3 ms·

Well what is the precise, distinct problem with them using a private contractor to do this? The contractor is collecting information which is public, and relayi

Well what is the precise, distinct problem with them using a private contractor to do this? The contractor is collecting information which is public, and relaying information which may indicate that there is a case that ICE could pursue. As far as I am aware, ICE already did this form of OSI in-house, but probably less effectively. > >(A)ICE is also known to be monitoring people sympathetic to enforcing immigrants’ rights, labelling them as “Anti-Trump” protestors. ICE working with this contractor is not what would cause them to monitor "people sympathetic to enforcing immigrants’ rights"†. † Also, I think the quoted material is a bit too reductive: although there has been a move away from the phrase "illegal alien" since people have started associating the word with space aliens or something, there remains a pretty clear delineation between immigrants generally, and illegal aliens. I suspect that ICE is interested particularly in monitoring people who are endorsing an unlawful act[0], and likely to be providing material support for such an act. I suspect they are considerably less interested in people who, for example, help lawful resident aliens gain access to legal resources or social support. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

maxheadroom 7y ago
>The contractor is collecting information which is public I think that, maybe, you're confusing the Thomson Reuters situation[0] and this one. In this one, they're contracting the actual Title III intercepts[1] to be done via a contractor (which is what I understand from words such as: annual support, operation, and maintenance. [Well, operation by itself, really, but packaged together it's more inferred to as being as simple as going to a cloud provider.]) >ICE working with this contractor is not what would cause them to monitor "people sympathetic to enforcing immigrants’ rights" Right. I never said it was? ...but to infer that ICE was just doing this as a normal course of business ignores the fact that some of what it's doing isn't (and never should have been) considered it's normative operations. I have the distinct impression that we're talking past each and I apologise if any of the fault to be had is my own. [0] - https://www.privacyinternational.org/feature/2079/updated-thomson-reuters-selling-us-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-ice-access-data https://www.privacyinternational.org/feature/2079/updated-th... [1] - https://itlaw.wikia.org/wiki/Title_III_intercept https://itlaw.wikia.org/wiki/Title_III_intercept

maxheadroom 7y ago

>The contractor is collecting information which is public I think that, maybe, you're confusing the Thomson Reuters situation[0] and this one. In this one, they're contracting the actual Title III intercepts[1] to be done via a contractor (which is what I understand from words such as: annual support, operation, and maintenance. [Well, operation by itself, really, but packaged together it's more inferred to as being as simple as going to a cloud provider.]) >ICE working with this contractor is not what would cause them to monitor "people sympathetic to enforcing immigrants’ rights" Right. I never said it was? ...but to infer that ICE was just doing this as a normal course of business ignores the fact that some of what it's doing isn't (and never should have been) considered it's normative operations. I have the distinct impression that we're talking past each and I apologise if any of the fault to be had is my own. [0] - https://www.privacyinternational.org/feature/2079/updated-thomson-reuters-selling-us-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-ice-access-data https://www.privacyinternational.org/feature/2079/updated-th... [1] - https://itlaw.wikia.org/wiki/Title_III_intercept https://itlaw.wikia.org/wiki/Title_III_intercept