3 ms·

The chances of a citizen being targeted by ICE is low. The chances of a citizen being unable to compellingly correct that mistake is very low. The chance of a m

The chances of a citizen being targeted by ICE is low. The chances of a citizen being unable to compellingly correct that mistake is very low. The chance of a mismatch on the database is very low. The chance of there being a mismatch that isn't immediately obvious to the ICE officer is astronomically low. And now you need every single one of these events to occur, simultaneously. The chances of this happening is practically zero. And even if somehow this does happen, which it won't, it's at worst a significant inconvenience for the person who somehow managed to win the reverse lottery. Though in this case perhaps it's not even entirely the reverse lottery - because there'd be a big paycheck awaiting them in lawsuits, crowdfunding, media fees, and so on. I simply don't see false positives as a realistic concern here, whatsoever. Going with your analog with the police I'd mention e.g. DNA tests or finger prints. These do have non-zero failure rates, but they're still regularly used to convict people simply because the failure rate is seen as acceptably low. And in this case, the conditional probability we're speaking of is probably even lower, and with much less at stake!

drewbug01 1y ago
> The chances of a citizen being targeted by ICE is low. You can’t start with this premise, though. Recent rulings allow stops based on “probable cause” such as a combination of “speaks Spanish”, “is brown”, and “is in a place where we think illegal immigrants might be”. So like: any Latino US citizen, who happens to be working someplace like a landscaping company. Or a kitchen. The idea that citizens aren’t likely to be targets is now laughable. And we have ample reporting indicating that in fact, citizens are being detained, for hours and hours (if not longer).
- somenameforme 1y ago
  Low doesn't mean zero, it means low. You might notice I used different terms for the different groupings, with the chance of a citizen being targeted by ICE as the highest overall at "low". ICE has so far deported more than 400,000 illegal aliens. [1] If they were "only" 99% accurate, you'd be able to find thousands of instances where things went wrong. Instead, you're looking more at tens to low hundreds of instances, so it's likely that their overall accuracy is somewhere in the 99.9% to 99.99% range. And as I was demonstrating above, the conditional probabilities required for a false positive from this app mean that it's practical effective accuracy rate will likely be 100%. [1] - https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/23/new-milestone-over-2-million-illegal-aliens-out-united-states-less-250-days https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/23/new-milestone-over-2-mil...
  - drewbug01 1y ago
    > Instead, you're looking more at tens to low hundreds of instances …based on what, the independent research ProPublica did? DHS doesn’t even keep statistics on how many citizens they detain so I’m not sure we should be assuming the numbers here are that low.
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      What I mentioned already. Being incorrectly detained isn't consequence free. People can and have successfully sued, winning substantial sums of money in the process. And we also live in the social media age where nothing gets more of those sacred likes and other such things (including that sweet sweet GoFundMe money) than framing oneself as a victim. And on top of this all immigration enforcement runs contrary to the corporate media's biases. They are actively trying to make a mountain out of every single molehill, yet they are clearly finding themselves annoyingly short of molehills. In other words, ICE's errors are highly visible. That my approximation aligns with ProPublica's (which is probably a higher end ballpark since I doubt they were especially critical of any claims they discovered) is unsurprising.
      - drewbug01 1y ago
        > People can and have successfully sued, winning substantial sums of money in the process. I would be quite interested to know if you can cite sources on that. > And we also live in the social media age where nothing gets more of those sacred likes and other such things (including that sweet sweet GoFundMe money) than framing oneself as a victim. What, exactly, is your argument here? That it’s all fine because you think people will play victim and strike it rich on GoFundMe? I’m struggling to see what point you’re actually trying to make. > They are actively trying to make a mountain out of every single molehill, yet they are clearly finding themselves annoyingly short of molehills. Sources? Please list out what molehills were made into mountains. What evidence do you have that they are actively trying to do it because of their “bias”? You’re regurgitating tired, right-wing talking points. Back it up with evidence if you’re so sure about it. > which is probably a higher end ballpark since I doubt they were especially critical of any claims they discovered Well, sure. Let’s see some evidence that they weren’t critical enough with their reporting. My understanding is that they are a highly respected journalistic outfit. What makes you so sure they were playing fast and loose with the facts?
matthewdgreen 1y ago
Today I watched a video of a US citizen being dragged out of a car and arrested because ICE ran into her car. She was held for the better part of a day without medical care. So no, I'm not going to assign highly-optimistic data-free priors to the masked agents operating these agencies, nor am I going to assume that (for the first time in my experience) a hastily-assembled government database is accurate. You're free to hope for these things if you want. But hoping does not make them true.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  This video? [1] Did you watch a different video? Not only did she obviously hit the car, she railed into it. Check the moment of impact at 2:20. She bounces a way bigger SUV with a little sedan. It also looks like she never once touched her brakes. I find that part difficult to believe, but did you ever see her brake lights come on? So one could try to claim it was an accident because the ICE vehicle was turning around in the middle of the street, but that's also probably impossible as it was a giant scene full of adults acting like children with the ICE car right in the middle of the road. You can't be that aloof. The reason divides on these sort of issues are probably irreconcilable is because of stuff like this. So many people seem to have missed the point of the childhood story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. [1] - https://youtu.be/mSgwQVjqSBg?t=131 https://youtu.be/mSgwQVjqSBg?t=131

