8 ms·

ICE, CBP Knew Facial Recognition App Couldn't Do What DHS Says It Could

230 points by cdrnsf 9mo ago

givemeethekeys 9mo ago
DHS, ICE, CBP - seems like a lot of redundancy.
- aftbit 9mo ago
  DHS -> Department of Homeland Security, parent agency of both others created after 9/11 CBP -> Customs and Border Protection, descended from U.S. Customs Service, which traces back to the end of the 18th century, but added to DHS at the beginning of the 21st ICE -> Immigration and Customs Enforcement, created in 2003 from the criminal investigation arm of CBP and related agencies They are related but not the same. Under the current US regime, all the stops are being pulled out and all the lines blurred. As a result, you're seeing ICE doing crowd control, BORTAC (basically CBP's tactical / SWAT unit) doing run-of-the-mill immigration enforcement, and all kinds of other wackiness. The DHS does much much more than just CBP/ICE stuff too.
  - dragonwriter 9mo ago
    ICE was not “created from the criminal investigation arm of CBP and related agencies”, it was created at the same time, by the same law, as CBP and DHS, from some of the investigation and enforcement arms of INS and the Customs Service, with much of the rest of those agencies (including the Border Patrol, which had been one of the enforcement arm of INS) becoming CBP, and the routine "happy path" immigration functions of INS moving to USCIS under the Department of State. > They are related but not the same. Under the current US regime, all the stops are being pulled out and all the lines blurred. A large part of that is that notional function of the “immigration crackdown” falls logically in ICE's domain, and this was the justification for massively increasing ICE funding, but CBP (and particularly the Border Patrol) having much more of the no-rules culture that was sought for the operation, leading to CBP and Border Patrol personnel taking key roles in the operation (which is why, until he became something of a political scapegoat for the Administration policy, a Border Patrol area commander got redesignated a "commander at large" and then given operational command not just of Border Patrol involvement but the notionally ICE-led operation.)
    - aftbit 9mo ago
      Thanks for the correction. I meant to say from the customs service indeed but I got the acronyms twisted myself.
  - pear01 9mo ago
    That trend of blurred lines has been going on for quite a while. Iirc a big callout of the 9/11 commission report was lack of communication between the FBI and the CIA. Even on the local side increasingly it seems every major crime gets a mixture of various federal, state and local law enforcement response. A notable case was the Uvalde school massacre, which only ended when a border patrol tactical team (believe from the BORTAC group you mentioned) took over from dithering local forces. This was a major example, but interagency collaboration has also become routine in far less dire circumstances. The militarization and blurred lines have thus become a feature not a bug. And it won't be reformed simply by having the current administration fade into the rearview mirror. It would be beneficial I think though if current excesses led to a more holistic introspection and reform, but we'll see.
    - jfengel 9mo ago
      The CIA and FBI had been deliberately separated, after the Church Commission found many, many abuses. The Patriot Act removed and lowered many of the barriers. And now we're back to what the Church Commission found.
      - deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
  - PearlRiver 9mo ago
    In my own country the border guard is part of the military- its a special form of military police. They also protect embassies for some reason. Trust me the US does not have a patent on bureaucracy... Over the centuries things just develop. One can only assume it made sense once.
  - tracker1 9mo ago
    They kind of have to when local police don't do the crowd patrolling and handling they're supposed to be doing.
josefritzishere 9mo ago
What in the Schutzstaffel is going on in this administration.
- BugsJustFindMe 9mo ago
  You answered your own question.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- cycrutchfield 9mo ago
  Your Gestapo is as good as mine
therobots927 9mo ago
I wonder when it will sink in for the average (especially non-white) American citizen that you are one false positive in an algorithm away from being arrested and detained / deported. If you’re lucky there will be a public outcry large enough that you’re released (like 5 year old Liam Ramos). Given expectations built into the constitution, this is should be disturbing. As a white, upper middle class, multigenerational citizen of the US, I find ICE’s actions disturbing at a fundamental level. Probably because I can extrapolate to the logical conclusion of this. Other people are extrapolating as well and it wouldn’t surprise me if continued ICE actions spur a public rebellion against surveillance of all forms, after seeing how it can be combined with a lawless federal government to subvert basic rights. I also think it will result in a backlash against private prisons in general as people then extrapolate from the ICE situation to the daily reality faced by primarily black men when interacting with the police. With a simple head nod, the cops can plant evidence and present a narrative to a judge and jury that puts you away for 20 years over nothing more than a dirty look at a cop. If you think carrying a form of ID or passport will save you from ICE, I just want you to imagine a scenario where you are alone with several federal agents who, when provided with your proof of citizenship, light it on fire with a match and throw you in a van. Papers are just physical objects and unless ICE is wearing 24/7 streaming body cams, the above scenario could happen to literally anyone.
