4 ms·

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 t

by 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.
- lykr0n 8y ago
  > 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. We put GPS trackers on convicted criminals. We limit the freedoms of people convicted of crimes; can't buy guns, can't get certain kind of jobs, can't vote in some places. We put out warrants for the arrest of people accused of crimes in cases. What's wrong? Using modern tools to catch criminals? > 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. Ok. But we live in a country of laws and rules. If I knock over a bank and don't harm anyone- that's fine right? I'm just trying to provide for my family. The bank has insurance. If I don't report my taxes, it doesn't harm anyone. The government has enough money. Breaking the law doesn't harm anyone- right? > Bad cops? It's just "a few bad apples" to handle case by case after the fact (and half-hardheartedly in most cases). Immigrant criminals? Well, better put up a wall and do "extreme vetting" before we let anyone through. We're putting body cameras on cops to stop abuses. We put cameras in cop cars so we can make sure what they say happened happened. If an Immigrant comes here without proper authorization, without a visa, or stays on an expired visa; they are breaking the law. They have no inherent right to immigrate here. Coming into any country is a courtesy extended by the government of that country. If Japan doesn't want to issue a visa for whatever reason, that is their right. You have no right to visit or move to Japan. If they wish to do "extreme vetting", that is their right. Cops has no inherent right to become a cop. They have to be hired, trained, and maintain a standard. Sure, there are bad ones who are not punished for their actions- and yes that is a double standard that needs to be fixed. > Immigrant criminals? Well, better put up a wall and do "extreme vetting" before we let anyone through. The stupid idea of a wall is to stop people from breaking the law. As I said before, nobody has the right to immigrate to this country as they want. If they ignore our laws and do so anyway, they should be removed- as they broke the law.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    > we live in a country of laws and rules. Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" one of those rules? And aren't "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" supposed to be inalienable human rights? Do you suppose the people who wrote that believed that these "self-evident truths" only applied to people born in a country that didn't exist yet? > If an Immigrant comes here without proper authorization, without a visa, or stays on an expired visa There you go again, pretending that ICE/CBP never bother anybody who's here legally. That's just not reality, and the cases where they overstep their own legal bounds are the ones that are most relevant here. We are a country of laws and rules, with nobody above those, right?
    - lykr0n 8y ago
      > Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" one of those rules? Yeah. If I stab someone, and they get a picture of the event on camera, and then use that picture to find me- that's ok. They don't need to convict me to do that. > And aren't "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" supposed to be inalienable human rights? Yep. The pursuit of happiness is to steal everything you own. By your implied logic, that should be 100% legal. Subsequent laws have no affect if they violate those three things, right? > There you go again, pretending that ICE/CBP never bother anybody who's here legally. That's just not reality, and the cases where they overstep their own legal bounds are the ones that are most relevant here. We are a country of laws and rules, with nobody above those, right? You're trying to conflate illegal immigration with ICE/CBP abuses. They are two different issues.
    - biglenny 8y ago
      In this thread, you seem to be equating the infrequent overstepping of legal boundaries with an act that is fundamentally illegal, without exception.
      - notacoward 8y ago
        No, I'm saying that the "fundamentally illegal" act is irrelevant. The reason people even care about AWS helping ICE is entirely about their abusive behavior, not the proper discharge of their legitimate legal duties. Just like #BlackLivesMatter isn't about police being professional as they apprehend actual criminals and do other things to keep us all safe. Abuse is abuse, no matter what surrounds it, and there should be zero tolerance for it.

by lykr0n 8y ago

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.

lykr0n 8y ago
> 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. We put GPS trackers on convicted criminals. We limit the freedoms of people convicted of crimes; can't buy guns, can't get certain kind of jobs, can't vote in some places. We put out warrants for the arrest of people accused of crimes in cases. What's wrong? Using modern tools to catch criminals? > 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. Ok. But we live in a country of laws and rules. If I knock over a bank and don't harm anyone- that's fine right? I'm just trying to provide for my family. The bank has insurance. If I don't report my taxes, it doesn't harm anyone. The government has enough money. Breaking the law doesn't harm anyone- right? > Bad cops? It's just "a few bad apples" to handle case by case after the fact (and half-hardheartedly in most cases). Immigrant criminals? Well, better put up a wall and do "extreme vetting" before we let anyone through. We're putting body cameras on cops to stop abuses. We put cameras in cop cars so we can make sure what they say happened happened. If an Immigrant comes here without proper authorization, without a visa, or stays on an expired visa; they are breaking the law. They have no inherent right to immigrate here. Coming into any country is a courtesy extended by the government of that country. If Japan doesn't want to issue a visa for whatever reason, that is their right. You have no right to visit or move to Japan. If they wish to do "extreme vetting", that is their right. Cops has no inherent right to become a cop. They have to be hired, trained, and maintain a standard. Sure, there are bad ones who are not punished for their actions- and yes that is a double standard that needs to be fixed. > Immigrant criminals? Well, better put up a wall and do "extreme vetting" before we let anyone through. The stupid idea of a wall is to stop people from breaking the law. As I said before, nobody has the right to immigrate to this country as they want. If they ignore our laws and do so anyway, they should be removed- as they broke the law.
- notacoward 8y ago
  > we live in a country of laws and rules. Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" one of those rules? And aren't "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" supposed to be inalienable human rights? Do you suppose the people who wrote that believed that these "self-evident truths" only applied to people born in a country that didn't exist yet? > If an Immigrant comes here without proper authorization, without a visa, or stays on an expired visa There you go again, pretending that ICE/CBP never bother anybody who's here legally. That's just not reality, and the cases where they overstep their own legal bounds are the ones that are most relevant here. We are a country of laws and rules, with nobody above those, right?
  - lykr0n 8y ago
    > Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" one of those rules? Yeah. If I stab someone, and they get a picture of the event on camera, and then use that picture to find me- that's ok. They don't need to convict me to do that. > And aren't "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" supposed to be inalienable human rights? Yep. The pursuit of happiness is to steal everything you own. By your implied logic, that should be 100% legal. Subsequent laws have no affect if they violate those three things, right? > There you go again, pretending that ICE/CBP never bother anybody who's here legally. That's just not reality, and the cases where they overstep their own legal bounds are the ones that are most relevant here. We are a country of laws and rules, with nobody above those, right? You're trying to conflate illegal immigration with ICE/CBP abuses. They are two different issues.
  - biglenny 8y ago
    In this thread, you seem to be equating the infrequent overstepping of legal boundaries with an act that is fundamentally illegal, without exception.
    - notacoward 8y ago
      No, I'm saying that the "fundamentally illegal" act is irrelevant. The reason people even care about AWS helping ICE is entirely about their abusive behavior, not the proper discharge of their legitimate legal duties. Just like #BlackLivesMatter isn't about police being professional as they apprehend actual criminals and do other things to keep us all safe. Abuse is abuse, no matter what surrounds it, and there should be zero tolerance for it.