5 ms·

TLDR. ICE is buying a software tool that analyzes information purchased from commercial data brokers to track people.

vkou 1y ago
Why is the government doing mass-surveillance for alleged civil[1] infractions? --- [1] Nearly all deportations - overstays are civil, not criminal[2][3] cases. [2] If they were criminal cases, every accused would be constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury. [3] Anyone using the term 'illegal' to refer to those people is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to make them sound like criminals, while denying them the constitutional protections that all accused criminals are entitled to.
- etchalon 1y ago
  Because the government has decided mass-surveillance is OK so long as they really, really want to do it.
- stackskipton 1y ago
  Because they have funding and Deportations are a priority for this administration.
  - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
    Do you think they’re not gonna use this on you next?
    - stackskipton 1y ago
      They totally are but since we don't have data privacy laws and SCOTUS has ruled time and time again that getting data from 3rd parties the user has voluntarily turned this information over to is not illegal, I'm at the loss what to do here. I talk about this issue with people time and time again including my wife. I then watch her pretty much turn over location to every app because she just clicks top button to make prompt go away. I finally got into her iPhone and number of apps that had widespread location access was so frustrating.
    - pessimizer 1y ago
      Don't you think they're using this on you now?
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jackstraw42 1y ago
    for those of us who have tried to keep our soul while working in tech, what would you recommend going forward?
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Of course you’re being downloaded for this on hacker news. Because hacker news is part of the surveillance state. I'm not sure what HN you're reading, but basically every mass surveillance comment thread is overwhelming against it, eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45173277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45173277
- qwe----3 1y ago
  Because the government was elected with a strong mandate to deport illegal migrants?
  - tldrthelaw 1y ago
    How would you substantiate this statement? He won with among the smallest popular vote % margins in history [0]. In fact he won by less than HRC beat him by in 2016. There is no strong mandate for this administration, regardless of how you slice it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
  - vkou 1y ago
    48% is not a strong enough mandate to break federal appropriations and spending laws, to use the military as a weapon against civilian protesters, or, in this case, to shred the 4th amendment.
    - almosthere 1y ago
      So 52% is enough to import 15 million new people that don't speak the language and take a crap-ton of jobs and houses making a lot of people homeless. (and that's forgetting immigration became an 80/20 issue when we found out the number)
      - drdaeman 1y ago
        Immigration issues of any scale do not justify violating citizen's rights, though. Side effects matter and the risks are tremendous. 52% enough or not - that's what already happened in the past and no one can change the past. There's only the present, that needs to be carefully driven towards a desirable future, with conscious and significant effort to avoid undesirable ones. History is full of stories about how easy it is to fuck up. It possibly would be very different if federal administration would openly recognize the potential issues and put at least a sliver of effort in showing how it deals with those. I can understand their statement that the scale of the problem requires action of comparable scale - that is logical. However, careless actions become incredibly dangerous at scale, and I have yet to see a sliver of understanding of this, for all I'm seeing so far is arrogant stubborn self-confidence that is very hard to distinguish from malicious intent. And I'm putting a lot of effort here with my suspension of disbelief for the sake of civilized discussion. Those hotheads are supposed to be a conservative government. They don't act like one at all.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  Why would they even wait for a civil infraction? What difference does that make? Why are they doing mass surveillance on people wearing brown shoes? If the dossiers are available on the market, and the price is right, and they're allowed to for some reason even though they wouldn't be allowed to collect that information themselves, they should just buy them for every citizen just in case.
  - vkou 1y ago
    The overstay is the civil infraction I'm referring to.