- pizzafeelsright 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - mindslight 9mo ago
    No, your favored extremists taking control of the government, attacking American cities, and executing Americans who protest is not "squashing a rebellion". These are straight up violations of individual liberty and rejection of limited government, as laid out by the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The framing of your injustices is specious - while I'd normally be right with you about the synergy of corporate power forming a de-facto government, that these became mainstream political issues really just demonstrates how far your bubble has been warped by propagandists. Do you know how you can look at the blue tribe media and easily pick out the inflammatory extremist wackos? Your tribe has that also. If you are unable to see it, this means you are saturated in it.
CGMthrowaway 9mo ago
[flagged]
- toraway 9mo ago
  The Wired article is higher quality, agreed, but "race-baiting", really? It seems quite relevant that a specific ethnic group is much more likely to suffer consequences due to this flawed mass facial recognition given how the enforcement is targeted. Particularly given the example from the article: In Oregon testimony last year, an agent said two photos of a woman in custody taken with his face-recognition app produced different identities. The woman was handcuffed and looking downward, the agent said, prompting him to physically reposition her to obtain the first image. The movement, he testified, caused her to yelp in pain. The app returned a name and photo of a woman named Maria; a match that the agent rated “a maybe.” Agents called out the name, “Maria, Maria,” to gauge her reaction. When she failed to respond, they took another photo. The agent testified the second result was “possible,” but added, “I don’t know.” Asked what supported probable cause, the agent cited the woman speaking Spanish, her presence with others who appeared to be noncitizens, and a “possible match" via facial recognition. The agent testified that the app did not indicate how confident the system was in a match. “It’s just an image, your honor. You have to look at the eyes and the nose and the mouth and the lips.”
  - CGMthrowaway 9mo ago
    I'm focused on the initial paragraph more than anything else. OP's lead sentence is race-baiting, bubble-coded hyperbolic misinformation, and the entire first paragraph is completely unnecessary and uncharacteristic of appropriate HN content. We know how to have better discussions here. Starting with primary source and not editorialized re-posts is one of them. Also, "non-white" is not really a "specific ethnic group" imo; and the article does not lead with "much more likely to suffer consequences" but rather "DHS want to find non-white people to deport by any means necessary" which is a gross mischaracterization of the stated intention of actual government officials. If you have direct evidence to the contrary lmk
    - 9mo ago
rcakebread 9mo ago
I can just imagine "not hotdog" tech demo they showed Trump and Hesgeth.
- zzrrt 9mo ago
  The only training image is the skin tone chart from Family Guy.
flanked-evergl 9mo ago
[flagged]
- lapfkfjsk 9mo ago
  Hmmm did you try googling the things you're claiming? Its happening constantly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths,_detentions_and_deportations_of_American_citizens_in_the_second_Trump_administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths,_detentions_and_deporta...
  - flanked-evergl 9mo ago
    Links to a page which classifies mothers taking their children home with them instead of abandoning them in a foreign country as deportations.
caycep 9mo ago
And we thought the UK jailing people for postage fraud based on a faulty AI was bad...
- pricechild 9mo ago
  I don't think that's anywhere close to an accurate description of the UK's recent post office scandal? I haven't seen AI feature in any reporting. Rather, the software had bugs, some people decided the software couldn't be wrong and convinced others to the point of conviction?
  - jen20 9mo ago
    Indeed, that scandal vastly predated AI everywhere, and was just vanilla consultant-grade software (i.e. trash) coupled with vast incompetence at every stage.
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 9mo ago
      Incompetence is not sufficient to explain that case. Many high level leaders were aware of deficiencies in the software and wanted to prosecute anyway. That is active malice or indifference to human suffering.
    - caycep 8mo ago
      automated system that powers that be put too much faith in = AI
WatchDog 9mo ago
Privacy issues and politics aside, the title doesn't really seem to describe the content of the article. The app seems to be doing what they say it can do. Is there any actual data as to it's effectiveness, match and false positive rate?
- NewJazz 9mo ago
  Despite DHS repeatedly framing Mobile Fortify as a tool for identifying people through facial recognition, however, the app does not actually “verify” the identities of people stopped by federal immigration agents—a well-known limitation of the technology and a function of how Mobile Fortify is designed and used.
  - WatchDog 9mo ago
