6 ms·

Agenda Behind the Facial Recognition Tech Used by ICE and the FBI Revealed

158 points by miles 2y ago

evanjrowley 2y ago
So a journalist at Mother Jones is shocked, but did anyone here on HN not predict this strategy long before Trump got his 2nd term?
- notfed 2y ago
  Sadly this prediction could have been generalized to the US executive branch regardless of the most recent election. It's more of the same from what we've seen in the past, Democrat and Republican leader alike.
  - mingus88 2y ago
    Far be it from me to interrupt your both-sides deflection but I’d like to ask you to cite any report in the recent past when democrats have called for the arrest or use of violence and/or the military against protesters
    - just_steve_h 2y ago
      Perhaps you slept through the year leading up to the 2024 election, when Democrats sent riot police into student protests? They arrested thousands, and were plenty violent. Democratic president & governor & mayor (NYC and LA and Boston, for example). Or perhaps you missed the Occupy movement which was violently disrupted on a national scale with coordinated raids across the country, organized through the “Fusion Centers” (FBI + DHS + State & Local law enforcement)? Anyhow, my point here is that organized violence against leftist protestors is a fully bipartisan policy, and has been for more than 100 years.
    - kelipso 2y ago
      You just forgot the Palestine protests or what.
      - malcolmgreaves 2y ago
        They didn’t call for mad violence against protestors. They didn’t call for arresting protestors. I imagine you won’t admit you have no evidence based in reality.
        jauntywundrkind 2y ago
        And they didn't have Dem backed companies surveilling and trying to track protestors.
        kelipso 2y ago
        They definitely called for arresting protesters. People don’t forget that easily lol. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4637548-democrats-split-over-campus-protest-crackdown/ https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4637548-democrats-split-...
        malcolmgreaves 2y ago
        No. You’re being willfully ignorant at this point. There’s a difference between convicting people of crimes and arresting protestors because one side doesn’t like what they’re saying. The republicans are literally kidnapping people who have committed no crimes but are exercising their first amendment right to free speech, writing and publishing their political views. These people are now being held in inhumane conditions. This is stage one of torture: dehumanize. And you’re dodging the more pressing and serious issues: republicans in government are advocating of using violence against protestors they don’t like. You’re avoiding this because deep down you know you have no logical nor ethical standing.
        kelipso 2y ago
        You need to stop accusing me of made up things derived from your paranoid delusions lol. Democrats wanted the protesters in jail and they put them in jail be they didn’t like what the protesters said. It really was that simple, so stop making things up from your fantasies so you can imagine this is something new and special or try to “win” some internet argument by accusing people of things that exist only in your imagination.
    - generalizations 2y ago
      The trick is to call them something else. The January 6 protesters come to mind, but since they actually threatened the lawmakers - not just random proles - they aren't called "protesters". Conversely, make sure the BLM folks are definitely not called rioters, even if you have to call them "fiery but peaceful" protestors.
      - malcolmgreaves 2y ago
        Insurrectionists are not protestors.
        generalizations 2y ago
        > The trick is to call them something else If it's politically expedient, that is. For one thing, they were far less violent than the BLM protesters. Yet one group is called 'protestors' and the other 'insurrectionists'.
        orwin 2y ago
        Didn't they kill one police officer? Or was it two? In a single afternoon? Please tell me how many police officer did the BLM protesters killed per day, just to confirm how violent they were.
        generalizations 2y ago
        If you go look it up, it was zero, IIRC. Don't believe everything you're told. How many arsonists were among the j6 folks?
        malcolmgreaves 2y ago
        You’re in too deep into the fake conspiracy theories and lies. Please seek professional help and come back to reality
        2y ago
    - raxxorraxor 2y ago
      Are you serious? Surveillance has been on the agenda at least for 25 years. Maybe Trump is president because his opposition cannot match his very, very smart mental capacities as they tumble to make such topics some bipartisan issue. Perhaps you can argue that Trumps ideas are worse, but that never creates a smart argument.
  - jokellum 2y ago
    I'm sorry, like the other comment said you're still both-sides-ing. States / cities (democrat or republican) sent riot police, which is something they have always done. How they handled protests is worth criticism e.g. I don't like that they use curfews to suddenly make protesters breaking the law. I don't like the use of tear gas on otherwise peaceful protestors. As a note, these are state / city officials not federal guidance typically. However, The current administration, Donald Trump, the president of the united states, and the top most members of his cabinet, as a federal, top-down policy will: - Automatically identify protesters - Arrest them for simply saying things the admin doesn't like. - Bypass due-process. - Will ship them to a gulag outside of the united states. - Are on track to be found in contempt of court for refusing to bring back a lawful resident. Both sides are not the same here. Name me a democrat president who has done equal or worse what the trump admin has done.
    - notjoemama 2y ago
      The rules state you need to stay on topic. Your reply violates that requirement. If you want to discuss politics instead of the technology of the post, feel free to engage other social media networks, Reddit would be a much better fit for the kind of discussion you are directing people to engage in. In the interests of fostering better quality dialogue, I think you could have replied something like, “Democrats did (X in relation to technology) where Republicans have done (Y in relation to technology). It would have accomplished the same thing and at least stayed in relation to the topic.
      - cap11235 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - morkalork 2y ago
      I'm going to need a shower after this but Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless mass surveillance were still a thing under Obama, no? Still, not even comparable to what we're witnessing now.
      - 2y ago
  - boothby 2y ago
