3 ms·

ICE's Database for Finding 'Derogatory' Online Speech

16 points by isaacfrond 3y ago

b112 3y ago
Disclosure: I'm Canadian, so have no skin in this game. However... While I don't support a government spying on its citizens, this isn't spying in the true sense of the word. Social media posts are public statements by those that post them. Literally, if you publicly comment in something, you're publicly publishing. There is no difference between putting posters up, a comments section in a newspaper, and what you put on a webpage. The government paying attention to such things is normal. However, action against citizens for anything but advocating violence is not very democratic. For example, I can imagine posters saying "rise up and destroy the government, meet at 2am for pizza, beer, and planning" would result in at least one undercover cops attending. And this is good! This, however, isn't even about citizens. It's about people wanting to become citizens. And if you want to become a citizen, don't be surprised if you say "America is horrible and sucks!", and the .. shocker, you don't end up a citizen. This may startle some, but you have to take an oath of allegiance too: https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/the-naturalization-interview-and-test/naturalization-oath-of-allegiance-to-the-united-states-of-america https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/th... The real take here is, is this tool being used for this purpose only, is data being destroyed, and isnit being misused for other things?
- ofslidingfeet 3y ago
  I don't care if I took out a full page ad in the NYT; it's still not the government's job to keep an index of what I've said that's pro or anti government. This isn't North Korea.
  - b112 3y ago
    Quite! Keeping historical data on American citizens would be wrong, and beyond the scope ICE. And if you are a citizen, and it's pro or anti policy in a peaceful way, sure. It should be ignored. If you're not a citizen, that's different story.
- greggsy 3y ago
  It is almost certainly covered under some form of records legislation that would dictate how long it should be retained
  - Clamchop 3y ago
    Immigration is de facto controlled unilaterally by the executive, because the Supreme Court declines to engage with the issue, meaning constitutionality is not considered, meaning legislation isn't enforced. The constitution in fact doesn't contemplate immigration at all. For that matter, the scope of the Supreme Court's authority isn't well-defined, either, even on issues we routinely see them rule on today. This is why Marbury v Madison was so pivotal for expanding their scope on sheer force of institutional faith. This is the mechanism under which immigration policy can swing so wildly from one administration to the next. There's some sense to it in terms of responding to emergencies and such but it sure does suck in some principled or ethical ways.

16 points by isaacfrond 3y ago

b112 3y ago

Disclosure: I'm Canadian, so have no skin in this game. However... While I don't support a government spying on its citizens, this isn't spying in the true sense of the word. Social media posts are public statements by those that post them. Literally, if you publicly comment in something, you're publicly publishing. There is no difference between putting posters up, a comments section in a newspaper, and what you put on a webpage. The government paying attention to such things is normal. However, action against citizens for anything but advocating violence is not very democratic. For example, I can imagine posters saying "rise up and destroy the government, meet at 2am for pizza, beer, and planning" would result in at least one undercover cops attending. And this is good! This, however, isn't even about citizens. It's about people wanting to become citizens. And if you want to become a citizen, don't be surprised if you say "America is horrible and sucks!", and the .. shocker, you don't end up a citizen. This may startle some, but you have to take an oath of allegiance too: https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/the-naturalization-interview-and-test/naturalization-oath-of-allegiance-to-the-united-states-of-america https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/th... The real take here is, is this tool being used for this purpose only, is data being destroyed, and isnit being misused for other things?

ofslidingfeet 3y ago
I don't care if I took out a full page ad in the NYT; it's still not the government's job to keep an index of what I've said that's pro or anti government. This isn't North Korea.
- b112 3y ago
  Quite! Keeping historical data on American citizens would be wrong, and beyond the scope ICE. And if you are a citizen, and it's pro or anti policy in a peaceful way, sure. It should be ignored. If you're not a citizen, that's different story.
greggsy 3y ago
It is almost certainly covered under some form of records legislation that would dictate how long it should be retained
- Clamchop 3y ago
  Immigration is de facto controlled unilaterally by the executive, because the Supreme Court declines to engage with the issue, meaning constitutionality is not considered, meaning legislation isn't enforced. The constitution in fact doesn't contemplate immigration at all. For that matter, the scope of the Supreme Court's authority isn't well-defined, either, even on issues we routinely see them rule on today. This is why Marbury v Madison was so pivotal for expanding their scope on sheer force of institutional faith. This is the mechanism under which immigration policy can swing so wildly from one administration to the next. There's some sense to it in terms of responding to emergencies and such but it sure does suck in some principled or ethical ways.