    That quote from the source wired article, does not allege that the DHS makes any claim that the app can itself verify anyone's identity. Where has the DHS made any statement that the app does something that it does not do? The closest thing I can find is from the 2025 DHS AI use case inventory, where the entry for Mobile fortify states it's benefits are: "Utilizing facial comparison or fingerprint matching services, agents/officers in the field are able to quickly verify identity utilizing trusted source photos." The claim is not that the app verifies someone's identity, but that it can potentially find trusted source photos that look similar to the person in question. The officer could then evaluate the match, and make a determination to their own satisfaction that their subject is one and the same as the person in the database.
    - AlotOfReading 9mo ago
      ICE told a ranking member of the House homeland security committee: [...] an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship [...] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/10/ices-forced-face-scans-to-verify-citizens-is-unconstitutional-lawmakers-say/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/10/ices-forced-face...
itsanaccount 9mo ago
This is just one more thing in a time of all the things. When all this backlash comes to roost at techs door this site I expect will be shocked. How could the average American confuse the rich VCs with the moloch worshiping pedophiles and the fascist government populists? When the giant finally wakes in America it won't be reasonable or well targeted. I'm reminded that violence in gang neighborhoods is modeled as a contaigen. Have we ever seen a violence "pandemic"? Which I guess is why Zuck has been building compounds.
tamimio 9mo ago
Technology wise, I’m more interested to have a platform or site that tracks the people who build these technologies and apps, rather than the runner boy in the streets. Those people have no morals or ethics, I want to know them and know their names/company names if contractors, so I never work with them or hire them or share any sort of collaboration with them.
- yowayb 9mo ago
  And you'll work with moral/ethical companies that slowly become the thing you're trying to avoid
- int_19h 9mo ago
  Let's start with the big boys then. https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-palantir-ai-enterprise-data-intelligence https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-palantir-ai-enterp...
tbossanova 9mo ago
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m a law abiding citizen of $other_country and at this point I wouldn’t touch the US with a very long pole. Just doesn’t seem worth it
- refurb 9mo ago
  I find this stance funny because at least in my experience facial recognition adoption is lagging in the US and privacy implications are discussed. The other countries I’ve traveled to just adopted with broadly without any discussion of privacy, just a “look how convenient this is!!”
  - BugsJustFindMe 9mo ago
    This article isn't about facial recognition. It's about the US executive branch repeatedly running roughshod over the law and lying. In that context, your comment is a non sequitur.
    - expedition32 9mo ago
      Exactly. It is not about the technology it is about the implementation. My country isn't perfect but at least we keep the racists, fascists and religious nut cases in line.
    - refurb 9mo ago
      My comment was in reference to the comment I replied to. I thought that was obvious?
      - BugsJustFindMe 8mo ago
        Your comment is in reference to something that the comment you were replying to does not mention at all and is not about. That is the definition of a non sequitur. > "I don't feel safe entering the US anymore" > "Other countries do facial recognition too" You see how the two statements are not directly linked.
notepad0x90 9mo ago
Friendly reminder that DHS exists because of the war on terror, and the state of emergency the US has been under since 9/11 (yes, still under the same emergency). Why are nazis kidnapping Americans in broad daylight? Osama Bin Laden. The most successful terror attack in history.
- adrian_b 9mo ago
  I do not think that it is correct to call that as "the most successful", when the only people in the entire world who have benefited from the attack have been Bush Junior and all his political or businessmen friends, and they have benefited tremendously, by gaining huge amounts of money from the wars and from internal US "security" activities and by ensuring the reelection. If we assume that the purpose of the terror attack was the official one, it has not been successful for its initiators, but for those controlling USA. If "successful" is intended to refer to the fact that 3 out of 4 airplanes have reached their target, I remember how I watched live the events and I was stupefied that the 2nd and the 3rd airplanes have hit their targets. For the 1st airplane, it was normal to be successful, as nobody expected that action. But for the following 2, I was familiar with air defenses from places that are supposed to be much less advanced than USA and there was plenty of time to find the airplanes and shoot them down. I could never understand why this did not happen and even more I could never understand why there has never been any credible US official explanation for why it did not happen (I mean the explanation that they could not find the airplanes because they have turned off their transponders is not credible).
  - notepad0x90 9mo ago
    what do you mean? The purpose of the terror attack was to destroy America. Bin Laden/AQ weren't trying to get rich (he was already from a rich family). He probably didn't anticipate how successful he'd be. he attacked WTC because it's a symbol of finance and economy; pentagon, military. he had targets like that. If you recall, it wasn't the US alone that invaded Afghanistan, it was NATO. Now, using the very same reactionary forces of his 9/11 attack, that very force that retaliated after 9/11 is being destroyed.