    Not really. Until recently, ClearView has been used by local police departments, which are not strongly aligned with both sides of the political spectrum. Likewise, DHS and TSA are not strongly aligned with both sides of the political spectrum. ClearView, which the article is about, is only strongly aligned with one side of the political spectrum and notably uses political misalignment as a warning sign. Whether or not this could have happened is completely irrelevant. This is happening. My comment here, linked to my real name, has the potential to get me put on a list of political agitators. My grandpa wore a red triangle in Soldau, and while I'm not eager to do the same, nor will I be silent. American citizens are being deported on suspicion of being immigrants today. Both-siding this is exceptionally dishonest. The article is about the actual technology being employed by today's actual government.
- stevenwoo 2y ago
  Speculation is fun and one thing, but this article appears to be journalism and comes with a lot of receipts for the Vietnamese/Australian white nationalist supporter with connections to the usual suspects in Silicon Valley accelerationism.
- happytoexplain 2y ago
  What does this accomplish? I genuinely don't understand why this fallacy is so common, even trying to come at it from a psychology perspective. Something being shocking is not the same as something being unforeseeable. Being shocked by shocking behavior doesn't make you some kind of idiot. Acting as if having emotions about immoral behavior is beneath you is self-aggrandizing. I'm sorry for my tone, but I'm sick of this genre of internet comment in particular.
  - blix 2y ago
    "Shocking" carries a meaning of a being sudden, surprising, or startling. It's this aspect that is being challenged, not the emotional reaction.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    Shock in this context probably refers to the meaning of the word that is surprise, rather than the meaning of the word that is disgust or revulsion. Basically, people use the same word to mean subtly different things. Something giving you a shock can mean being startled, but not disgusted. Or it can be the inverse of that. > Something being shocking is not the same as something being unforeseeable. That is true only for one definition/common use of the word.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- evanjrowley 2y ago
  My comment here was based on the fact that the US government has been developing biometrics databases since the late 1960s. The 'agenda' for decades has always been to monitor and control the population. When protesters do things like suicide bomb buildings from inside their Tesla, torch Tesla dealerships, attack Tesla drivers, and call for the shooting of ICE agents, is it any wonder that DHS will utilize these tools against political protesters?
anoncow 2y ago
[flagged]
- bitwize 2y ago
  If they're selling surveillance tech to law enforcement (especially American law enforcement, who will deploy it disproportionately against marginalized groups), they're fascists. Simple as.
  - briandear 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - spencerflem 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - dzhiurgis 2y ago
        Antifa are deep state terrorists tho.
    - happytoexplain 2y ago
      This is uncharitable, to put it lightly. The parent is describing behavior commonly associated in the popular consciousness with fascism. And yes, your examples do fall into that category (assuming your framing is honest, called into question by your framing of Trump's actions). That may be inaccurate from an academic or historic perspective, but they are not simply "calling things we don’t like fascism", which is of course a real and common crime in political discourse, and which you are misapplying in turn, I believe.
    - fzeroracer 2y ago
      I mean, you were outright defending the actions of the US disappearing someone off the street with no due process and refusing to abide by the court by perpetuating a lie [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43546145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43546145
hayst4ck 2y ago
This article is really worth a read and talks about the much deeper mechanics and institutional power behind what is happening now. Clearview had compiled a massive biometric database that would eventually contain billions of images the company scraped off the internet and social media without the knowledge of the platforms or their users. Its AI analyzed these images, creating a “faceprint” for every individual. The company let users run a “probe photo” against its database, and if it generated a hit, it displayed the matching images and links to the websites where they originated. This made it easy for Clearview users to further profile their targets with other information found on those webpages: religious or political affiliation, family and friends, romantic partners, sexuality. All without a search warrant or probable cause. A diehard Donald Trump supporter, Ton-That... Here, Ton-That appeared to conflate support for the Republican leader with American identity, proposing to scan migrants’ social media for “posts saying ‘I hate Trump’ or ‘Trump is a puta’” and targeting anyone with an “affinity for far-left groups.” By the end of Trump’s first presidential term, Clearview had secured funding from right-wing billionaire Peter Thiel, one of Elon Musk’s earliest business partners, and signed up hundreds of law enforcement clients around the country. The company doled out free trials to hook users, urging cops to “run wild” with searches. They did. Many departments then bought licenses to access Clearview’s faceprint database.
- morkalork 2y ago
  [flagged]
- onemoresoop 2y ago
  I think we’re entering a dystopian era…
  - stanislavb 2y ago
    I think most people will agree with you.
  - sudoshred 2y ago
    At what point would you be certain?
acidmath 2y ago
[dead]
flower-giraffe 2y ago
Why did this fall of the front page so quickly? Older posts with less points are still there?
- chimpanzee 2y ago
  As this article is actually on-topic, then it’s most likely because it sows internal discord. Like most minds, the HN hive mind prefers to deny and suppress in response to various forms of cognitive dissonance, such as that which arises when one’s actions (or inaction) contradict one’s stated beliefs or morals. HN also isn’t one for conscious introspection (ie meta commentary). Your comment and my response are generally no-nos.
- dijksterhuis 2y ago
  might have hit the flamewar filter? pushing it down the rankings? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22159031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22159031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25871251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25871251)
- stanislavb 2y ago
  Yup, I was wondering the same. It might the so called "flamefilter", yet, it's suspicious.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    Flags will downrank posts without changing the score.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

