If you the reader are working on these technologies, I encourage you take a good look at yourself in the mirror. You are building a surveillance state for the rich to use against yourself, me and everyone else not part of the ruling class.
Because it's not really illegal. People are voluntarily sharing their data with corporations via social media and apps, and those corporations are voluntarily selling it to data brokers, who are then voluntarily selling it to the SaaS that ICE is using here to track people.
The problem here is a lack of data protection laws. It's entirely legal for any private citizen who wants to to purchase huge amounts of mass location data/history for billions of people.
i consider myself fairly knowledgeable about tracking techniques and countermeasures. despite constant effort and techniques that are extreme or impossible for the average individual, i believe my evasions are minimally effective.
it's also increasingly difficult to use the internet or even exist in public at all without some kind of compromise that invalidates most of that work.
> the Department of Homeland Security had suspended the purchase of commercial location data after the Inspector General found the agency had violated federal law, but that temporary safeguard has now been dismantled.
Sounds like it is still illegal. They just don't care.
Notably, this administration illegally fired (ignored a notice-to-congress period, and IIRC also didn't state a cause, both of which are required by the law) all the Inspectors General as one of their first acts.
These were positions set up after the Watergate scandal to make it harder for the executive to engage in blatant criminality for long periods without anyone noticing. One ought to read that as a statement of intent to commit lots of obvious crimes.
Maybe I should follow the example of ICE and assume everything I do is legal until a judge specifically tells me it is not. I know other people have gone to jail for murder, but how do I know the murder I want to commit is illegal until a judge rules on my particular case.
> This is exactly how Russia built its surveillance state. It began with the quiet centralization of telecommunications data, followed by the rollout of SORM, which gave the government mass interception and geolocation powers, and ended with the targeted use of those capabilities against political opponents, journalists, and civil society. Immigrants, ethnic minorities, and marginalized groups were the first targets—people with little power to resist.
While I agree with the overall premise, but to best of my awareness (and I worked at an ISP in Russia in '00s) those statements are not entirely accurate.
SORM is Russia's Room 641A, except that it's legislated and all done in the open. It started way before telecom consolidation (which started mid-'00s, when large enterprises with strong government ties started to absorb smaller companies) and initially crept in slowly. At first smaller telcos were able to step around the requirements and just promise to cooperate "if something" (essentially, looking up flow logs and/or running tcpdump after being served a proper warrant).
AFAIK, SORM's first targets were mostly CSAM distributors and people who leaned towards neo-nazi views to various extents. That's how it was legitimized in the eyes of those who knew about it: look, FSB is going against pedophiles and nazis, yay! Don't know about journalists or minorities.
Shit started to hit the fan with mid-2010s rapid acceleration towards authoritarianism, when mandatory censorship and drastic expansion of online surveillance became a law.
And mass/non-targeted phone tracking is a relatively modern development in Russia, mostly post-pandemics.
> AFAIK, SORM's first targets were mostly CSAM distributors and people who leaned towards neo-nazi views to various extents. That's how it was legitimized in the eyes of those who knew about it: look, FSB is going against pedophiles and nazis, yay!
Sounds similar to ChatControl, right?
Not saying that the EU is turning authoritarian at all, but just that it is a tool that may turn evil in the future.
Somewhat similar in the "think of the children" and "we want this to fight the baddies" arguments. Both SORM and ChatControl have stated goals of mandatory warrant-less eavesdropping.
That's about all in similarities, though. AFAIK, there's a difference in the system architecture: Russian SORM was a push from an existing agency (FSB) who became it's sole operator (and basically took over the country: Putin is KGB/FSB spawn), EU proposal seem to establish a clearinghouse-like system for various law enforcement agencies to access through. There's also a difference in oversight: FSB has none, EU proposes some, though I'm not really knowledgeable on the details.
And - yeah - any tool that allows government to violate citizen rights is inherently dangerous if the government becomes hostile. This is clearly the case in Russia, and I'm not knowledgeable about EU at all so I cannot possibly tell.
So, what's the best way to fight back, personally and collectively? Yes, yes—we need legal measures against this sort of thing—but are there tracking mitigation measures that known to be effective on mobile devices? Is there a way we can dilute this commercially-available data to poison the well, as it were?
