8 ms·

Amazon is helping ICE track, detain and deport immigrants, report says

10 points by jchanimal 8y ago

hkai 8y ago
> The federal government increasingly relies on policing through tech innovations — including big data analysis and cloud-based storage Ok.
mscasts 8y ago
> Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. But given the title, I assume "help" is providing tech resources just like to anyone else?
- Karunamon 8y ago
  Looks that way. Here's an archive: http://archive.is/s9aXG http://archive.is/s9aXG The political slant of the author comes through loud and clear from the first paragraph: >Amazon and other tech companies are raking in billions by selling services that aid President Trump’s deportation agenda, according to a report. Some find and replace set to "non-partisan" would render that: >Amazon and other tech companies are profitably selling services that aid lawful immigration enforcement, according to a report. Also telling is the (imo, blatantly dishonest) refusal to use the words "illegal", "undocumented", etc, making it sound like ICE is attacking people who crossed the border legally.
sfcguyus 8y ago
Doesn't the electric company help too? What about taxes, that also helps fund ICE. Amazon doesn't pay its taxes so I suppose it's against ICE in a way too..
- notafraudster 8y ago
  I assume you know that there is probably some continuum of culpability between, say, being a cafeteria vendor that sells 7up to ICE employees and being a technology company that provides surveillance technology or support to ICE. There is also a continuum in criticism between writing a relatively tame op-ed complaining that a company supports ICE and, like, burning down their headquarters. And it's not like anyone is asking Amazon to scan S3 bucket registrations to try to reject any from the US government; we're talking about high level, mega-million dollar sales efforts, products specifically targeted for the government surveillance audience, and company participation in training. So it is very feasible for Amazon to make a choice to do or not do this stuff without a lot of monitoring overhead. I feel embarrassed articulating the above because it is so obvious, which makes me wonder if the parent comment is really in good faith to begin with.
  - basic1 8y ago
    I'm not familiar with the ICE dog-whistle, what are they culpable for?
    - maccio92 8y ago
      According to the left, deporting illegal immigrants who are breaking the law is a bad thing and we should therefore abolish ICE.
  - parkaman 8y ago
    I don't see anything in either the Daily News article or the report it links to that directly connects Amazon to "mega-million dollar sales efforts, products specifically targeted for the government surveillance audience, and company participation in training."
  - sfcguyus 8y ago
    > I feel embarrassed articulating the above because it is so obvious It really isn't obvious. What exactly is wrong with it, specifically?
parkaman 8y ago
So wait -- this article's big revelation is that DHS is one of Amazon Web Services' million-plus customers?
lykr0n 8y ago
Immigrants that are non-compliant with the law, aka people breaking the law.
- notacoward 8y ago
  "They're illegal" is neither true nor sufficient. ICE and CBP have also repeatedly detained, denied entry to, or generally harassed people who are in full compliance with immigration law. That has included lawful applicants for asylum or refugee status, lawful permanent residents, and even US citizens. That's all besides the fact that being legal doesn't make something moral, consistent with national ideals, or economically wise. Or that unnecessarily cruel enforcement of a law is still a crime in its own right.
  - lykr0n 8y ago
    I made no comment about what they were doing. It's just the article goes to great lengths to avoid saying that the people in question are breaking the law. I think there is merit to using Facial Rec and License Plate readers to try and find people who are in violation of the law. The ethics and morals come into retention of that data. Collect and retain facial information for future use? Bad. Search for a known face in a crowd. Better. And bad behavior of some is not a valid excuse for everyone. Police sometimes kill innocent people, but that's not a reason to say the police shouldn't carry guns. Tools can be abused, and that abuse needs to be aggressively monitored and punished, but that's not an argument to not use something.
    - notacoward 8y ago
      > the article goes to great lengths to avoid saying that the people in question are breaking the law. Or maybe they didn't "go to great lengths" to use that as an excuse. Really, why is it even relevant? If an organization is doing wrong, no matter who they're doing it to or whether they also do right sometimes, that alone is sufficient to question support for them. > Police sometimes kill innocent people, but that's not a reason to say the police shouldn't carry guns. By the same token, very few immigrants are anything but innocent people looking to live and contribute to the American Dream, so there's no reason to preemptively exclude or bother them. There seems to be a bit of a double standard here. Bad cops? It's just "a few bad apples" to handle case by case after the fact (and half-heartedly in most cases). Immigrant criminals? Well, better put up a wall and do "extreme vetting" before we let anyone through.

