15 ms·
Any time I see people say "I don't see why I should care about my privacy, I've got nothing to hide" I think about how badly things can go if the wrong people e
by simonw 10mo ago
Any time I see people say "I don't see why I should care about my privacy, I've got nothing to hide" I think about how badly things can go if the wrong people end up in positions of power.
The classic example here is what happens when someone is being stalked by an abusive ex-partner who works in law enforcement and has access to those databases.
This ICE stuff is that scaled up to a multi-billion dollar federal agency with, apparently, no accountability for following the law at all.
- jfyi 10mo agoIt doesn't even need malicious intent. If nobody rational is monitoring it, all it will take is a bad datapoint or hallucination for your door to get kicked in by mistake.
- Jaepa 10mo agoPlus there is inherent biases in datasets. Folks who have interactions with Medicaid will be more vulnerable by definition. To quote the standard observability conference line "what gets measured gets managed".
- plagiarist 10mo agoThe same people saying that will also defend police wearing masks, hiding badges, and shutting off body cameras. They are not participating in discussions with the same values (truth, integrity) that you have. Logic does not work on people who believe Calvinistic predestination is the right model for society.
- j16sdiz 10mo agoWait. Is calvinistic predestination the majority view of republicans? I thought most of them are some form of (tv) evangelism, or secularism I am not American and genuinely curious on this.
- ungreased0675 10mo agoNo, none of that is true. Remember, Republicans represent half the country, not some isolated sect living in small town Appalachia.
- tfehring 10mo ago27%* https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-political-independents.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-politi...
- jfyi 10mo ago>some isolated sect living in small town Appalachia. Calvinists or Evangelicals? I don't think that holds water either way.
- helterskelter 10mo ago> Republicans represent half the country This statement isn't necessarily wrong because about half of elected government officials are Republican, but I want to point out that less than 60% of eligible Americans voted in 2024, so we're talking about <30% of Americans who vote Republican.
- JKCalhoun 10mo agoAnd honestly, with a Congress that allows every state, irrespective of population, two Senators, it is somewhat skewed. I mean San Jose, California is about double the population of the entire state of Wyoming.
- red-iron-pine 10mo agoi don't know why this is downvoted, it's a legit complaint. wyoming has ~800k people. ohio has 11 million. the greater NYC area (parts of NJ, CT, etc.) has ~22 million. california has 40 million. and as a parent poster mentioned, just slightly 1/3 of eligible voters chose trump; if "no candidate" was a choice it may have one most states, beating out kamala and trump.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo agoAnyone on the right who implicates Pretti for carrying a licensed firearm is a good litmus test for bad faith.
- godelski 10mo agoIt's amazing how quickly the party of small government, states rights, and the 2nd amendment quickly turned against all their principles. It really shows how many people care more about party than principle.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago> shows how many people care more about party than principle "Trump’s net approval rating on immigration has declined by about 4 points since the day before Good’s death until today. Meanwhile, his overall approval rating has declined by 2 points and is near its second-term lows" [1]. I'd encourage anyone watching to actually pay attention to "how many people care more about party than principle." I suspect it's fewer than MAGA high command thinks. [1] https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-is-losing-normies-on-immigration https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-is-losing-normies-on-immi...
- wat10000 10mo agoTwo percent of Americans changing their opinion in the face of state sanctioned murder is not a good number.
- CuriouslyC 10mo agoThe people who still support the orange troll live in an echo chamber where they've been sold the bullshit that quran waiving communist terrorists and the deep state are behind all of this, and it's a con job.
- godelski 10mo agoMultiple state sanctioned murder Not to mention the extrajudicial killings Not to mention the Epstein reports I'm really not sure what people actually care about because for some reason they won't actually tell you
- nailer 10mo agoPolice absolutely should have body cameras - quite frequently they’ve proven law enforcement officers handled things correctly where activists have tried to say otherwise.
- cthalupa 10mo agoThis is true. Yet law enforcement officers are some of the most resistant to the idea, and Trump and DHS are extremely resistant to the idea of utilizing them for ICE and CBP, and have even cut funding for it. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-moved-cut-funding-ice-body-cameras-pared-back-oversight-2026-01-25/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-moved-cut-funding-ice... When we know that the body cams are frequently used in a way that benefits the people wearing them, I find it quite telling when those people are railing against the idea and those in power actively work to block it.
- ck_one 10mo agoThis is the moment for Europe to show that you can do gov and business differently. If they get their s** together and actually present a viable alternative.