Wait until they find out what "anonymous" data phones are uploading to the big tech companies who happen to own application platforms and mobile operating systems.
If you carry a radio based tracker on your person you will be tracked. This information will eventually be abused. It's not a hard conclusion to come to, and one supported by too many repetitions of abuse in both sensible and not sensible nations to disregard... but somehow it is (disregarded). Cell phones are just too useful for people to acknowledge what they are and what the solution is: stop carrying a radio tracker or at least leave it turned off most of the time.
Yeah, just live in a cave in the middle of nowhere. A sure-fire solution for everyone!
You expect SO MUCH diligence from individuals while removing any responsibility for the situation from the companies perpetrating it. I now have to make my choice of phone based on the ability to remove the battery so that I cannot be tracked by my own government? That is insane.
Not sure if you're trying to make a point or just to self-congratulate yourself for thinking this since the 2000s (do you mention a date because you feel you predicted something unexpected?).
Spoiler: it's obvious to anyone who knows about tech.
Not sure if you're disregarding the call to action to turn off your cell phone when not using it or if my prior point is literally playing out as we speak ("You know the problem but it's too useful to acknowledge.").
I mention the date because this problem has been known by everyone, not just me, for a very long time. But it seems like others are incapable of acting on the knowledge.
I do what I can with my own threat model. Actually, I probably do a lot more than what my threat model requires, just because it's interesting and for the learning experience. I don't go as far as to turn off my cell phone when not using it, but I run GrapheneOS :-).
> But it seems like others are incapable of acting on the knowledge.
That's wrong. They just don't understand and don't care to understand. They choose not to act, because they don't see a need. Which is true for many things and different groups. You care about turning off your cell phone, how much do you care about climate change or the mass extinction we are responsible for?
I would argue that the equivalent of turning off your cell phone would at the very least be to be a vegetarian. Are you, or are you "incapable of acting on the knowledge"? :-)
And we're going to pretend this is an issue because of immigration enforcement, rather than government from top to bottom being able to use commercial data brokers to get around legal limitations on their own actions, or the fact that commercial data brokers collecting huge numbers of dossiers on normal people are allowed to exist and work with impunity.
And both will continue to be allowed to do this, obviously. Something something private business free speech child protection that doesn't apply to ICE because I'm against ICE right now.
That’s not the whole story. It plays a part, but if it were just that, it wouldn’t be nearly as bad. Your comment makes it think that this is a “both sides” thing and it’s anything but that.
The bigger story is that the Republicans have illegally dismantled safeguards against the centralization and collection of data. And they’ve stopped any sort of warrant process for collecting and analyzing this data.
Buying commercial data with a warrant or a process around it to ensure it is lawfully used is one thing. Disregarding the law and constitution to do whatever you like is a wholly different matter.
And don’t forget the end game. This is about silencing political opponents. It’s not for a lawful use. It’s purely so the Republicans can keep their man in power in perpetuity.
The end game alone makes this vastly different than what’s been done before.
> The bigger story is that the Republicans have illegally dismantled safeguards against the centralization and collection of data. And they’ve stopped any sort of warrant process for collecting and analyzing this data.
Are you going to link this story? It would be interesting. What was the previous warrant process, and what laws required it?
Why is the government doing mass-surveillance for alleged civil[1] infractions?
---
[1] Nearly all deportations - overstays are civil, not criminal[2][3] cases.
[2] If they were criminal cases, every accused would be constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury.
[3] Anyone using the term 'illegal' to refer to those people is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to make them sound like criminals, while denying them the constitutional protections that all accused criminals are entitled to.
>[2] If they were criminal cases, every accused would be constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury.
Are there any reputable law scholars that supports this argument? Otherwise this feels suspiciously close to sovereign citizens argument about how they don't need drivers licenses because they're "traveling" or whatever.
>[3] Anyone using the term 'illegal' to refer to those people is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to make them sound like criminals, while denying them the constitutional protections that all accused criminals are entitled to.
What about "illegally" parked cars? Those are also civil infractions.
Also note that entry into the US after having been removed from it is, by law, a criminal offense.
----
> What about "illegally" parked cars? Those are also civil infractions.
You should note that nobody calls the people who put them there 'illegal drivers'. (We also don't apply that moniker to people speeding, failing to signal on a lane change, or being responsible for many other moving violations. We do apply it to people driving drunk or without a license - which are criminal offenses.)
