6 ms·

Why are most of the tweets mentioning deportation? Surveillance aside, since when has it been a human right to attend a festival in a country you are not allowe

Why are most of the tweets mentioning deportation? Surveillance aside, since when has it been a human right to attend a festival in a country you are not allowed to reside in?

empath75 7y ago
Someone always makes this comment every time illegal immigration is mentioned as if the law is the final word on what is just. And then they’ll complain about someone going to prison for being a whistleblower or pirating movies or cheer on the protestors in Hong Kong.
- anilakar 7y ago
  Where I live, work permits are so easy (or automatic through the virtue of being in Schengen area) to get that illegal immigration basically does not exist, so the whole idea is vague at best to me.
  - learc83 7y ago
    Where in the Schengen area does illegal immigration basically not exist?
    - gdhbcc 7y ago
      Vatican for example
      - cco 7y ago
        Are they in the Schengen? A quick Google says no, but maybe it is somehow inherited from Italy?
        hk__2 7y ago
        They aren’t in the Schengen area but they have open borders with Italy, which itself is in the Schengen area. Schengen or not, it doesn’t really make sense to talk about immigration in the Vatican since there’s no nationality and the Vatican can’t even issue visas.
    - TomMarius 7y ago
      Czech Republic
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    If you are in Europe, how can you not be aware of undocumented refugees from North Africa and Syria? What you are saying is completely delusional.
    - martin_a 7y ago
      And how would those be identified by a facial recognition system? I don't see your point here.
      - angry_octet 7y ago
        Well, it would be technically challenging, but it's where people surveillance is going. There are several versions of the problem: 1- For face f, is f a member of F_known? (From national ID cards etc.) Assume this gives an answer [0.0 - 1.0]. 2- Is f a member of F_suspect? Where F_suspect is a database of face imagery associated with potentially illegal activity or refugee migration. Not that these faces could be from video surveillance (from a border region, train station, migrant camp) or scraped from war zone images e.g. jihadi propaganda, YouTube video of regime critics, talking politics on HN, video of protests in other countries, etc. 3- Not matching anything, and hence also requiring investigation. All of these have errors, which generally go up as more people are added to the training database. Apparently some ethnicities (okay, black people) are often trained for poorly. This will likely result in 'over-servicing' of some ethnicities. If local police get a hit for someone going through festival security and detain them on the basis of face recognition software, what is the legal basis for that? Police would say that they had 'intelligence' but can they explain the basis for it? Is this not essentially maintaining dossiers on people who have not committed any crime? They have no evidence a crime has been committed but instead they are essentially running a police checkpoint and saying "Papers!". These are the mechanisms of the Stasi. One can argue that police should be able to detain those with outstanding warrants. I have no problem with that, except that when police take photos of citizens it is hard to know what is done with those photos. Ironclad legislation requiring they not leave the device or be stored on anything except ephemeral storage would be a good start, along with civil and criminal penalties for non compliance and direct individual responsibility and penalties for the chain of command. Without a rigorous push back, America will become like China and the UK, where your face must be shown, and it will be recorded and tracked 24/7. Of course in America it will probably be via a company, and police forces will have a subscription, which lowers their fees the more faces the capture.
  - empath75 7y ago
    That is not the case in the us, and moreover there are people who have lived in the us since they were babies or small children, and have families and careers or even served in the military who are still at risk of deportation to country they don’t remember and where they don’t even speak the language well or at all.
- luqmanbadar 7y ago
  You are absolutly right
- infinitezest 7y ago
  I didn't see anything in OP's comment about whistleblowers, pirating or HK.
  - paganel 7y ago
    Saying that people should go to prison because they happen to illegally be in a country that’s not theirs is in the same realm of bad things as what the mainland Chinese are trying to do now in HK.
    - taxidump 7y ago
      Illegal immigrants are not sent to prison unless they committed additional crimes, usually they are deported and sent back to their respective countries.
      - jjeaff 7y ago
        Right. Not prison ... "detention centers". In which they will be held against their will sometimes for months or years and at times with even fewer rights than a traditional prisoner might get.
        empath75 7y ago
        With their infant children.
- otterley 7y ago
  Perhaps existing law isn’t perfect, but ignoring it isn’t an answer to it; otherwise there’d be no point in having any laws at all. Our laws are supposed to codify what we collectively believe are the boundaries of individual and collective action for the common good. And we have constitutional means to change them when we conclude we need to do so. If you want to practice civil disobedience, it can sometimes effectuate change, but it doesn’t always work — especially not immediately — and you have to be willing to be punished in the meantime.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  The proposal here is to make a new law. When people argue both that laws are bad, and we need a new law to improve society, I wonder if they're really thought things through.
jstanley 7y ago
It should be a human right to exist at a public place/event anywhere on Earth, regardless of which country you were born in.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- logicchains 7y ago
  It's insane that people will go on about how important it is to treat people equally regardless of their race, gender, skin colour or sexuality, but also argue it's perfectly fine and moral to discriminate based on place of birth. Because people clearly have a lot more control over where they're born than they do over their skin color or gender..