- skrebbel 10mo agoHow is it not viable now?
- alecco 10mo agoThey are doing it differently alright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_control
- lillecarl 10mo agoYou're saying a proposed bill which hasn't passed is comparative to recent events in the US or am I reading too much between the lines?
- alecco 10mo agoYou're saying EU is any different to USA? Palantir clients: Europol, Danish POL-INTEL, NHS UK, UK Ministry of Defence, German Police (states), NATO, Ukraine, ASML, Siemens, Airbus, Credit Suisse, UBS, BP, Merck, ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies#Customers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies#Customer... https://www.palantir.com/partners/international/ https://www.palantir.com/partners/international/
- vladms 10mo agoNitpicking, many on your list are not part of the EU : NHS UK, UK Ministry of Defence, NATO, Ukraine, UBS, BP. Plus, the EU is 27 countries, out of which 5 are listed on their wiki page, with various institutions.
- Jordan-117 10mo ago"Best I can do is Chat Control 3.0"
- koolba 10mo ago> The classic example here is what happens when someone is being stalked by an abusive ex-partner who works in law enforcement and has access to those databases. There’s a world of difference between a government using legally collected data for multiple purposes and an individual abusing their position purely for personal reasons.
- simonw 10mo agoThat difference is looking very thin right now.
- decremental 10mo ago[dead]
- sosomoxie 10mo agoThe parent's example is of an individual using that "legal" state collected data for nefarious purposes. Once it's collected, anyone who accesses it is a threat vector. Also, governments (including/especially the US) have historically killed, imprisoned and tortured millions and millions of people. There's nothing to be gained by an individual for allowing government access to their data.
- Jaepa 10mo agoIs this legal though? & effectively if there is no checks on this is there actually a difference? There only difference is that the threat is to an entire cohort rather than an individual.
- monooso 10mo agoAt this moment, the primary difference appears to be scale.
- godelski 10mo agoWhen did legality make something right? The whole social battle is a constant attempt to align our laws and values as a society. It's why we create new laws. It's why we overturn old laws. You can't just abdicate your morals and let the law decide for you. That's not a system of democracy, that's a system of tyranny. The privacy focused crowd often mentions "turnkey tyranny" as a major motivation. A tyrant who comes to power and changes the laws. A tyrant who comes to power and uses the existing tooling beyond what that tooling was ever intended for. The law isn't what makes something right or wrong. I can't tell you what is, you'll have to use your brain and heart to figure that one out.
- blurbleblurble 10mo agoRespect, thank you for using your voice.
- TacticalCoder 10mo ago[flagged]
- simonw 10mo agoHow do you feel about ICE shooting people dead in the streets?
- mise_en_place 10mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- dang 10mo agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly posting antisemitic tropes.
- sosomoxie 10mo agoMore immigration has drastically improved this country. I don't understand your position at all. ICE is far worse for our culture than then people providing me an actual livable diet.
- steve1977 10mo agoAlso always keep in mind that what is legal today might be illegal tomorrow. This includes things like your ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and much more. You don't know today on which side of legality you will be in 10 years, even if your intentions are harmless.
- direwolf20 10mo agoThe reaction from the masses: "But that isn't true today, anything could happen in the future, and why should I invest so much work on something that's only a possibility?"
- whatshisface 10mo agoPeople do not have justifications for most choices. We watch YouTube when we would benefit more from teaching ourselves skills. We eat too much of food we know is junk. We stay up too late and either let others walk over us at work to avoid overt conflict or start fights and make enemies to protect our own emotions. If you want to know why Americans are allowing themselves to be gradually reduced to slavery, do not ask why.
- soulofmischief 10mo agoIt's disingenuous to say Americans are "allowing" themselves to do anything in the face of countless, relentless, multi-billion corporate campaigns, designed by teams of educated individuals, to make them think and act in specific ways.
- iugtmkbdfil834 10mo agoThis. As much as I would like to say 'individual responsibility' and all that, the sheer amount of information that is designed to make one follow a specific path, react in specific way or offer opinion X is crazy. I am not entirely certain what the solution is, but I am saying this as a person, who likes to think I am somewhat aware of attempts to subvert my judgment and I still catch myself learning ( usually later after the fact ) that I am not as immune as I would like to think.
- WrongOnInternet 10mo ago"I've got nothing to hide" is another way of saying "I don't have friends that trust me," which is another way of saying" I don't have friends."