>You should note that nobody calls the people who put them there 'illegal drivers'. (We also don't apply that moniker to people speeding, failing to signal on a lane change, or being responsible for many other moving violations. We do apply it to people driving drunk or without a license - which are criminal offenses.)
Nobody calls them "illegal" drivers because there's a more specific term, specifically "driver who parked illegally" or "speeder". The latter already incorporates an implication if illegality, and the former is basically the same as "illegal driver" but with slightly different phrasing. The equivalent for immigrants would be "person who immigrated illegally", but that's basically the same as "illegal immigrant". I suppose you can try to use the latter term as an attempt to destigmatize the term, but that feels like the whole "autism vs people with autism" thing from a few years ago all over again.
They totally are but since we don't have data privacy laws and SCOTUS has ruled time and time again that getting data from 3rd parties the user has voluntarily turned this information over to is not illegal, I'm at the loss what to do here.
I talk about this issue with people time and time again including my wife. I then watch her pretty much turn over location to every app because she just clicks top button to make prompt go away. I finally got into her iPhone and number of apps that had widespread location access was so frustrating.
48% is not a strong enough mandate to break federal appropriations and spending laws, to use the military as a weapon against civilian protesters, or, in this case, to shred the 4th amendment.
Immigration issues of any scale do not justify violating citizen's rights, though. Side effects matter and the risks are tremendous. 52% enough or not - that's what already happened in the past and no one can change the past. There's only the present, that needs to be carefully driven towards a desirable future, with conscious and significant effort to avoid undesirable ones. History is full of stories about how easy it is to fuck up.
It possibly would be very different if federal administration would openly recognize the potential issues and put at least a sliver of effort in showing how it deals with those. I can understand their statement that the scale of the problem requires action of comparable scale - that is logical. However, careless actions become incredibly dangerous at scale, and I have yet to see a sliver of understanding of this, for all I'm seeing so far is arrogant stubborn self-confidence that is very hard to distinguish from malicious intent. And I'm putting a lot of effort here with my suspension of disbelief for the sake of civilized discussion.
Those hotheads are supposed to be a conservative government. They don't act like one at all.
No, just no. You don't get to say any of that because of what WE witnessed. You did not have a SLIVER of care to the thousands of people that died of fentanyl. They must go.
I get to think and say whatever I want as long as my First Amendment rights still exist. You get the right to disagree and think and say whatever you want. I sincerely hope it's how things will remain, and so will all our other Constitutional rights. Because I witnessed first-hand what could happens when the Constitution becomes a piece of paper, and I hope that no one would ever have to experience that.
But more than this, I'm curious what logical connection have made you bring fentanyl into the discussion about purported government surveillance of illegal migrants and possible side effects of this on US citizens and legal permanent residents. Seriously, why have you even thought of it?
The immigration policy of the last ~13 years was not reached by a singular, 1-time 52% consensus. They were the product of decades of often bipartisan legislature, and both-parties-taking-turns partisan executive policy, much of it set decades ago, with plenty of opportunity in the intervening years for steering and review.
You're acting like some prior President cracked his knuckles one day, and signed an EO to import 15 million people in, and justifying the unconstitutional insanity of the past 8 months based on that falsehood.
You're drawing a false equivalence fallacy, and covering blatantly illegal and unconstitutional actions. A 52% consensus isn't enough to achieve those, either. You need 66% consensus in Congress, and 3/4s of States.
If the issue is as existential as you think it is, it's on you to build the consensus necessary to achieve that. If you can't, tough luck.
I almost forgot for a second that you like to call everyone a nazi. Thanks for the reminder.
You think I have no empathy, I just have more empathy for Americans (including ones of color of which is me too) that lost everything including their life over fentanyl.
The parent poster didn't call you anything, but one does raise eyebrows at people who look at the crazy authoritarian shit that is being done, and say 'this is legal, and good, and desirable and it makes me happy :)'.
They are certainly a prominent and loud and very defensive group of people, they are definitely not 'everyone'.
I don't think we'd ever interacted, and I can't remember the last time I called anyone a Nazi.
FWIW I'm pretty sure when someone is at the point of saying they "have empathy ... but", it means they do not have empathy. It sounds like something deeply hurt you in the past, and for that you have my sympathies, but lashing out at others is not going to solve that.
