4 ms·

Sure, but it's not really a dichotomy quite like that. You can have border controls but not agree to use massive data sifting programs to enforce them. I'm remi

Sure, but it's not really a dichotomy quite like that. You can have border controls but not agree to use massive data sifting programs to enforce them. I'm reminded of the Windrush scandal here in Britain where perfectly legal immigrants' children (adults who were born and had grown up in the UK!) and grandchildren were deported largely because the government shifted the goalposts in terms of burden for proof after having destroyed their own copy of their records under a previous administration. Our current prime minister had said "deport first, ask questions later" with respect to immigration policy. It's clear how automatic discovery of potential illegal immigrants can become problematic in such a "hostile environment". Some proportion of the accused will be false positives, and you can be double sure that immigration hawks are not massively concerned about this. Palantir and companies like it are partly responsible if their technologies are used in such a context.

roenxi 8y ago
I'd be a lot happier if the governments of the world willingly gave up the capability to pull stunts like that. Bit of privacy for the people and all that. That being said, if governments are going to use large data sifting operations, applying it to deportations (pretty much by definition non-citizens) first is the logical way to do it. I think it would be nice if this was going to trigger a bipartisan call for small government - but that seems unlikely. I bet any organised opposition decides the real problem is the people who currently run the government rather than the capability of the government.
manigandham 8y ago
>> You can have border controls but not agree to use massive data sifting programs to enforce them. Why not exactly? I don't understand this argument that government should not use tools to enforce laws effectively.

roenxi 8y ago

I'd be a lot happier if the governments of the world willingly gave up the capability to pull stunts like that. Bit of privacy for the people and all that. That being said, if governments are going to use large data sifting operations, applying it to deportations (pretty much by definition non-citizens) first is the logical way to do it. I think it would be nice if this was going to trigger a bipartisan call for small government - but that seems unlikely. I bet any organised opposition decides the real problem is the people who currently run the government rather than the capability of the government.

manigandham 8y ago

>> You can have border controls but not agree to use massive data sifting programs to enforce them. Why not exactly? I don't understand this argument that government should not use tools to enforce laws effectively.