230 points by cdrnsf 9mo ago

givemeethekeys 9mo ago

DHS, ICE, CBP - seems like a lot of redundancy.

aftbit 9mo ago
DHS -> Department of Homeland Security, parent agency of both others created after 9/11 CBP -> Customs and Border Protection, descended from U.S. Customs Service, which traces back to the end of the 18th century, but added to DHS at the beginning of the 21st ICE -> Immigration and Customs Enforcement, created in 2003 from the criminal investigation arm of CBP and related agencies They are related but not the same. Under the current US regime, all the stops are being pulled out and all the lines blurred. As a result, you're seeing ICE doing crowd control, BORTAC (basically CBP's tactical / SWAT unit) doing run-of-the-mill immigration enforcement, and all kinds of other wackiness. The DHS does much much more than just CBP/ICE stuff too.
- dragonwriter 9mo ago
  ICE was not “created from the criminal investigation arm of CBP and related agencies”, it was created at the same time, by the same law, as CBP and DHS, from some of the investigation and enforcement arms of INS and the Customs Service, with much of the rest of those agencies (including the Border Patrol, which had been one of the enforcement arm of INS) becoming CBP, and the routine "happy path" immigration functions of INS moving to USCIS under the Department of State. > They are related but not the same. Under the current US regime, all the stops are being pulled out and all the lines blurred. A large part of that is that notional function of the “immigration crackdown” falls logically in ICE's domain, and this was the justification for massively increasing ICE funding, but CBP (and particularly the Border Patrol) having much more of the no-rules culture that was sought for the operation, leading to CBP and Border Patrol personnel taking key roles in the operation (which is why, until he became something of a political scapegoat for the Administration policy, a Border Patrol area commander got redesignated a "commander at large" and then given operational command not just of Border Patrol involvement but the notionally ICE-led operation.)
  - aftbit 9mo ago
    Thanks for the correction. I meant to say from the customs service indeed but I got the acronyms twisted myself.
- pear01 9mo ago
  That trend of blurred lines has been going on for quite a while. Iirc a big callout of the 9/11 commission report was lack of communication between the FBI and the CIA. Even on the local side increasingly it seems every major crime gets a mixture of various federal, state and local law enforcement response. A notable case was the Uvalde school massacre, which only ended when a border patrol tactical team (believe from the BORTAC group you mentioned) took over from dithering local forces. This was a major example, but interagency collaboration has also become routine in far less dire circumstances. The militarization and blurred lines have thus become a feature not a bug. And it won't be reformed simply by having the current administration fade into the rearview mirror. It would be beneficial I think though if current excesses led to a more holistic introspection and reform, but we'll see.
  - jfengel 9mo ago
    The CIA and FBI had been deliberately separated, after the Church Commission found many, many abuses. The Patriot Act removed and lowered many of the barriers. And now we're back to what the Church Commission found.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
- PearlRiver 9mo ago
  In my own country the border guard is part of the military- its a special form of military police. They also protect embassies for some reason. Trust me the US does not have a patent on bureaucracy... Over the centuries things just develop. One can only assume it made sense once.
- tracker1 9mo ago
  They kind of have to when local police don't do the crowd patrolling and handling they're supposed to be doing.