How would you substantiate this statement? He won with among the smallest popular vote % margins in history [0]. In fact he won by less than HRC beat him by in 2016. There is no strong mandate for this administration, regardless of how you slice it.
Why would they even wait for a civil infraction? What difference does that make? Why are they doing mass surveillance on people wearing brown shoes?
If the dossiers are available on the market, and the price is right, and they're allowed to for some reason even though they wouldn't be allowed to collect that information themselves, they should just buy them for every citizen just in case.
Of course you’re being downloaded for this on hacker news. Because hacker news is part of the surveillance state. All the people here who are coding and working for these people are part of this new horrific society. Constant surveillance, constant AI mind bending algorithms that promote division and violence.
That's where the network of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and gait detection come in!
Barreling towards a complete lack of privacy is scary and waving it away as "just don't bring your phone" is massively naive. There are many many ways you can be identified and tracked besides your own phone, because there is so much incentive to do it. Even if everyone stopped bringing their phone everywhere out of fear of tracking, they would _still be tracked_
The talking point that private industry is tracking you as well is tired, and ostensibly smart people should stop trotting it out. Meta and Apple can't arrest you or secret you away to a foreign country -- at least not yet. That makes the distinction a difference.
Absolutely, but that doesn't erase the fact that the government gathering the information directly is an escalation. They know they can subpoena it -- that presents a hurdle. They're opting to end around said hurdle.
What does "surveilance capitalism" mean in your opponion?
Just some companies which collect unfathomable troves of data but have no incentive to clamp down individuals or manipulate democracies?
I just spilled my rhetorical counter argument...
You are right, the distinction between public or private abuse of power is futile in the end, but this doesnt mean we should put a blind eye on private corporations doing the dystopian ground work, by eg. relativizing all this with a "It could be worse. It could be the government but thank god its only palantir bundling the data, so no f'ing issue here. Calm down smart people!".
The better talking point here is that once the data is collected, you must assume the government can get to it, always. Who actually stores it (a public or private entity) is an irrelevant implementation detail, and people pretending otherwise are being foolish.
Sure, but how is the government simply obtaining the data directly not an escalation? A subpoena at least requires an additional step and ostensible checks.
> US-based surveillance helps victims and prevents more victims
> Garry Tan, Sept 03, 2025, YC CEO
This aged like milk.
Original article the link cites: https://www.404media.co/ice-to-buy-tool-that-tracks-location...
https://archive.is/WFsNN
Why is this flagged?
Maybe because it's "US-based surveillance"
https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955
That’s the new YC CEO? Jesus Christ. The techno-totalitarianism has infected the entire Silicon Valley.
Holy shit this is the ycombinator CEO?
If you the reader are working on these technologies, I encourage you take a good look at yourself in the mirror. You are building a surveillance state for the rich to use against yourself, me and everyone else not part of the ruling class.
You are helping cement the class divide.
JFC what a moron he is…
people like him find themselves in waiting in the line for the showers wondering why they'd do this to "one of the good ones"
Flagged articles used to be a sign of something being misleading, badly written, or just something generally off to take caution with.
The last two years it has become more of a signal that "this is something right wing USA would want to supress".
I think the flagging mechanism needs a rethink now it is being abused in this way.
Thou shalt not criticize the rich, especially when they're building weapons against the unprivileged.
Because boot lickers.
Because rightwing bootlickers don't want the truth to be known.
[flagged]
Who will lose? People who are attempting to build a bright utopia?
Why is noone stopping them?
Assumed it was already happening.
Because it's not really illegal. People are voluntarily sharing their data with corporations via social media and apps, and those corporations are voluntarily selling it to data brokers, who are then voluntarily selling it to the SaaS that ICE is using here to track people.
The problem here is a lack of data protection laws. It's entirely legal for any private citizen who wants to to purchase huge amounts of mass location data/history for billions of people.
"voluntarily"
i consider myself fairly knowledgeable about tracking techniques and countermeasures. despite constant effort and techniques that are extreme or impossible for the average individual, i believe my evasions are minimally effective.
it's also increasingly difficult to use the internet or even exist in public at all without some kind of compromise that invalidates most of that work.
