for it.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
That argument can be used to justify supporting any atrocity. IBM and other companies helping the nazis used that argument.
pavel_lishin 8y ago
That's only a problem if "minimize taxes" is the only metric you care about.

derping_hacker 8y ago

Illegal immigration costs US federal and state governments close to 135 billion annually. Free college education for every American would cost 50-60. Why should I value criminals more than my fellow Americans. What legal obligation do I have to have the money I work for used to pay for illegal immigrants? We could educate every american and have another 60 billion to spare to help the African-American community. https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-b...

pjc50 8y ago
> Illegal immigration costs US federal and state governments close to 135 billion annually. This is such a ridiculous number that it should be discounted out of hand. It also sounds like you're not counting the benefits of, work done by, and taxes paid by, these people. Immigration enforcement is never going to get you free college. That's not how the politics works.
- derping_hacker 8y ago
  If you read the source provided you would see the net loss is still 113 billion to the US government. As for myself I got a full ride scholarship based on test scores and makes 200k in my early 20s, I just don't like seeing my taxes pay for people who cheat the system.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    I don't know why I'm bothering to engage with an anti-immigration "think tank" that's obviously going to be a pit of dishonesty, but I had a look at the linked PDF: "The overall population that we analyze, for the purposes of determining the costs of illegal immigration, also includes about 4.2 million American-born minor children of illegal aliens. Although, the U.S.- born children of illegal aliens are, under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, de jure U.S. citizens, they are also typically “targeted low-income children,” who are eligible for a variety of federal benefits. While not counted as illegal aliens, these children are a signifi cant part of illegal immigration’s fi scal impact on the U.S. taxpayer. Because they would not be present in the United States but for their parents violation of American immigration law, we consider them to be appropriately considered part of the cost of illegal immigration. " Right. So they're counting US-born children, who they admit are constitutionally Americans, as part of the cost of illegal immigration. So I guess the next step is finding a way to deport or cage those US-born American children of illegal immigrants?

troubador55 8y ago

Your argument doesn't fly either. ICE is removing illegal immigrants from the US. If it was removing legal citizens or legal immigrants for some arbitrary reason then people would be much more sympathetic to your position. In reality however, because ICE is not rounding up "immigrants" as you say in an intentional effort to obscure the truth by avoiding the necessary word "illegal", most people in the US are in support of ICE's mission. ICE will continue to carry out that just and necessary mission with or without the assistance of some naive and privileged ideaologues that work at tech companies. Your position on this issue is rooted firmly on the wrong side of history.