4 ms·

I think this actually goes against the US constitution. Let me explain why: Law enforcement can only investigate people based on certain provisions. The typic

I think this actually goes against the US constitution. Let me explain why: Law enforcement can only investigate people based on certain provisions. The typical one is of "reasonable suspicion" of a crime. This also has to be articulated, at the latest in the police report. With a face-scanning app, people who are registered, are no longer anonymous. The cops know who they are. However had, what legal basis would they have to know who is who at all times, without suspicion of a crime? This basically bypasses protection in the legal system. It will be interesting to see whether the high court will allow it, because if so then they can also discard the last ~80 years of legislation here. So I am pretty certain that Trump will lose this one eventually. Meanwhile he achieves that the ICE gangsters will do so against "suspected migrants", which is all the MAGA base wants to achieve.

klaff 11mo ago
Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, I don't share your optimism.
nomel 11mo ago
> However had, what legal basis would they have to know who is who at all times, without suspicion of a crime? The following is a genuine question, not a statement: Would known statistics/tax info for a particular region pass "reasonable suspicion"?
- relaxing 11mo ago
  No. Reasonable suspicion involves observed behaviors of an individual. Context about the area the individual is observed in could be supporting information, but not the entire justification for a stop.
neom 11mo ago
The app is specifically for use in immigration enforcement operations under Section 287(g) agreements. 287(g) allows ICE to formally delegate certain immigration enforcement powers to state and local police, everyone still needs reasonable suspicion, it's just police now have immigration act they can work with, also immigration is often civil not criminal, creating the grey area I believe as the standard for what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" in immigration enforcement can be lower/different than for criminal law. They can do something like: Traffic violations (broken taillight, speeding 5mph over) + "nervousness" + "area known for undocumented workers" - then scan them with the app to verify their immigration status using 287(g).
chneu 11mo ago
The US Supreme Court doesn't care.

klaff 11mo ago

Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, I don't share your optimism.

nomel 11mo ago

> However had, what legal basis would they have to know who is who at all times, without suspicion of a crime? The following is a genuine question, not a statement: Would known statistics/tax info for a particular region pass "reasonable suspicion"?

relaxing 11mo ago
No. Reasonable suspicion involves observed behaviors of an individual. Context about the area the individual is observed in could be supporting information, but not the entire justification for a stop.

neom 11mo ago

The app is specifically for use in immigration enforcement operations under Section 287(g) agreements. 287(g) allows ICE to formally delegate certain immigration enforcement powers to state and local police, everyone still needs reasonable suspicion, it's just police now have immigration act they can work with, also immigration is often civil not criminal, creating the grey area I believe as the standard for what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" in immigration enforcement can be lower/different than for criminal law. They can do something like: Traffic violations (broken taillight, speeding 5mph over) + "nervousness" + "area known for undocumented workers" - then scan them with the app to verify their immigration status using 287(g).

chneu 11mo ago

The US Supreme Court doesn't care.