- AndrewKemendo 10mo ago> how badly things can go if the wrong people end up in positions of power This is why there shouldn’t be any organization that has that much power. Full stop. What you described is the whole raison dêtre of Anarchism; irrespective of whether you think there’s an alternative or not* “No gods No Masters” isn’t just a slogan it’s a demand *my personal view is that there is no possible stable human organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism#No_gods,_no_masters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism#No_gods,_n...
- wahnfrieden 10mo agoHave you read Graeber & Wengrow?
- AndrewKemendo 10mo agoOf course. All of Graeber is fantastic and I’m trying to get an audience with Wengrow
- wahnfrieden 10mo agoWhere can I follow this development
- AndrewKemendo 10mo agoSee if you can understand my paper: https://kemendo.com/GTC.pdf https://kemendo.com/GTC.pdf If you can, let me know
- hypeatei 10mo agoThe simple response to that line of thinking is: "you don't choose what the government uses against you" For any piece of data that exists, the government effectively has access to it through court orders or backdoors. Either way, it can and will be used against you.
- sheikhnbake 10mo agoThe true problem is that it happens no matter who is in charge. It's like that old phrase about weapons that are invented are going to be used at some point. The same thing has turned out to be true for intelligence tools. And the worst part is that the tools have become so capable, that malicious intent isn't even required anymore for privacy to be infringed.
- baconbrand 10mo agoFrom everything we are seeing, the tools are not actually that capable. Their main function is not their stated function of spying/knowing a lot about people. Their main function is to dehumanize people. When you use a computer to tell you who to target, it makes it easy for your brain to never consider that person as a human being at all. They are a target. An object. Their stated capabilities are lies, marketing, and a smokescreen for their true purpose. This is Lavender v2, and I’m sure others could name additional predecessors. Systems rife with errors but the validity isn’t the point; the system is.
- SkyPuncher 10mo agoFor me, the angle is a bit different. I want privacy, but I also sense that the people who are really good at this (like Plantir) have so much proxy information available that individual steps to protect privacy are pretty much worthless. To me, this is a problem that can only be solved at the government/regulatory level.
- ben_w 10mo agoIn principle, I agree with your point; in practice, I think the claims made my these surveillance/advertising companies are likely as overstated as Musk's last decade of self-driving that still can't take a vehicle all the way across the USA without supervision in response to a phone summons. The evidence I have that causes me to believe them to be overstated, is how even Facebook has frequently shown me ads that inherently make errors about my gender, nationality, the country I live in, and the languages I speak, and those are things they should've been able to figure out with my name, GeoIP, and the occasional message I write.
- esseph 10mo ago> I think the claims made my these surveillance/advertising companies are likely as overstated as Musk's last decade of self-driving They are not overstated, and they are far worse.
- wat10000 10mo agoIt’s funny when Facebook thinks you’re interested in aquariums and shows you aquarium ads when that isn’t your thing at all. It’ll be a lot less amusing when Palantir thinks you’re interested in bombing government buildings.
- crimsoneer 10mo agoPalantir don't sell data though, they just give you a software platform.
- tartoran 10mo agoThey don't sell the data, they sell access to that data
- thangalin 10mo ago> I've got nothing to hide. Some retorts for people swayed by that argument: "Can we put a camera in your bathroom?" "Let's send your mom all your text messages." "Ain't nothin' in my pockets, but I'd rather you didn't check." "Shall we live-stream your next doctor's appointment?" "May I watch you enter your PIN at the ATM?" "How about you post your credit card number on reddit?" "Care to read your high-school diary on open mic night?"
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago> Some retorts for people swayed by that argument Do any of these actually prompt someone to reconsider their position? They strike me as more of argument through being annoying than a good-faith attempt to connect with the other side.
- throw-qqqqq 10mo agoI usually just quote Snowden instead: “Ultimately, arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”
- HellDunkel 10mo agoNot as clever as it may sound. It is perfectly possible that someone has nothing to hide in a good way, whereas someone without anything to say for himself cannot be easily imagined as a good faith social individual. So in a way this is comparing apples to bad apples and claiming they are perfectly equal.
- ambicapter 10mo ago> whereas someone without anything to say for himself cannot be easily imagined as a good faith social individual Huh? You can’t imagine boring people as a “good faith social individual”?
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 10mo agoAre you against income tax? Are you against business registration? All of these are subject to the similar issues with the stalker ex abusing a position of power?
