5 ms·

Depending on the crime, most people would agree that face/gait recognition is warranted, for example in case of murder or rape. The difference here is that som

Depending on the crime, most people would agree that face/gait recognition is warranted, for example in case of murder or rape. The difference here is that some people consider "illegal immigration" to be more like a misdemeanor, others consider it to be something much more serious.

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> Depending on the crime, most people would agree that face/gait recognition is warranted, for example in case of murder or rape That's the problem with dragnet surveillance. People are okay with it for extreme cases. And then the scope creeps. Free or secure. You can't have both. And you usually can't even have just the latter.
- fc417fc802 9mo ago
  > And then the scope creeps. Agreed and wanted to add. If it exists, can do the job, and the person in charge is aware of it, then it will inevitably be used. There's no such thing as "only for certain situations" unless there is a large inherent cost to using it outside of the proscribed scenario. If you mandate the placement of fireman's axes by every door, at some point someone is going to use one of them to commit murder or vandalism or some other crime. There is effectively nothing that can be done to prevent that other than choosing not to mandate their placement.
dmitrygr 9mo ago
> " others consider " laws are knowable. readable. Opinion on them does NOT matter.
- throwfaraway135 9mo ago
  Laws don't exist in a vacuum, in practice governments decide how to implement and to enforce them or not.
- kstrauser 9mo ago
  We have a court system specifically meant to interpret the law, and a tiered appeals process for when one of the courtroom parties disagrees with that court’s interpretation. Quick, does the First Amendment allow the government to place any restrictions on speech? The words are right there for the reading and knowing, so that should be a simple question, surely?
duk3luk3 9mo ago
gait recognition is a pseudoscience.
15155 9mo ago
> others consider it to be something much more serious. We have limited funds for social safety nets for our own citizens: how is it not "serious" that we would deplete them on folks who are willfully and intentionally breaking our rules for financial benefit?
- R_D_Olivaw 9mo ago
  My guy, stop with this false point. You're smarter than this. Deep down you know it's not true and it's not being used this way. Clean yourself and your soul.
  - 15155 9mo ago
    What about it is false? - Illegal immigrants make the choice to come to the United States for financial enrichment: jobs, handouts. Are you disputing this? - The United States has a notoriously weak social safety net relative to other countries: this is not a disputed fact. - We do not have an unlimited amount of resources: sorry, this is reality, not socialist fantasyland. - Most US citizens do not cover their overall per capita government tax expenditures: illegals certainly don't. Illegal immigrants are absolutely a net-negative financial, quality-of-life drain on society at large.
    - bakies 9mo ago
      They pay into social security when they have a job just like anyone else. If it's weak social safety net then why would the immigrants choose this country for financial benefit? You're contradicting yourself right in the next bullet point. They came here for the American Dream, which is about finding a new life free from oppression against all odds. It's what this country is built on. There's nothing more patriotic than welcoming the oppressed with open arms and helping them build a new life. It's what happened when your ancestors came to this country.
      - 15155 9mo ago
        > They pay into social security when they have a job just like anyone else. Really? None are paid under the table? Who pays their ER bills when they break their arm while performing illegal farm labor, for instance? > If it's weak social safety net then why would the immigrants choose this country for financial benefit? You're contradicting yourself right in the next bullet point. Because it's better than from wherever they came? These goals aren't incompatible. Jobs are reason enough, free shit is icing on the cake. > They came here for the American Dream, Breaking the law in the process, and pissing on everyone who bothered to obtain it legally. > It's what happened when your ancestors came to this country. My ancestors weren't given free shit upon arrival - you can have a welfare system or open borders, not both.

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago

> Depending on the crime, most people would agree that face/gait recognition is warranted, for example in case of murder or rape That's the problem with dragnet surveillance. People are okay with it for extreme cases. And then the scope creeps. Free or secure. You can't have both. And you usually can't even have just the latter.

fc417fc802 9mo ago
> And then the scope creeps. Agreed and wanted to add. If it exists, can do the job, and the person in charge is aware of it, then it will inevitably be used. There's no such thing as "only for certain situations" unless there is a large inherent cost to using it outside of the proscribed scenario. If you mandate the placement of fireman's axes by every door, at some point someone is going to use one of them to commit murder or vandalism or some other crime. There is effectively nothing that can be done to prevent that other than choosing not to mandate their placement.

dmitrygr 9mo ago

> " others consider " laws are knowable. readable. Opinion on them does NOT matter.

throwfaraway135 9mo ago
Laws don't exist in a vacuum, in practice governments decide how to implement and to enforce them or not.
kstrauser 9mo ago
We have a court system specifically meant to interpret the law, and a tiered appeals process for when one of the courtroom parties disagrees with that court’s interpretation. Quick, does the First Amendment allow the government to place any restrictions on speech? The words are right there for the reading and knowing, so that should be a simple question, surely?

duk3luk3 9mo ago

gait recognition is a pseudoscience.

15155 9mo ago

> others consider it to be something much more serious. We have limited funds for social safety nets for our own citizens: how is it not "serious" that we would deplete them on folks who are willfully and intentionally breaking our rules for financial benefit?

R_D_Olivaw 9mo ago
My guy, stop with this false point. You're smarter than this. Deep down you know it's not true and it's not being used this way. Clean yourself and your soul.
- 15155 9mo ago
  What about it is false? - Illegal immigrants make the choice to come to the United States for financial enrichment: jobs, handouts. Are you disputing this? - The United States has a notoriously weak social safety net relative to other countries: this is not a disputed fact. - We do not have an unlimited amount of resources: sorry, this is reality, not socialist fantasyland. - Most US citizens do not cover their overall per capita government tax expenditures: illegals certainly don't. Illegal immigrants are absolutely a net-negative financial, quality-of-life drain on society at large.
  - bakies 9mo ago
    They pay into social security when they have a job just like anyone else. If it's weak social safety net then why would the immigrants choose this country for financial benefit? You're contradicting yourself right in the next bullet point. They came here for the American Dream, which is about finding a new life free from oppression against all odds. It's what this country is built on. There's nothing more patriotic than welcoming the oppressed with open arms and helping them build a new life. It's what happened when your ancestors came to this country.
    - 15155 9mo ago
      > They pay into social security when they have a job just like anyone else. Really? None are paid under the table? Who pays their ER bills when they break their arm while performing illegal farm labor, for instance? > If it's weak social safety net then why would the immigrants choose this country for financial benefit? You're contradicting yourself right in the next bullet point. Because it's better than from wherever they came? These goals aren't incompatible. Jobs are reason enough, free shit is icing on the cake. > They came here for the American Dream, Breaking the law in the process, and pissing on everyone who bothered to obtain it legally. > It's what happened when your ancestors came to this country. My ancestors weren't given free shit upon arrival - you can have a welfare system or open borders, not both.