josefritzishere 9mo ago

What in the Schutzstaffel is going on in this administration.

BugsJustFindMe 9mo ago
You answered your own question.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
cycrutchfield 9mo ago
Your Gestapo is as good as mine

therobots927 9mo ago

I wonder when it will sink in for the average (especially non-white) American citizen that you are one false positive in an algorithm away from being arrested and detained / deported. If you’re lucky there will be a public outcry large enough that you’re released (like 5 year old Liam Ramos). Given expectations built into the constitution, this is should be disturbing. As a white, upper middle class, multigenerational citizen of the US, I find ICE’s actions disturbing at a fundamental level. Probably because I can extrapolate to the logical conclusion of this. Other people are extrapolating as well and it wouldn’t surprise me if continued ICE actions spur a public rebellion against surveillance of all forms, after seeing how it can be combined with a lawless federal government to subvert basic rights. I also think it will result in a backlash against private prisons in general as people then extrapolate from the ICE situation to the daily reality faced by primarily black men when interacting with the police. With a simple head nod, the cops can plant evidence and present a narrative to a judge and jury that puts you away for 20 years over nothing more than a dirty look at a cop. If you think carrying a form of ID or passport will save you from ICE, I just want you to imagine a scenario where you are alone with several federal agents who, when provided with your proof of citizenship, light it on fire with a match and throw you in a van. Papers are just physical objects and unless ICE is wearing 24/7 streaming body cams, the above scenario could happen to literally anyone.

pizzafeelsright 9mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- mindslight 9mo ago
  No, your favored extremists taking control of the government, attacking American cities, and executing Americans who protest is not "squashing a rebellion". These are straight up violations of individual liberty and rejection of limited government, as laid out by the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The framing of your injustices is specious - while I'd normally be right with you about the synergy of corporate power forming a de-facto government, that these became mainstream political issues really just demonstrates how far your bubble has been warped by propagandists. Do you know how you can look at the blue tribe media and easily pick out the inflammatory extremist wackos? Your tribe has that also. If you are unable to see it, this means you are saturated in it.