10 points by jchanimal 8y ago

hkai 8y ago

> The federal government increasingly relies on policing through tech innovations — including big data analysis and cloud-based storage Ok.

mscasts 8y ago

> Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. But given the title, I assume "help" is providing tech resources just like to anyone else?

Karunamon 8y ago
Looks that way. Here's an archive: http://archive.is/s9aXG http://archive.is/s9aXG The political slant of the author comes through loud and clear from the first paragraph: >Amazon and other tech companies are raking in billions by selling services that aid President Trump’s deportation agenda, according to a report. Some find and replace set to "non-partisan" would render that: >Amazon and other tech companies are profitably selling services that aid lawful immigration enforcement, according to a report. Also telling is the (imo, blatantly dishonest) refusal to use the words "illegal", "undocumented", etc, making it sound like ICE is attacking people who crossed the border legally.

sfcguyus 8y ago

Doesn't the electric company help too? What about taxes, that also helps fund ICE. Amazon doesn't pay its taxes so I suppose it's against ICE in a way too..

notafraudster 8y ago
I assume you know that there is probably some continuum of culpability between, say, being a cafeteria vendor that sells 7up to ICE employees and being a technology company that provides surveillance technology or support to ICE. There is also a continuum in criticism between writing a relatively tame op-ed complaining that a company supports ICE and, like, burning down their headquarters. And it's not like anyone is asking Amazon to scan S3 bucket registrations to try to reject any from the US government; we're talking about high level, mega-million dollar sales efforts, products specifically targeted for the government surveillance audience, and company participation in training. So it is very feasible for Amazon to make a choice to do or not do this stuff without a lot of monitoring overhead. I feel embarrassed articulating the above because it is so obvious, which makes me wonder if the parent comment is really in good faith to begin with.
- basic1 8y ago
  I'm not familiar with the ICE dog-whistle, what are they culpable for?
  - maccio92 8y ago
    According to the left, deporting illegal immigrants who are breaking the law is a bad thing and we should therefore abolish ICE.
- parkaman 8y ago
  I don't see anything in either the Daily News article or the report it links to that directly connects Amazon to "mega-million dollar sales efforts, products specifically targeted for the government surveillance audience, and company participation in training."
- sfcguyus 8y ago
  > I feel embarrassed articulating the above because it is so obvious It really isn't obvious. What exactly is wrong with it, specifically?

parkaman 8y ago

So wait -- this article's big revelation is that DHS is one of Amazon Web Services' million-plus customers?

lykr0n 8y ago

Immigrants that are non-compliant with the law, aka people breaking the law.

notacoward 8y ago
"They're illegal" is neither true nor sufficient. ICE and CBP have also repeatedly detained, denied entry to, or generally harassed people who are in full compliance with immigration law. That has included lawful applicants for asylum or refugee status, lawful permanent residents, and even US citizens. That's all besides the fact that being legal doesn't make something moral, consistent with national ideals, or economically wise. Or that unnecessarily cruel enforcement of a law is still a crime in its own right.
- lykr0n 8y ago
  I made no comment about what they were doing. It's just the article goes to great lengths to avoid saying that the people in question are breaking the law. I think there is merit to using Facial Rec and License Plate readers to try and find people who are in violation of the law. The ethics and morals come into retention of that data. Collect and retain facial information for future use? Bad. Search for a known face in a crowd. Better. And bad behavior of some is not a valid excuse for everyone. Police sometimes kill innocent people, but that's not a reason to say the police shouldn't carry guns. Tools can be abused, and that abuse needs to be aggressively monitored and punished, but that's not an argument to not use something.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    > the article goes to great lengths to avoid saying that the people in question are breaking the law. Or maybe they didn't "go to great lengths" to use that as an excuse. Really, why is it even relevant? If an organization is doing wrong, no matter who they're doing it to or whether they also do right sometimes, that alone is sufficient to question support for them. > Police sometimes kill innocent people, but that's not a reason to say the police shouldn't carry guns. By the same token, very few immigrants are anything but innocent people looking to live and contribute to the American Dream, so there's no reason to preemptively exclude or bother them. There seems to be a bit of a double standard here. Bad cops? It's just "a few bad apples" to handle case by case after the fact (and half-heartedly in most cases). Immigrant criminals? Well, better put up a wall and do "extreme vetting" before we let anyone through.