- gruez 1y ago
  >[2] If they were criminal cases, every accused would be constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury. Are there any reputable law scholars that supports this argument? Otherwise this feels suspiciously close to sovereign citizens argument about how they don't need drivers licenses because they're "traveling" or whatever. >[3] Anyone using the term 'illegal' to refer to those people is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to make them sound like criminals, while denying them the constitutional protections that all accused criminals are entitled to. What about "illegally" parked cars? Those are also civil infractions.
  - vkou 1y ago
    > Are there any reputable law scholars that supports this argument? Yes, literally everyone, because that's how the law is written. Note https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 - this would reclassify it from a civil to a criminal offense, but did not pass into law. Also note that entry into the US after having been removed from it is, by law, a criminal offense. ---- > What about "illegally" parked cars? Those are also civil infractions. You should note that nobody calls the people who put them there 'illegal drivers'. (We also don't apply that moniker to people speeding, failing to signal on a lane change, or being responsible for many other moving violations. We do apply it to people driving drunk or without a license - which are criminal offenses.)
    - gruez 1y ago
      >Note https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 - this would reclassify it from a civil to a criminal offense, but did not pass into law. I stand corrected, thanks. >You should note that nobody calls the people who put them there 'illegal drivers'. (We also don't apply that moniker to people speeding, failing to signal on a lane change, or being responsible for many other moving violations. We do apply it to people driving drunk or without a license - which are criminal offenses.) Nobody calls them "illegal" drivers because there's a more specific term, specifically "driver who parked illegally" or "speeder". The latter already incorporates an implication if illegality, and the former is basically the same as "illegal driver" but with slightly different phrasing. The equivalent for immigrants would be "person who immigrated illegally", but that's basically the same as "illegal immigrant". I suppose you can try to use the latter term as an attempt to destigmatize the term, but that feels like the whole "autism vs people with autism" thing from a few years ago all over again.
malcolmgreaves 1y ago
That’s not the whole story. It plays a part, but if it were just that, it wouldn’t be nearly as bad. Your comment makes it think that this is a “both sides” thing and it’s anything but that. The bigger story is that the Republicans have illegally dismantled safeguards against the centralization and collection of data. And they’ve stopped any sort of warrant process for collecting and analyzing this data. Buying commercial data with a warrant or a process around it to ensure it is lawfully used is one thing. Disregarding the law and constitution to do whatever you like is a wholly different matter. And don’t forget the end game. This is about silencing political opponents. It’s not for a lawful use. It’s purely so the Republicans can keep their man in power in perpetuity. The end game alone makes this vastly different than what’s been done before.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  > The bigger story is that the Republicans have illegally dismantled safeguards against the centralization and collection of data. And they’ve stopped any sort of warrant process for collecting and analyzing this data. Are you going to link this story? It would be interesting. What was the previous warrant process, and what laws required it?
BinaryIgor 1y ago
I wonder what's the most important source of location data here - apps that you have given permissions to do so? Telecom providers? GPS?
- daft_pink 1y ago
  I'm also very curious. It's too bad someone doesn't come up with a tool so you can see your own data.... I wrote this TLDR, because I wondered what I would have to do to prevent tracking (turn off bluetooth etc), but it's just a commercial data broker.
pessimizer 1y ago
And we're going to pretend this is an issue because of immigration enforcement, rather than government from top to bottom being able to use commercial data brokers to get around legal limitations on their own actions, or the fact that commercial data brokers collecting huge numbers of dossiers on normal people are allowed to exist and work with impunity. And both will continue to be allowed to do this, obviously. Something something private business free speech child protection that doesn't apply to ICE because I'm against ICE right now.