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago> All of these are subject to the similar issues with the stalker ex abusing a position of power? You seem to be asking a question. The answer is no. The IRS does not need to know my sexual orientation or circumcision status. Medicaid, on the other hand, may. (Though I'd contest even that.)
- RHSeeger 10mo agoAre you saying that, because there is one way in which people are vulnerable, that it doesn't matter if we add more ways they are vulnerable? Because that makes no sense whatsoever.
- tw04 10mo ago> The classic example here is what happens when someone is being stalked by an abusive ex-partner who works in law enforcement and has access to those databases. Which has literally happened already for anyone who thinks “there’s controls in place for that sort of thing”. That’s with (generally) good faith actors in power. What do you think can and will happen when people who think democracy and the constitution are unnecessary end up in control… https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/politics/nsa-snooping/ https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/politics/nsa-snooping/
- jimmydoe 10mo agoI don’t agree. I’m fine ICE can see my data, as long as there are process enforced to track those usage and I have a right to fight back for their misuse. Problem today is ICE has no accountability of misuse data/violence, not they have means to data/violence.
- femiagbabiaka 10mo agoThere has been no point post Patriot Act where there has been accountability for data misuse. You need to update your priors.
- irl_zebra 10mo ago> I’m fine ICE can see my data, as long as there are process enforced to track those usage and I have a right to fight back for their misuse I agree with this in theory, but its a fantasy to think they have this restriction at this point. ICE seems to be taking all comers, the lowest of the low, the vilest of the vile, giving them "47 days of training," and sending them off armed into the populace. I have seen no evidence they believe they have any restriction on anything. It's basically DOGE but with guns instead of keyboards.
- RHSeeger 10mo agoI'd rather ICE (or whatever government agency) not see my data... because, even if there are processes that are enforced, there might not be tomorrow. If that data isn't collected in the first place, that threat vector disappears.
- tasty_freeze 10mo agoIt reminds me of when Eric Schmidt, then CEO of google, tried that argument about people's worry of google collecting so much personal data. Some media outlet then published a bunch of personal information about Schmidt they had gathered using only google searches, including where he lives, his salary, his political donations, and where his kids went to school. Schmidt was not amused.
- Sebguer 10mo agoBack in the day, Google eng had pretty unguarded access to people's gmails, calendars, etc. Then there was a news story involving a Google SRE grooming children and stalking them through their google accounts...
- neilv 10mo agoThat questionable-sounding stunt by the media outlet wasn't comparable: Google/Alphabet knows much more about individuals than addresses, salary, and political donations. Google/Alphabet knows quite a lot about your sentiments, what information you've seen, your relationships, who can get to you, who you can get to, your hopes and fears, your economic situation, your health conditions, assorted kompromat, your movements, etc. Schmidt is actually from OG Internet circles where many people were aware of privacy issues, and who were vigilant against incursions. But perhaps he had a different philosophical position. Or perhaps it was his job to downplay the risks. Or perhaps he was going to have enough money and power that he wasn't personally threatened by private info that would threaten the less-wealthy. We might learn this year, how well Google/Alphabet protects this treasure trove of surveillance state data, when that matters most.
- mindslight 10mo ago> Schmidt is actually from OG Internet circles where many people were aware of privacy issues, and who were vigilant against incursions. > But perhaps he had a different philosophical position. Or perhaps it was his job to downplay the risks I feel that as the consumer surveillance industry took off, everyone from those OG Internet circles was presented with a choice - stick with the individualist hacker spirit, or turncoat and build systems of corporate control. The people who chose power ended up incredibly rich, while the people who chose freedom got to watch the world burn while saying I told you so. (There were also a lot of fence sitters in the middle who chose power but assuaged their own egos with slogans like "Don't be evil" and whatnot)
- realharo 10mo agoEven if you trust the intentions of whoever you're giving your data to, you may not trust their ability to keep it safe from data breaches. Those happen all the time.
- RHSeeger 10mo agoOr the person that takes over after them
- chaostheory 10mo agoUnfortunately, this also means that everyone is taking a risk when they participate in the US census. https://exhibits.lib.berkeley.edu/spotlight/census/feature/japanese-americans-in-world-war-ii-and-the-census https://exhibits.lib.berkeley.edu/spotlight/census/feature/j... https://www.npr.org/2018/12/26/636107892/some-japanese-americans-wrongfully-imprisoned-during-wwii-oppose-census-question https://www.npr.org/2018/12/26/636107892/some-japanese-ameri...