> the Department of Homeland Security had suspended the purchase of commercial location data after the Inspector General found the agency had violated federal law, but that temporary safeguard has now been dismantled.
Sounds like it is still illegal. They just don't care.
Notably, this administration illegally fired (ignored a notice-to-congress period, and IIRC also didn't state a cause, both of which are required by the law) all the Inspectors General as one of their first acts.
These were positions set up after the Watergate scandal to make it harder for the executive to engage in blatant criminality for long periods without anyone noticing. One ought to read that as a statement of intent to commit lots of obvious crimes.
Inspector Generals are not judges.
Maybe I should follow the example of ICE and assume everything I do is legal until a judge specifically tells me it is not. I know other people have gone to jail for murder, but how do I know the murder I want to commit is illegal until a judge rules on my particular case.
Well there's also common sense.
Is there?
ICE has done a lot more than just buy location data. They have bought phone hacking tools that use exploits. Hacking without a court order is illegal.
https://www.rsn.org/001/ice-obtains-access-to-israelimade-sp...
Who is supposed to stop them? The politicians that are paid off by all these corporations?
The billionaire class wants a surveillance state. In every one of you still working in tech are helping them.
"You" are, by not sharing your location with countless random startups. But, seemingly that's not working.
[dead]
[flagged]
Yeah but that isn’t how it works, not even kinda close.
Don’t worry folks this will be censored very soon. Can’t have any articles that encourage double plus wrong think on the vc echo chamber
> This is exactly how Russia built its surveillance state. It began with the quiet centralization of telecommunications data, followed by the rollout of SORM, which gave the government mass interception and geolocation powers, and ended with the targeted use of those capabilities against political opponents, journalists, and civil society. Immigrants, ethnic minorities, and marginalized groups were the first targets—people with little power to resist.
While I agree with the overall premise, but to best of my awareness (and I worked at an ISP in Russia in '00s) those statements are not entirely accurate.
SORM is Russia's Room 641A, except that it's legislated and all done in the open. It started way before telecom consolidation (which started mid-'00s, when large enterprises with strong government ties started to absorb smaller companies) and initially crept in slowly. At first smaller telcos were able to step around the requirements and just promise to cooperate "if something" (essentially, looking up flow logs and/or running tcpdump after being served a proper warrant).
AFAIK, SORM's first targets were mostly CSAM distributors and people who leaned towards neo-nazi views to various extents. That's how it was legitimized in the eyes of those who knew about it: look, FSB is going against pedophiles and nazis, yay! Don't know about journalists or minorities.
Shit started to hit the fan with mid-2010s rapid acceleration towards authoritarianism, when mandatory censorship and drastic expansion of online surveillance became a law.
And mass/non-targeted phone tracking is a relatively modern development in Russia, mostly post-pandemics.
> AFAIK, SORM's first targets were mostly CSAM distributors and people who leaned towards neo-nazi views to various extents. That's how it was legitimized in the eyes of those who knew about it: look, FSB is going against pedophiles and nazis, yay!
Sounds similar to ChatControl, right?
Not saying that the EU is turning authoritarian at all, but just that it is a tool that may turn evil in the future.
Somewhat similar in the "think of the children" and "we want this to fight the baddies" arguments. Both SORM and ChatControl have stated goals of mandatory warrant-less eavesdropping.
That's about all in similarities, though. AFAIK, there's a difference in the system architecture: Russian SORM was a push from an existing agency (FSB) who became it's sole operator (and basically took over the country: Putin is KGB/FSB spawn), EU proposal seem to establish a clearinghouse-like system for various law enforcement agencies to access through. There's also a difference in oversight: FSB has none, EU proposes some, though I'm not really knowledgeable on the details.
And - yeah - any tool that allows government to violate citizen rights is inherently dangerous if the government becomes hostile. This is clearly the case in Russia, and I'm not knowledgeable about EU at all so I cannot possibly tell.
So, what's the best way to fight back, personally and collectively? Yes, yes—we need legal measures against this sort of thing—but are there tracking mitigation measures that known to be effective on mobile devices? Is there a way we can dilute this commercially-available data to poison the well, as it were?
Stop using mobile devices.
> Trump is quietly building a surveillance state, and almost no one is paying attention.
To be fair this has been happening at least since 9/11 under both parties.