  - harshreality 7y ago
    Of course it's not "perfectly fine", but having some semblance of border control is the best system we have in the imperfect international environment we're in. Opening borders is not fixing the system morally, it's admitting modern civilization is a total joke (which it may be, the first world being partly the product of centuries of arguably immoral empires) and deciding to burn everything down. You can't do away with borders in an environment where governments are at each other's throats and there's massive wealth and cultural inequality. At best — at best — the 1st world would rapidly equalize economically and politically with the rest of the world. And what would that accomplish? The refugees (small percentage of 3rd world residents who could/would migrate) come from cultures that are unable to fix their own countries' problems from within, granted often due to initial conditions outside their control. So how would they fix our problems — and we have a lot of them — which are equally out of our control to solve? And after such a grand experiment, the refugees would be hardly any better off than they are now. Opening borders to absolve our guilty conscience about ill-gotten gains of empires past and present doesn't solve anything. It just makes us feel better. It's like shooting heroin on the titanic.
    - logicchains 7y ago
mc32 7y ago
Because it’s the cause celebre today. The causes are often cultivated by different loose organizations like influential people, moneyed people, media and eventually elementary schools. Sometimes the issues are leftist, sometimes rightist. Today leftist ideas are in ascension, ten years from now, who knows. Ten years ago it wouldn’t have been a thing. There were other issues. These things come and go like fashion. Twenty thirty years ago it was self determination of nations, today its “there should be no borders” which is the opposite of self determination of nations.
- pgcj_poster 7y ago
  > today its “there should be no borders” which is the opposite of self determination of nations. It is not. To quote Zach Weinersmith "Every time I talk about immigration, someone says 'but the US has the right to control borders.' Sure! Yes! The US also has the right to create a branch of the military containing only monkeys wearing tiny hats. That has no bearing on whether it's good policy or not!"
sneak 7y ago
The right to go about your business without your location being tracked automatically and in bulk is recognized regardless of one’s immigration status.
- angry_octet 7y ago
  Recognized by whom?
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
> Surveillance aside, since when has it been a human right to attend a festival in a country you are not allowed to reside in? This is a pure strawman. The efforts and the social impact of chasing people doing something illegal must be balanced with the seriousness of the crime.
logicchains 7y ago
Since when was it a human right to tell other people where they're allowed to live?
- i_am_nomad 7y ago
  Good question. I’ll be moving in to your house this evening, thanks.
  - logicchains 7y ago
    The illegal immigrants aren't staying in your home, they're staying with whomever they're paying rent to. What right do you have to tell him who he can rent to?
    - i_am_nomad 7y ago
      Good question. If he also decides not to rent to black people, certainly, that’s his business, and I have no right to tell him who to rent to. Correct?
      - logicchains 7y ago
        If you're asking me personally, then yes it's none of your business what he's doing with his property. If he's not renting to black people, that means more tenants for people who aren't racist to rent to. But that aside, housing discrimination laws are based on the moral principle that people should not be treated worse based on their skin colour. Upon what moral principle is the notion that people should be treated worse based on their place of birth based?
        riversflow 7y ago
        Treat your neighbor like your brother? Nationalism and before that tribalism are as old as our species.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
modriano 7y ago
On the topic of deportation, has anyone seen anyone arrested for deportation at a music festival? Do we have any data that this is actually happening? I'm a crime analyst in Chicago and I can't imagine officers doing event management would ever spend time on nonviolent undocumented residents.
mattlondon 7y ago
Because the computer might say you are someone else. Do not underestimate the power of "computer said so"
- otterley 7y ago
  We’ve had judicial procedures to challenge the results of technological processes for nearly a century (radar guns for speeding violations, for example). It’s not a foregone conclusion that the computer is always right.
  - mattlondon 7y ago
    That won't stop you getting hauled off and treated like shit and generally put through the mincer until they realise that the facial "recognition" was incorrect and you are not actually on the most wanted terrorist list they let you out of the holding cell...
    - otterley 7y ago
      Perhaps not, but the same thing can happen if a mistaken person identifies you. In fact, computers are already more reliable than people at identifying individuals. Mistaken identities are tremendous problems with the reliability of criminal convictions. You can dissect an algorithm but not a person’s mind.
fnordfnordfnord 7y ago
>Surveillance aside, since when has it been a human right to attend a festival in a country you are not allowed to reside in? Forgetting about illegal immigrants for a moment, are you saying that visitors to some country shouldn't be allowed at festivals? What have you got against tourism? There's no right to visit attractions, but there ought to be a right to privacy, and I'd personally prefer a few illegals get to unjustly enjoy themselves over the invasive panopticon required to prevent that.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pgcj_poster 7y ago
The people mentioning deportation probably believe that the rules determining who is or is not allowed in a country are unfair and should be circumvented in at least some cases. You might disagree, but perhaps you can think of some other law that you wouldn't want festivals to assist in enforcing. If you can't, do you trust that the government will never pass such a law? If not, you might not want to normalize having facial recognition tech everywhere.