CGMthrowaway 9mo ago

[flagged]

toraway 9mo ago
The Wired article is higher quality, agreed, but "race-baiting", really? It seems quite relevant that a specific ethnic group is much more likely to suffer consequences due to this flawed mass facial recognition given how the enforcement is targeted. Particularly given the example from the article: In Oregon testimony last year, an agent said two photos of a woman in custody taken with his face-recognition app produced different identities. The woman was handcuffed and looking downward, the agent said, prompting him to physically reposition her to obtain the first image. The movement, he testified, caused her to yelp in pain. The app returned a name and photo of a woman named Maria; a match that the agent rated “a maybe.” Agents called out the name, “Maria, Maria,” to gauge her reaction. When she failed to respond, they took another photo. The agent testified the second result was “possible,” but added, “I don’t know.” Asked what supported probable cause, the agent cited the woman speaking Spanish, her presence with others who appeared to be noncitizens, and a “possible match" via facial recognition. The agent testified that the app did not indicate how confident the system was in a match. “It’s just an image, your honor. You have to look at the eyes and the nose and the mouth and the lips.”
- CGMthrowaway 9mo ago
  I'm focused on the initial paragraph more than anything else. OP's lead sentence is race-baiting, bubble-coded hyperbolic misinformation, and the entire first paragraph is completely unnecessary and uncharacteristic of appropriate HN content. We know how to have better discussions here. Starting with primary source and not editorialized re-posts is one of them. Also, "non-white" is not really a "specific ethnic group" imo; and the article does not lead with "much more likely to suffer consequences" but rather "DHS want to find non-white people to deport by any means necessary" which is a gross mischaracterization of the stated intention of actual government officials. If you have direct evidence to the contrary lmk
  - 9mo ago

rcakebread 9mo ago

I can just imagine "not hotdog" tech demo they showed Trump and Hesgeth.

zzrrt 9mo ago
The only training image is the skin tone chart from Family Guy.

flanked-evergl 9mo ago

[flagged]

lapfkfjsk 9mo ago
Hmmm did you try googling the things you're claiming? Its happening constantly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths,_detentions_and_deportations_of_American_citizens_in_the_second_Trump_administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths,_detentions_and_deporta...
- flanked-evergl 9mo ago
  Links to a page which classifies mothers taking their children home with them instead of abandoning them in a foreign country as deportations.

caycep 9mo ago

And we thought the UK jailing people for postage fraud based on a faulty AI was bad...

pricechild 9mo ago
I don't think that's anywhere close to an accurate description of the UK's recent post office scandal? I haven't seen AI feature in any reporting. Rather, the software had bugs, some people decided the software couldn't be wrong and convinced others to the point of conviction?
- jen20 9mo ago
  Indeed, that scandal vastly predated AI everywhere, and was just vanilla consultant-grade software (i.e. trash) coupled with vast incompetence at every stage.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 9mo ago
    Incompetence is not sufficient to explain that case. Many high level leaders were aware of deficiencies in the software and wanted to prosecute anyway. That is active malice or indifference to human suffering.
  - caycep 8mo ago
    automated system that powers that be put too much faith in = AI

WatchDog 9mo ago

Privacy issues and politics aside, the title doesn't really seem to describe the content of the article. The app seems to be doing what they say it can do. Is there any actual data as to it's effectiveness, match and false positive rate?

NewJazz 9mo ago
Despite DHS repeatedly framing Mobile Fortify as a tool for identifying people through facial recognition, however, the app does not actually “verify” the identities of people stopped by federal immigration agents—a well-known limitation of the technology and a function of how Mobile Fortify is designed and used.
- WatchDog 9mo ago
  That quote from the source wired article, does not allege that the DHS makes any claim that the app can itself verify anyone's identity. Where has the DHS made any statement that the app does something that it does not do? The closest thing I can find is from the 2025 DHS AI use case inventory, where the entry for Mobile fortify states it's benefits are: "Utilizing facial comparison or fingerprint matching services, agents/officers in the field are able to quickly verify identity utilizing trusted source photos." The claim is not that the app verifies someone's identity, but that it can potentially find trusted source photos that look similar to the person in question. The officer could then evaluate the match, and make a determination to their own satisfaction that their subject is one and the same as the person in the database.
  - AlotOfReading 9mo ago
    ICE told a ranking member of the House homeland security committee: [...] an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship [...] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/10/ices-forced-face-scans-to-verify-citizens-is-unconstitutional-lawmakers-say/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/10/ices-forced-face...