158 points by miles 2y ago

So a journalist at Mother Jones is shocked, but did anyone here on HN not predict this strategy long before Trump got his 2nd term?

notfed 2y ago
Sadly this prediction could have been generalized to the US executive branch regardless of the most recent election. It's more of the same from what we've seen in the past, Democrat and Republican leader alike.
- mingus88 2y ago
  Far be it from me to interrupt your both-sides deflection but I’d like to ask you to cite any report in the recent past when democrats have called for the arrest or use of violence and/or the military against protesters
  - just_steve_h 2y ago
    Perhaps you slept through the year leading up to the 2024 election, when Democrats sent riot police into student protests? They arrested thousands, and were plenty violent. Democratic president & governor & mayor (NYC and LA and Boston, for example). Or perhaps you missed the Occupy movement which was violently disrupted on a national scale with coordinated raids across the country, organized through the “Fusion Centers” (FBI + DHS + State & Local law enforcement)? Anyhow, my point here is that organized violence against leftist protestors is a fully bipartisan policy, and has been for more than 100 years.
  - kelipso 2y ago
    You just forgot the Palestine protests or what.
    - malcolmgreaves 2y ago
      They didn’t call for mad violence against protestors. They didn’t call for arresting protestors. I imagine you won’t admit you have no evidence based in reality.
      - jauntywundrkind 2y ago
        And they didn't have Dem backed companies surveilling and trying to track protestors.
      - kelipso 2y ago
        They definitely called for arresting protesters. People don’t forget that easily lol. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4637548-democrats-split-over-campus-protest-crackdown/ https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4637548-democrats-split-...
        malcolmgreaves 2y ago
        No. You’re being willfully ignorant at this point. There’s a difference between convicting people of crimes and arresting protestors because one side doesn’t like what they’re saying. The republicans are literally kidnapping people who have committed no crimes but are exercising their first amendment right to free speech, writing and publishing their political views. These people are now being held in inhumane conditions. This is stage one of torture: dehumanize. And you’re dodging the more pressing and serious issues: republicans in government are advocating of using violence against protestors they don’t like. You’re avoiding this because deep down you know you have no logical nor ethical standing.
        kelipso 2y ago
        You need to stop accusing me of made up things derived from your paranoid delusions lol. Democrats wanted the protesters in jail and they put them in jail be they didn’t like what the protesters said. It really was that simple, so stop making things up from your fantasies so you can imagine this is something new and special or try to “win” some internet argument by accusing people of things that exist only in your imagination.
  - generalizations 2y ago
    The trick is to call them something else. The January 6 protesters come to mind, but since they actually threatened the lawmakers - not just random proles - they aren't called "protesters". Conversely, make sure the BLM folks are definitely not called rioters, even if you have to call them "fiery but peaceful" protestors.
    - malcolmgreaves 2y ago
      Insurrectionists are not protestors.
      - generalizations 2y ago
        > The trick is to call them something else If it's politically expedient, that is. For one thing, they were far less violent than the BLM protesters. Yet one group is called 'protestors' and the other 'insurrectionists'.
        orwin 2y ago
        Didn't they kill one police officer? Or was it two? In a single afternoon? Please tell me how many police officer did the BLM protesters killed per day, just to confirm how violent they were.
        generalizations 2y ago
        If you go look it up, it was zero, IIRC. Don't believe everything you're told. How many arsonists were among the j6 folks?
        malcolmgreaves 2y ago
        You’re in too deep into the fake conspiracy theories and lies. Please seek professional help and come back to reality
        2y ago
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    Are you serious? Surveillance has been on the agenda at least for 25 years. Maybe Trump is president because his opposition cannot match his very, very smart mental capacities as they tumble to make such topics some bipartisan issue. Perhaps you can argue that Trumps ideas are worse, but that never creates a smart argument.
- jokellum 2y ago