vkou 1y ago

Why is the government doing mass-surveillance for alleged civil[1] infractions? --- [1] Nearly all deportations - overstays are civil, not criminal[2][3] cases. [2] If they were criminal cases, every accused would be constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury. [3] Anyone using the term 'illegal' to refer to those people is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to make them sound like criminals, while denying them the constitutional protections that all accused criminals are entitled to.

etchalon 1y ago
Because the government has decided mass-surveillance is OK so long as they really, really want to do it.
stackskipton 1y ago
Because they have funding and Deportations are a priority for this administration.
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  Do you think they’re not gonna use this on you next?
  - stackskipton 1y ago
    They totally are but since we don't have data privacy laws and SCOTUS has ruled time and time again that getting data from 3rd parties the user has voluntarily turned this information over to is not illegal, I'm at the loss what to do here. I talk about this issue with people time and time again including my wife. I then watch her pretty much turn over location to every app because she just clicks top button to make prompt go away. I finally got into her iPhone and number of apps that had widespread location access was so frustrating.
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    Don't you think they're using this on you now?
FollowingTheDao 1y ago
[flagged]
- jackstraw42 1y ago
  for those of us who have tried to keep our soul while working in tech, what would you recommend going forward?
- gruez 1y ago
  >Of course you’re being downloaded for this on hacker news. Because hacker news is part of the surveillance state. I'm not sure what HN you're reading, but basically every mass surveillance comment thread is overwhelming against it, eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45173277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45173277
qwe----3 1y ago
Because the government was elected with a strong mandate to deport illegal migrants?
- tldrthelaw 1y ago
  How would you substantiate this statement? He won with among the smallest popular vote % margins in history [0]. In fact he won by less than HRC beat him by in 2016. There is no strong mandate for this administration, regardless of how you slice it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
- vkou 1y ago
  48% is not a strong enough mandate to break federal appropriations and spending laws, to use the military as a weapon against civilian protesters, or, in this case, to shred the 4th amendment.
  - almosthere 1y ago
    So 52% is enough to import 15 million new people that don't speak the language and take a crap-ton of jobs and houses making a lot of people homeless. (and that's forgetting immigration became an 80/20 issue when we found out the number)
    - drdaeman 1y ago
      Immigration issues of any scale do not justify violating citizen's rights, though. Side effects matter and the risks are tremendous. 52% enough or not - that's what already happened in the past and no one can change the past. There's only the present, that needs to be carefully driven towards a desirable future, with conscious and significant effort to avoid undesirable ones. History is full of stories about how easy it is to fuck up. It possibly would be very different if federal administration would openly recognize the potential issues and put at least a sliver of effort in showing how it deals with those. I can understand their statement that the scale of the problem requires action of comparable scale - that is logical. However, careless actions become incredibly dangerous at scale, and I have yet to see a sliver of understanding of this, for all I'm seeing so far is arrogant stubborn self-confidence that is very hard to distinguish from malicious intent. And I'm putting a lot of effort here with my suspension of disbelief for the sake of civilized discussion. Those hotheads are supposed to be a conservative government. They don't act like one at all.
pessimizer 1y ago
Why would they even wait for a civil infraction? What difference does that make? Why are they doing mass surveillance on people wearing brown shoes? If the dossiers are available on the market, and the price is right, and they're allowed to for some reason even though they wouldn't be allowed to collect that information themselves, they should just buy them for every citizen just in case.
- vkou 1y ago
  The overstay is the civil infraction I'm referring to.
gruez 1y ago
>[2] If they were criminal cases, every accused would be constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury. Are there any reputable law scholars that supports this argument? Otherwise this feels suspiciously close to sovereign citizens argument about how they don't need drivers licenses because they're "traveling" or whatever. >[3] Anyone using the term 'illegal' to refer to those people is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to make them sound like criminals, while denying them the constitutional protections that all accused criminals are entitled to. What about "illegally" parked cars? Those are also civil infractions.
- vkou 1y ago
  > Are there any reputable law scholars that supports this argument? Yes, literally everyone, because that's how the law is written. Note https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 - this would reclassify it from a civil to a criminal offense, but did not pass into law. Also note that entry into the US after having been removed from it is, by law, a criminal offense. ---- > What about "illegally" parked cars? Those are also civil infractions. You should note that nobody calls the people who put them there 'illegal drivers'. (We also don't apply that moniker to people speeding, failing to signal on a lane change, or being responsible for many other moving violations. We do apply it to people driving drunk or without a license - which are criminal offenses.)
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Note https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 - this would reclassify it from a civil to a criminal offense, but did not pass into law. I stand corrected, thanks. >You should note that nobody calls the people who put them there 'illegal drivers'. (We also don't apply that moniker to people speeding, failing to signal on a lane change, or being responsible for many other moving violations. We do apply it to people driving drunk or without a license - which are criminal offenses.) Nobody calls them "illegal" drivers because there's a more specific term, specifically "driver who parked illegally" or "speeder". The latter already incorporates an implication if illegality, and the former is basically the same as "illegal driver" but with slightly different phrasing. The equivalent for immigrants would be "person who immigrated illegally", but that's basically the same as "illegal immigrant". I suppose you can try to use the latter term as an attempt to destigmatize the term, but that feels like the whole "autism vs people with autism" thing from a few years ago all over again.

malcolmgreaves 1y ago

That’s not the whole story. It plays a part, but if it were just that, it wouldn’t be nearly as bad. Your comment makes it think that this is a “both sides” thing and it’s anything but that. The bigger story is that the Republicans have illegally dismantled safeguards against the centralization and collection of data. And they’ve stopped any sort of warrant process for collecting and analyzing this data. Buying commercial data with a warrant or a process around it to ensure it is lawfully used is one thing. Disregarding the law and constitution to do whatever you like is a wholly different matter. And don’t forget the end game. This is about silencing political opponents. It’s not for a lawful use. It’s purely so the Republicans can keep their man in power in perpetuity. The end game alone makes this vastly different than what’s been done before.

pessimizer 1y ago
> The bigger story is that the Republicans have illegally dismantled safeguards against the centralization and collection of data. And they’ve stopped any sort of warrant process for collecting and analyzing this data. Are you going to link this story? It would be interesting. What was the previous warrant process, and what laws required it?

BinaryIgor 1y ago

I wonder what's the most important source of location data here - apps that you have given permissions to do so? Telecom providers? GPS?

daft_pink 1y ago
I'm also very curious. It's too bad someone doesn't come up with a tool so you can see your own data.... I wrote this TLDR, because I wondered what I would have to do to prevent tracking (turn off bluetooth etc), but it's just a commercial data broker.

pessimizer 1y ago

And we're going to pretend this is an issue because of immigration enforcement, rather than government from top to bottom being able to use commercial data brokers to get around legal limitations on their own actions, or the fact that commercial data brokers collecting huge numbers of dossiers on normal people are allowed to exist and work with impunity. And both will continue to be allowed to do this, obviously. Something something private business free speech child protection that doesn't apply to ICE because I'm against ICE right now.