itsanaccount 9mo ago

This is just one more thing in a time of all the things. When all this backlash comes to roost at techs door this site I expect will be shocked. How could the average American confuse the rich VCs with the moloch worshiping pedophiles and the fascist government populists? When the giant finally wakes in America it won't be reasonable or well targeted. I'm reminded that violence in gang neighborhoods is modeled as a contaigen. Have we ever seen a violence "pandemic"? Which I guess is why Zuck has been building compounds.

tamimio 9mo ago

Technology wise, I’m more interested to have a platform or site that tracks the people who build these technologies and apps, rather than the runner boy in the streets. Those people have no morals or ethics, I want to know them and know their names/company names if contractors, so I never work with them or hire them or share any sort of collaboration with them.

yowayb 9mo ago
And you'll work with moral/ethical companies that slowly become the thing you're trying to avoid
int_19h 9mo ago
Let's start with the big boys then. https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-palantir-ai-enterprise-data-intelligence https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-palantir-ai-enterp...

tbossanova 9mo ago

I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m a law abiding citizen of $other_country and at this point I wouldn’t touch the US with a very long pole. Just doesn’t seem worth it

refurb 9mo ago
I find this stance funny because at least in my experience facial recognition adoption is lagging in the US and privacy implications are discussed. The other countries I’ve traveled to just adopted with broadly without any discussion of privacy, just a “look how convenient this is!!”
- BugsJustFindMe 9mo ago
  This article isn't about facial recognition. It's about the US executive branch repeatedly running roughshod over the law and lying. In that context, your comment is a non sequitur.
  - expedition32 9mo ago
    Exactly. It is not about the technology it is about the implementation. My country isn't perfect but at least we keep the racists, fascists and religious nut cases in line.
  - refurb 9mo ago
    My comment was in reference to the comment I replied to. I thought that was obvious?
    - BugsJustFindMe 8mo ago
      Your comment is in reference to something that the comment you were replying to does not mention at all and is not about. That is the definition of a non sequitur. > "I don't feel safe entering the US anymore" > "Other countries do facial recognition too" You see how the two statements are not directly linked.

notepad0x90 9mo ago

Friendly reminder that DHS exists because of the war on terror, and the state of emergency the US has been under since 9/11 (yes, still under the same emergency). Why are nazis kidnapping Americans in broad daylight? Osama Bin Laden. The most successful terror attack in history.

adrian_b 9mo ago
I do not think that it is correct to call that as "the most successful", when the only people in the entire world who have benefited from the attack have been Bush Junior and all his political or businessmen friends, and they have benefited tremendously, by gaining huge amounts of money from the wars and from internal US "security" activities and by ensuring the reelection. If we assume that the purpose of the terror attack was the official one, it has not been successful for its initiators, but for those controlling USA. If "successful" is intended to refer to the fact that 3 out of 4 airplanes have reached their target, I remember how I watched live the events and I was stupefied that the 2nd and the 3rd airplanes have hit their targets. For the 1st airplane, it was normal to be successful, as nobody expected that action. But for the following 2, I was familiar with air defenses from places that are supposed to be much less advanced than USA and there was plenty of time to find the airplanes and shoot them down. I could never understand why this did not happen and even more I could never understand why there has never been any credible US official explanation for why it did not happen (I mean the explanation that they could not find the airplanes because they have turned off their transponders is not credible).
- notepad0x90 9mo ago
  what do you mean? The purpose of the terror attack was to destroy America. Bin Laden/AQ weren't trying to get rich (he was already from a rich family). He probably didn't anticipate how successful he'd be. he attacked WTC because it's a symbol of finance and economy; pentagon, military. he had targets like that. If you recall, it wasn't the US alone that invaded Afghanistan, it was NATO. Now, using the very same reactionary forces of his 9/11 attack, that very force that retaliated after 9/11 is being destroyed.