  I'm sorry, like the other comment said you're still both-sides-ing. States / cities (democrat or republican) sent riot police, which is something they have always done. How they handled protests is worth criticism e.g. I don't like that they use curfews to suddenly make protesters breaking the law. I don't like the use of tear gas on otherwise peaceful protestors. As a note, these are state / city officials not federal guidance typically. However, The current administration, Donald Trump, the president of the united states, and the top most members of his cabinet, as a federal, top-down policy will: - Automatically identify protesters - Arrest them for simply saying things the admin doesn't like. - Bypass due-process. - Will ship them to a gulag outside of the united states. - Are on track to be found in contempt of court for refusing to bring back a lawful resident. Both sides are not the same here. Name me a democrat president who has done equal or worse what the trump admin has done.
  - notjoemama 2y ago
    The rules state you need to stay on topic. Your reply violates that requirement. If you want to discuss politics instead of the technology of the post, feel free to engage other social media networks, Reddit would be a much better fit for the kind of discussion you are directing people to engage in. In the interests of fostering better quality dialogue, I think you could have replied something like, “Democrats did (X in relation to technology) where Republicans have done (Y in relation to technology). It would have accomplished the same thing and at least stayed in relation to the topic.
    - cap11235 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - morkalork 2y ago
    I'm going to need a shower after this but Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless mass surveillance were still a thing under Obama, no? Still, not even comparable to what we're witnessing now.
    - 2y ago
- boothby 2y ago
  Not really. Until recently, ClearView has been used by local police departments, which are not strongly aligned with both sides of the political spectrum. Likewise, DHS and TSA are not strongly aligned with both sides of the political spectrum. ClearView, which the article is about, is only strongly aligned with one side of the political spectrum and notably uses political misalignment as a warning sign. Whether or not this could have happened is completely irrelevant. This is happening. My comment here, linked to my real name, has the potential to get me put on a list of political agitators. My grandpa wore a red triangle in Soldau, and while I'm not eager to do the same, nor will I be silent. American citizens are being deported on suspicion of being immigrants today. Both-siding this is exceptionally dishonest. The article is about the actual technology being employed by today's actual government.
stevenwoo 2y ago
Speculation is fun and one thing, but this article appears to be journalism and comes with a lot of receipts for the Vietnamese/Australian white nationalist supporter with connections to the usual suspects in Silicon Valley accelerationism.
happytoexplain 2y ago
What does this accomplish? I genuinely don't understand why this fallacy is so common, even trying to come at it from a psychology perspective. Something being shocking is not the same as something being unforeseeable. Being shocked by shocking behavior doesn't make you some kind of idiot. Acting as if having emotions about immoral behavior is beneath you is self-aggrandizing. I'm sorry for my tone, but I'm sick of this genre of internet comment in particular.
- blix 2y ago
  "Shocking" carries a meaning of a being sudden, surprising, or startling. It's this aspect that is being challenged, not the emotional reaction.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  Shock in this context probably refers to the meaning of the word that is surprise, rather than the meaning of the word that is disgust or revulsion. Basically, people use the same word to mean subtly different things. Something giving you a shock can mean being startled, but not disgusted. Or it can be the inverse of that. > Something being shocking is not the same as something being unforeseeable. That is true only for one definition/common use of the word.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
evanjrowley 2y ago
My comment here was based on the fact that the US government has been developing biometrics databases since the late 1960s. The 'agenda' for decades has always been to monitor and control the population. When protesters do things like suicide bomb buildings from inside their Tesla, torch Tesla dealerships, attack Tesla drivers, and call for the shooting of ICE agents, is it any wonder that DHS will utilize these tools against political protesters?