- cyanydeez 10mo agoThe business is equally blamed. But ever aince Uber showed up and violated laws in all jurisdictions, we always focus on the cops and not the criminals. The "they look like us" fallacy is so deep in this.
- SilverElfin 10mo agoICE and DHS already were bloated and somehow grew from not existing 25 years ago to a $100 billion budget. Then the big Trump spending bill added another $200 billion to their budget. And there’s no accountability for who gets that money - it’s all friends and donors and members of the Trump family. They have money for this grift of epic scale but complain about some tiny alleged Somalian fraud to distract the gullible MAGA base. And of course there is somehow not enough money for things people actually need like healthcare.
- tartoran 10mo agoThat's in their playbook to cherry pick the most extreme cases and pretend it's the majority of cases.
- tombert 10mo ago> This ICE stuff is that scaled up to a multi-billion dollar federal agency with, apparently, no accountability for following the law at all. Apparently any time they do anything horrifying, they will just declare that victim as a "terrorist" or something, and their sycophantic supporters will happily agree. What I find amusing is that when the Snowden leaks happened and I would discuss it, when I said something like "let's pretend for a moment that we can't trust every single person in the government" I would usually get an agreeable laugh. But using these same arguments with ICE + Palantir, these same people will say something like "ICE IS ONLY DEPORTING THE CRIMINALS YOU JUST WANT OPEN BORDERS!!!". People's hypocrisy knows no bounds.
- JuniperMesos 10mo ago[flagged]
- tombert 10mo agoWithout going into a long tangent talking about each point, I would like to point out that ICE doesn't actually seem terribly concerned with whether or not the people are illegal aliens or criminals. The last two people they murdered were US citizens, there are many US citizens, some natural born, that have been detained. If they have access to all this information that was volunteered, then why are they so utterly incompetent at actually deporting illegal aliens? That said, the disturbing part of Palantir and ICE isn't just that they are reading my driver's license or my legal status, it's the fact that they know everything. You are absolutely, unequivocally incorrect that anyone in any significant numbers wants "open borders". I know this is a meme, but it's a meme that isn't true.
- abustamam 10mo agoTo add onto that, Palantir is a private company. They have no business having that much of my data without my consent, with no way to opt out.
- 10mo ago
- duxup 10mo agoThe thing also is, it doesn't matter what the truth is. If the computer says you did a thing, the thugs (ICE) will do what they want. Here is someone out for a walk, ICE demanding ID, that she answer questions. She says she's a US citizen ... they keep asking her questions and one of the ICE people seem to be using a phone to scan her face: https://np.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1qbawlr/minneapolis_several_armed_men_do_you_have_id/ https://np.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1qbawlr/minneap... What she says, the truth, none of it would matter if his phone said to bring her in. And after the fact? The folks supporting ICE have made it clear they've no problem with lying in the face of the obvious.
- steve-atx-7600 10mo agoPeople have a real hard time understanding that they are only as free as the most oppressed citizen in their country/state/city.
- lemoncookiechip 10mo agoIt's not even that big of a leap. We've seen a off-duty ICE agent drunk driving his child, getting stopped by the cops, implied threats to one of the officers for being black with payback, spent the whole time saying "come on man" using his position as a federal officer as a way to get out of trouble, and ends to the point that I wanted to make, complained about his and I quote "bitch ex-wife" for divorcing him. What is stopping this lowlife from going after his ex-wife, or one of those cops by using databases that they have access to? We know from journalists going through the process that there's no curation or training involved to join ICE specifically. But this goes beyond them. We know that cops can be corrupt to, we know politicians can be corrupt to, what is stopping any of these people from using private data to not only go after their spouses, but also business rivals, and people who slight them? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_1X7MVrnPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_1X7MVrnPY
- trimethylpurine 10mo ago>What is stopping this lowlife Same as with all other crime, we hope it's the law that stops him. We hope that more policemen want to be good men than bad. The illusion of safety is based on the honor system. Society doesn't work without that.
- direwolf20 10mo agoDoes it actually work like we hope it does?
- AndrewKemendo 10mo agoNo and it never has It only works for people the state expects significant amounts of money from (taxes don’t count) Don’t expect a government to help you unless you’re one of its larger donors
- trimethylpurine 10mo agoDepends where, I think. Where your neighbors are mostly honorable, it mostly works. There are plenty of nice neighborhoods, and no shortage of bad ones either, sadly.