Why are most of the tweets mentioning deportation? Surveillance aside, since when has it been a human right to attend a festival in a country you are not allowed to reside in?

empath75 7y ago

Someone always makes this comment every time illegal immigration is mentioned as if the law is the final word on what is just. And then they’ll complain about someone going to prison for being a whistleblower or pirating movies or cheer on the protestors in Hong Kong.

anilakar 7y ago
Where I live, work permits are so easy (or automatic through the virtue of being in Schengen area) to get that illegal immigration basically does not exist, so the whole idea is vague at best to me.
- learc83 7y ago
  Where in the Schengen area does illegal immigration basically not exist?
  - gdhbcc 7y ago
    Vatican for example
    - cco 7y ago
      Are they in the Schengen? A quick Google says no, but maybe it is somehow inherited from Italy?
      - hk__2 7y ago
        They aren’t in the Schengen area but they have open borders with Italy, which itself is in the Schengen area. Schengen or not, it doesn’t really make sense to talk about immigration in the Vatican since there’s no nationality and the Vatican can’t even issue visas.
  - TomMarius 7y ago
    Czech Republic
- angry_octet 7y ago
  If you are in Europe, how can you not be aware of undocumented refugees from North Africa and Syria? What you are saying is completely delusional.
  - martin_a 7y ago
    And how would those be identified by a facial recognition system? I don't see your point here.
    - angry_octet 7y ago
      Well, it would be technically challenging, but it's where people surveillance is going. There are several versions of the problem: 1- For face f, is f a member of F_known? (From national ID cards etc.) Assume this gives an answer [0.0 - 1.0]. 2- Is f a member of F_suspect? Where F_suspect is a database of face imagery associated with potentially illegal activity or refugee migration. Not that these faces could be from video surveillance (from a border region, train station, migrant camp) or scraped from war zone images e.g. jihadi propaganda, YouTube video of regime critics, talking politics on HN, video of protests in other countries, etc. 3- Not matching anything, and hence also requiring investigation. All of these have errors, which generally go up as more people are added to the training database. Apparently some ethnicities (okay, black people) are often trained for poorly. This will likely result in 'over-servicing' of some ethnicities. If local police get a hit for someone going through festival security and detain them on the basis of face recognition software, what is the legal basis for that? Police would say that they had 'intelligence' but can they explain the basis for it? Is this not essentially maintaining dossiers on people who have not committed any crime? They have no evidence a crime has been committed but instead they are essentially running a police checkpoint and saying "Papers!". These are the mechanisms of the Stasi. One can argue that police should be able to detain those with outstanding warrants. I have no problem with that, except that when police take photos of citizens it is hard to know what is done with those photos. Ironclad legislation requiring they not leave the device or be stored on anything except ephemeral storage would be a good start, along with civil and criminal penalties for non compliance and direct individual responsibility and penalties for the chain of command. Without a rigorous push back, America will become like China and the UK, where your face must be shown, and it will be recorded and tracked 24/7. Of course in America it will probably be via a company, and police forces will have a subscription, which lowers their fees the more faces the capture.
- empath75 7y ago
  That is not the case in the us, and moreover there are people who have lived in the us since they were babies or small children, and have families and careers or even served in the military who are still at risk of deportation to country they don’t remember and where they don’t even speak the language well or at all.