drewbug01 1y ago

> The chances of a citizen being targeted by ICE is low. You can’t start with this premise, though. Recent rulings allow stops based on “probable cause” such as a combination of “speaks Spanish”, “is brown”, and “is in a place where we think illegal immigrants might be”. So like: any Latino US citizen, who happens to be working someplace like a landscaping company. Or a kitchen. The idea that citizens aren’t likely to be targets is now laughable. And we have ample reporting indicating that in fact, citizens are being detained, for hours and hours (if not longer).

somenameforme 1y ago
Low doesn't mean zero, it means low. You might notice I used different terms for the different groupings, with the chance of a citizen being targeted by ICE as the highest overall at "low". ICE has so far deported more than 400,000 illegal aliens. [1] If they were "only" 99% accurate, you'd be able to find thousands of instances where things went wrong. Instead, you're looking more at tens to low hundreds of instances, so it's likely that their overall accuracy is somewhere in the 99.9% to 99.99% range. And as I was demonstrating above, the conditional probabilities required for a false positive from this app mean that it's practical effective accuracy rate will likely be 100%. [1] - https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/23/new-milestone-over-2-million-illegal-aliens-out-united-states-less-250-days https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/23/new-milestone-over-2-mil...
- drewbug01 1y ago
  > Instead, you're looking more at tens to low hundreds of instances …based on what, the independent research ProPublica did? DHS doesn’t even keep statistics on how many citizens they detain so I’m not sure we should be assuming the numbers here are that low.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    What I mentioned already. Being incorrectly detained isn't consequence free. People can and have successfully sued, winning substantial sums of money in the process. And we also live in the social media age where nothing gets more of those sacred likes and other such things (including that sweet sweet GoFundMe money) than framing oneself as a victim. And on top of this all immigration enforcement runs contrary to the corporate media's biases. They are actively trying to make a mountain out of every single molehill, yet they are clearly finding themselves annoyingly short of molehills. In other words, ICE's errors are highly visible. That my approximation aligns with ProPublica's (which is probably a higher end ballpark since I doubt they were especially critical of any claims they discovered) is unsurprising.
    - drewbug01 1y ago
      > People can and have successfully sued, winning substantial sums of money in the process. I would be quite interested to know if you can cite sources on that. > And we also live in the social media age where nothing gets more of those sacred likes and other such things (including that sweet sweet GoFundMe money) than framing oneself as a victim. What, exactly, is your argument here? That it’s all fine because you think people will play victim and strike it rich on GoFundMe? I’m struggling to see what point you’re actually trying to make. > They are actively trying to make a mountain out of every single molehill, yet they are clearly finding themselves annoyingly short of molehills. Sources? Please list out what molehills were made into mountains. What evidence do you have that they are actively trying to do it because of their “bias”? You’re regurgitating tired, right-wing talking points. Back it up with evidence if you’re so sure about it. > which is probably a higher end ballpark since I doubt they were especially critical of any claims they discovered Well, sure. Let’s see some evidence that they weren’t critical enough with their reporting. My understanding is that they are a highly respected journalistic outfit. What makes you so sure they were playing fast and loose with the facts?

matthewdgreen 1y ago

Today I watched a video of a US citizen being dragged out of a car and arrested because ICE ran into her car. She was held for the better part of a day without medical care. So no, I'm not going to assign highly-optimistic data-free priors to the masked agents operating these agencies, nor am I going to assume that (for the first time in my experience) a hastily-assembled government database is accurate. You're free to hope for these things if you want. But hoping does not make them true.

somenameforme 1y ago
This video? [1] Did you watch a different video? Not only did she obviously hit the car, she railed into it. Check the moment of impact at 2:20. She bounces a way bigger SUV with a little sedan. It also looks like she never once touched her brakes. I find that part difficult to believe, but did you ever see her brake lights come on? So one could try to claim it was an accident because the ICE vehicle was turning around in the middle of the street, but that's also probably impossible as it was a giant scene full of adults acting like children with the ICE car right in the middle of the road. You can't be that aloof. The reason divides on these sort of issues are probably irreconcilable is because of stuff like this. So many people seem to have missed the point of the childhood story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. [1] - https://youtu.be/mSgwQVjqSBg?t=131 https://youtu.be/mSgwQVjqSBg?t=131