- charcircuit 10mo ago[flagged]
- RHSeeger 10mo agoBut there are people trying to hide their locations even though they are here legally; because ICE has made it very clear they don't care if you're here legally or not. They arrest and deport US citizens. They arrest and deport people that show up to court to become US citizens. It's clear the government cannot be trusted to use information in a reasonable way; so we should not allow them to get that information.
- charcircuit 10mo ago[flagged]
- anigbrowl 10mo ago'systematically' doing a lot of work here/ It happens, you know it happens, the fact that it's not supposed to happen doesn't validate that.
- chowchowchow 10mo ago>This is systematically not true as citizens can not be legally deported. And yet. >If someone is not a citizen and are here illegally they should be removed, no matter their intentions. If you are willing to break the law to stay here, I personally don't want them back in the country. Without even getting into the subject of kids who are brought here.. I just have to say, why? Immigrants are net contributors in the US. Many of these people who are here "illegally" are in a bureaucratic maze and are attempting to follow the rules. Some aren't, sure, but we live in a society where we don't draconianly punish people for a certain level of breaking the rules in cases where there is no real harm done. And I say deportation, particularly to 3rd country like the USA is doing now sometimes, qualifies as very draconian.
- charcircuit 10mo ago
- BLKNSLVR 10mo agoOne interesting point about the volume of data that might be available about any individual is that law enforcement will only look for data points that suit their agenda. They won't be searching for counter evidence. It won't even cross their minds to do so. You're on record saying one thing one time that was vanilla at the time but is now ultra spicy (possibly even because the definition of words can change and context is likely lost) then you'll be a result in their search and you'll go on their list. (This is based on my anecdotal experience of having my house raided and the police didn't even know to expect there to be children in the house; children who were both over ten years old and going to school and therefore easily searchable in their systems; we hadn't moved house since 15 years prior, so there was no question of mixing up an identity. The police requested a warrant, and a fucking judge even signed it, based on a single data point: an IP address given to them by a third party internet monitoring company.) Keep your shit locked down, law enforcement are just as bad at their jobs as any other Joe Clockwatcher. In fact they're often worse because their incentive structure leans heavily towards successful prosecution. Sorry for the rant.
- ClikeX 10mo agoThe nazi's were easily able to find jews in the Netherlands because of thorough census data. Collection of that data was considered harmless when they did it. But look at what kind of damage that kind of information can do.
- throw0101c 10mo ago> The classic example here is what happens when someone is being stalked by an abusive ex-partner who works in law enforcement and has access to those databases. Or if you're currently married to an abusive partner and want to leave: how can you make a clean break with all the tracking nowadays? (And given how 'uncivilized' these guys act in public (masked, semi-anonymous), I'd had to see what they do behind closed doors.)
- fastball 10mo agoWhen talking about government services, how do you have privacy? Does one not need to perform audits, etc? This is why I personally prefer more devolved spending – at the federal level it is far too much centralized power.
- abernard1 10mo ago> This ICE stuff is that scaled up to a multi-billion dollar federal agency with, apparently, no accountability for following the law at all. It should be mentioned that "illegal" is a definitive word. There are definitely people not willing to follow the law, including political entities which are dependent on it. The moniker of privacy in this respect is a shield for illegality, because there is no reason that Medicaid data regarding SSNs should be shielded from the federal government. To take this to its logical conclusion, Americans must concede that EU/UK systems of identity and social services are inherently immoral.
- jmye 10mo agoI have a hard time parsing your first paragraph, but there is no reason at all for any part of the US government that isn't CMMS to have any access to Medicaid data, writ large, at all. And even CMMS should only see de-identified data. It's absolutely absurd to think that law enforcement has any reason to see anything in any MC database.
- jokoon 10mo agoThe source of the problem is the respect of the rule of law and due process Data collection is not the source of the problem because people give their data willingly Do you think data collection is a problem in China, or do you think the government and rule of law is the problem? Companies collecting data is not the true problem. Even when data collection is illegal, a corrupt government that doesn't respect the rule of law doesn't need data collection.
- contrarian1234 10mo agoyeah, this is exactly it. all the arguments kind of boil down to "well how about if the government does illegal or evil stuff?" its very similar to arguments about the second ammendment. But laws and rules shouldnt be structured around expecting a future moment where the government isnt serving the people. At that moment the rules already dont matter
- mixmastamyk 10mo agoYou just described the Bill of Rights. Constitutions should be structured around that.