luqmanbadar 7y ago
You are absolutly right
infinitezest 7y ago
I didn't see anything in OP's comment about whistleblowers, pirating or HK.
- paganel 7y ago
  Saying that people should go to prison because they happen to illegally be in a country that’s not theirs is in the same realm of bad things as what the mainland Chinese are trying to do now in HK.
  - taxidump 7y ago
    Illegal immigrants are not sent to prison unless they committed additional crimes, usually they are deported and sent back to their respective countries.
    - jjeaff 7y ago
      Right. Not prison ... "detention centers". In which they will be held against their will sometimes for months or years and at times with even fewer rights than a traditional prisoner might get.
      - empath75 7y ago
        With their infant children.
otterley 7y ago
Perhaps existing law isn’t perfect, but ignoring it isn’t an answer to it; otherwise there’d be no point in having any laws at all. Our laws are supposed to codify what we collectively believe are the boundaries of individual and collective action for the common good. And we have constitutional means to change them when we conclude we need to do so. If you want to practice civil disobedience, it can sometimes effectuate change, but it doesn’t always work — especially not immediately — and you have to be willing to be punished in the meantime.
BurningFrog 7y ago
The proposal here is to make a new law. When people argue both that laws are bad, and we need a new law to improve society, I wonder if they're really thought things through.

jstanley 7y ago

It should be a human right to exist at a public place/event anywhere on Earth, regardless of which country you were born in.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
logicchains 7y ago
It's insane that people will go on about how important it is to treat people equally regardless of their race, gender, skin colour or sexuality, but also argue it's perfectly fine and moral to discriminate based on place of birth. Because people clearly have a lot more control over where they're born than they do over their skin color or gender..
- harshreality 7y ago
  Of course it's not "perfectly fine", but having some semblance of border control is the best system we have in the imperfect international environment we're in. Opening borders is not fixing the system morally, it's admitting modern civilization is a total joke (which it may be, the first world being partly the product of centuries of arguably immoral empires) and deciding to burn everything down. You can't do away with borders in an environment where governments are at each other's throats and there's massive wealth and cultural inequality. At best — at best — the 1st world would rapidly equalize economically and politically with the rest of the world. And what would that accomplish? The refugees (small percentage of 3rd world residents who could/would migrate) come from cultures that are unable to fix their own countries' problems from within, granted often due to initial conditions outside their control. So how would they fix our problems — and we have a lot of them — which are equally out of our control to solve? And after such a grand experiment, the refugees would be hardly any better off than they are now. Opening borders to absolve our guilty conscience about ill-gotten gains of empires past and present doesn't solve anything. It just makes us feel better. It's like shooting heroin on the titanic.
  - logicchains 7y ago

mc32 7y ago

Because it’s the cause celebre today. The causes are often cultivated by different loose organizations like influential people, moneyed people, media and eventually elementary schools. Sometimes the issues are leftist, sometimes rightist. Today leftist ideas are in ascension, ten years from now, who knows. Ten years ago it wouldn’t have been a thing. There were other issues. These things come and go like fashion. Twenty thirty years ago it was self determination of nations, today its “there should be no borders” which is the opposite of self determination of nations.