anoncow 2y ago

[flagged]

bitwize 2y ago
If they're selling surveillance tech to law enforcement (especially American law enforcement, who will deploy it disproportionately against marginalized groups), they're fascists. Simple as.
- briandear 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - spencerflem 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dzhiurgis 2y ago
      Antifa are deep state terrorists tho.
  - happytoexplain 2y ago
    This is uncharitable, to put it lightly. The parent is describing behavior commonly associated in the popular consciousness with fascism. And yes, your examples do fall into that category (assuming your framing is honest, called into question by your framing of Trump's actions). That may be inaccurate from an academic or historic perspective, but they are not simply "calling things we don’t like fascism", which is of course a real and common crime in political discourse, and which you are misapplying in turn, I believe.
  - fzeroracer 2y ago
    I mean, you were outright defending the actions of the US disappearing someone off the street with no due process and refusing to abide by the court by perpetuating a lie [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43546145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43546145

hayst4ck 2y ago

This article is really worth a read and talks about the much deeper mechanics and institutional power behind what is happening now. Clearview had compiled a massive biometric database that would eventually contain billions of images the company scraped off the internet and social media without the knowledge of the platforms or their users. Its AI analyzed these images, creating a “faceprint” for every individual. The company let users run a “probe photo” against its database, and if it generated a hit, it displayed the matching images and links to the websites where they originated. This made it easy for Clearview users to further profile their targets with other information found on those webpages: religious or political affiliation, family and friends, romantic partners, sexuality. All without a search warrant or probable cause. A diehard Donald Trump supporter, Ton-That... Here, Ton-That appeared to conflate support for the Republican leader with American identity, proposing to scan migrants’ social media for “posts saying ‘I hate Trump’ or ‘Trump is a puta’” and targeting anyone with an “affinity for far-left groups.” By the end of Trump’s first presidential term, Clearview had secured funding from right-wing billionaire Peter Thiel, one of Elon Musk’s earliest business partners, and signed up hundreds of law enforcement clients around the country. The company doled out free trials to hook users, urging cops to “run wild” with searches. They did. Many departments then bought licenses to access Clearview’s faceprint database.

morkalork 2y ago
[flagged]
onemoresoop 2y ago
I think we’re entering a dystopian era…
- stanislavb 2y ago
  I think most people will agree with you.
- sudoshred 2y ago
  At what point would you be certain?

acidmath 2y ago

[dead]

flower-giraffe 2y ago

Why did this fall of the front page so quickly? Older posts with less points are still there?

chimpanzee 2y ago
As this article is actually on-topic, then it’s most likely because it sows internal discord. Like most minds, the HN hive mind prefers to deny and suppress in response to various forms of cognitive dissonance, such as that which arises when one’s actions (or inaction) contradict one’s stated beliefs or morals. HN also isn’t one for conscious introspection (ie meta commentary). Your comment and my response are generally no-nos.
dijksterhuis 2y ago
might have hit the flamewar filter? pushing it down the rankings? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22159031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22159031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25871251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25871251)
stanislavb 2y ago
Yup, I was wondering the same. It might the so called "flamefilter", yet, it's suspicious.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  Flags will downrank posts without changing the score.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]