- contrarian1234 10mo agoThe Rights are not intended as preemptive. You don't have a right to free speech b/c otherwise maybe the government regulation of speech will get out of hand. You have it because it's espoused as a fundamental right. Same with separation of church and state. It's like "Well maybe a future evil government will regulate the church poorly, so lets ban it completely". It's just seen as an area the government shouldn't delve in entirely. Collecting information about people doesn't really fit the same mold. It's not sensible to remove that function entirely. It's not a right. And it's not sensible to structure things with the expectation the future government will be evil
- fragmede 10mo ago> And it's not sensible to structure things with the expectation the future government will be evil Jewish Danes would like to have a word with you about that
- Aunche 10mo agoThat is not a good argument for privacy. I don't see how more privacy would have prevented any evil that has been doing.
- XorNot 10mo agoThe data isn't the problem, the jack-booted thugs kicking in doors is. Which is now literally happening and people are still acting like their privacy is going to somehow prevent it.
- AniseAbyss 10mo ago[dead]
- itsamario 10mo agoIf ice only goes after undocumented or expelled immigrants, why are they in the medicade system?
- MandieD 10mo agoUndocumented immigrants often have legally-resident and/or citizen family members who are eligible for Medicaid. But yes, it's disgusting that ICE has access to that data via Palantir, or that this data is being used for anything other than administering Medicaid.
- fuckyah 10mo ago[dead]
- cranberryturkey 10mo agoPost on http://icemap.app http://icemap.app anonymously
- SubiculumCode 10mo agoThis is the same thing I thought when liberal-minded folk talked about giving the Federal government more power over States in order to enact some good work, or to achieve some policy win. Yes, for now, I thought, but you can't assume a good natured centralized power will persist, and when it doesn't, what is your alternative? I have watched as liberal minded folks rediscover the value of State Sovereignty and power in the face of an autocratic Federal executive, bearing arms when the an autocrat sends masked agents to terrorize your city. Lean into it, I say. Winner take all Federal system means no alternative but to win at all costs, rather than live and let live. We need more, smaller, States. We need more Representatives than 1 per 700,000 citizens...by 10x
- MOAAARRR 10mo ago[dead]
- lm28469 10mo ago> The classic example here is what happens when someone is being stalked by an abusive ex-partner who works in law enforcement and has access to those databases. I'd say the classic example is when a small german man with a mustache starts looking in religious registries to find the address of certain types of people
- stephen_g 10mo agoIt’s usually not a great example because it’s basically the one thing that is “never going to happen here”. Normally the one about abusive law enforcement offices stalking ex-partners (or helping their buddies stalk their ex-partners) is better because it happens fairly regularly. We really are in unprecedented times when it’s looking like the big one could happen in the United States though…
- wilsonnb3 10mo agoI never really understood that angle - do you think the Germans would have thrown their hands up and not killed anyone because they lacked accurate data on who was Jewish?
- tj-teej 10mo agoAnd (with a heavy dose of purposeful suspension of disbelief), if ICE does deport those people they've determined are "illegal", does anyone believe that the agency will scale down and stop? There will be new "enemies of the state"
- mothballed 10mo agoThey won't run out of people to deport, because all those jobs (and occasionally, benefits) the illegals profit from will still exist. If you remove the people but not the incentive you just get new and different people. This is by design to make sure ICE and CBP jobs program for psychopaths always exists. Did you think they were actually going to put themselves out of the job by going for the roots?
- tlogan 10mo agoI do not think this is really about privacy as much as it is about our broken immigration system. Let’s look at a simple case where both Democrats and Republicans largely agree. On January 6, 2026, all South Sudanese nationals lost their TPS status and ordered to leave the US. At this point, they are all effectively declared illegal. I have not seen a single Democrat seriously argue that something should be done about this. So what do we think people from South Sudan will actually do? Pack their bags and return to South Sudan? My point is that a system where someone is admitted to the US completely legally, lives here for years, and is then suddenly reclassified as “illegal” is fundamentally broken.
- trinsic2 10mo agoIt reminds me of the Sokovia Accords Debate[0] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmjRhmk800U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmjRhmk800U
- knifeinhead 10mo ago"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say" ~ Edward Snowden
- titzer 10mo agoPrivacy is one of the first defenses against tyranny. You can be a target of pressure through no fault of your own. For example, if you were to witness a government official commit a crime.