pgcj_poster 7y ago
> today its “there should be no borders” which is the opposite of self determination of nations. It is not. To quote Zach Weinersmith "Every time I talk about immigration, someone says 'but the US has the right to control borders.' Sure! Yes! The US also has the right to create a branch of the military containing only monkeys wearing tiny hats. That has no bearing on whether it's good policy or not!"

sneak 7y ago

The right to go about your business without your location being tracked automatically and in bulk is recognized regardless of one’s immigration status.

angry_octet 7y ago
Recognized by whom?

eeZah7Ux 7y ago

> Surveillance aside, since when has it been a human right to attend a festival in a country you are not allowed to reside in? This is a pure strawman. The efforts and the social impact of chasing people doing something illegal must be balanced with the seriousness of the crime.

logicchains 7y ago

Since when was it a human right to tell other people where they're allowed to live?

i_am_nomad 7y ago
Good question. I’ll be moving in to your house this evening, thanks.
- logicchains 7y ago
  The illegal immigrants aren't staying in your home, they're staying with whomever they're paying rent to. What right do you have to tell him who he can rent to?
  - i_am_nomad 7y ago
    Good question. If he also decides not to rent to black people, certainly, that’s his business, and I have no right to tell him who to rent to. Correct?
    - logicchains 7y ago
      If you're asking me personally, then yes it's none of your business what he's doing with his property. If he's not renting to black people, that means more tenants for people who aren't racist to rent to. But that aside, housing discrimination laws are based on the moral principle that people should not be treated worse based on their skin colour. Upon what moral principle is the notion that people should be treated worse based on their place of birth based?
      - riversflow 7y ago
        Treat your neighbor like your brother? Nationalism and before that tribalism are as old as our species.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

modriano 7y ago

On the topic of deportation, has anyone seen anyone arrested for deportation at a music festival? Do we have any data that this is actually happening? I'm a crime analyst in Chicago and I can't imagine officers doing event management would ever spend time on nonviolent undocumented residents.

mattlondon 7y ago

Because the computer might say you are someone else. Do not underestimate the power of "computer said so"

otterley 7y ago
We’ve had judicial procedures to challenge the results of technological processes for nearly a century (radar guns for speeding violations, for example). It’s not a foregone conclusion that the computer is always right.
- mattlondon 7y ago
  That won't stop you getting hauled off and treated like shit and generally put through the mincer until they realise that the facial "recognition" was incorrect and you are not actually on the most wanted terrorist list they let you out of the holding cell...
  - otterley 7y ago
    Perhaps not, but the same thing can happen if a mistaken person identifies you. In fact, computers are already more reliable than people at identifying individuals. Mistaken identities are tremendous problems with the reliability of criminal convictions. You can dissect an algorithm but not a person’s mind.

fnordfnordfnord 7y ago

>Surveillance aside, since when has it been a human right to attend a festival in a country you are not allowed to reside in? Forgetting about illegal immigrants for a moment, are you saying that visitors to some country shouldn't be allowed at festivals? What have you got against tourism? There's no right to visit attractions, but there ought to be a right to privacy, and I'd personally prefer a few illegals get to unjustly enjoy themselves over the invasive panopticon required to prevent that.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

pgcj_poster 7y ago

The people mentioning deportation probably believe that the rules determining who is or is not allowed in a country are unfair and should be circumvented in at least some cases. You might disagree, but perhaps you can think of some other law that you wouldn't want festivals to assist in enforcing. If you can't, do you trust that the government will never pass such a law? If not, you might not want to normalize having facial recognition tech everywhere.