Wait until they find out what "anonymous" data phones are uploading to the big tech companies who happen to own application platforms and mobile operating systems.
This sounds like crime.
If you carry a radio based tracker on your person you will be tracked. This information will eventually be abused. It's not a hard conclusion to come to, and one supported by too many repetitions of abuse in both sensible and not sensible nations to disregard... but somehow it is (disregarded). Cell phones are just too useful for people to acknowledge what they are and what the solution is: stop carrying a radio tracker or at least leave it turned off most of the time.
> Or at least turn it off
https://slate.com/technology/2013/07/nsa-can-reportedly-trac...
+ sorry for tracking your comment edits ;)
So take the battery out. And before you say, I can't, well, you've made a bad choice for the world we currently live in.
Yeah, just live in a cave in the middle of nowhere. A sure-fire solution for everyone!
You expect SO MUCH diligence from individuals while removing any responsibility for the situation from the companies perpetrating it. I now have to make my choice of phone based on the ability to remove the battery so that I cannot be tracked by my own government? That is insane.
Not sure if you're trying to make a point or just to self-congratulate yourself for thinking this since the 2000s (do you mention a date because you feel you predicted something unexpected?).
Spoiler: it's obvious to anyone who knows about tech.
Not sure if you're disregarding the call to action to turn off your cell phone when not using it or if my prior point is literally playing out as we speak ("You know the problem but it's too useful to acknowledge.").
I mention the date because this problem has been known by everyone, not just me, for a very long time. But it seems like others are incapable of acting on the knowledge.
I do what I can with my own threat model. Actually, I probably do a lot more than what my threat model requires, just because it's interesting and for the learning experience. I don't go as far as to turn off my cell phone when not using it, but I run GrapheneOS :-).
> But it seems like others are incapable of acting on the knowledge.
That's wrong. They just don't understand and don't care to understand. They choose not to act, because they don't see a need. Which is true for many things and different groups. You care about turning off your cell phone, how much do you care about climate change or the mass extinction we are responsible for?
I would argue that the equivalent of turning off your cell phone would at the very least be to be a vegetarian. Are you, or are you "incapable of acting on the knowledge"? :-)
Kind of makes me feel better about never having kids.
Just be another crop for the police state.
TLDR.
ICE is buying a software tool that analyzes information purchased from commercial data brokers to track people.
I wonder what's the most important source of location data here - apps that you have given permissions to do so? Telecom providers? GPS?
I'm also very curious. It's too bad someone doesn't come up with a tool so you can see your own data....
I wrote this TLDR, because I wondered what I would have to do to prevent tracking (turn off bluetooth etc), but it's just a commercial data broker.
And we're going to pretend this is an issue because of immigration enforcement, rather than government from top to bottom being able to use commercial data brokers to get around legal limitations on their own actions, or the fact that commercial data brokers collecting huge numbers of dossiers on normal people are allowed to exist and work with impunity.
And both will continue to be allowed to do this, obviously. Something something private business free speech child protection that doesn't apply to ICE because I'm against ICE right now.
That’s not the whole story. It plays a part, but if it were just that, it wouldn’t be nearly as bad. Your comment makes it think that this is a “both sides” thing and it’s anything but that.
The bigger story is that the Republicans have illegally dismantled safeguards against the centralization and collection of data. And they’ve stopped any sort of warrant process for collecting and analyzing this data.
Buying commercial data with a warrant or a process around it to ensure it is lawfully used is one thing. Disregarding the law and constitution to do whatever you like is a wholly different matter.
And don’t forget the end game. This is about silencing political opponents. It’s not for a lawful use. It’s purely so the Republicans can keep their man in power in perpetuity.
The end game alone makes this vastly different than what’s been done before.
> The bigger story is that the Republicans have illegally dismantled safeguards against the centralization and collection of data. And they’ve stopped any sort of warrant process for collecting and analyzing this data.
Are you going to link this story? It would be interesting. What was the previous warrant process, and what laws required it?
Why is the government doing mass-surveillance for alleged civil[1] infractions?
---
[1] Nearly all deportations - overstays are civil, not criminal[2][3] cases.
[2] If they were criminal cases, every accused would be constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury.
[3] Anyone using the term 'illegal' to refer to those people is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to make them sound like criminals, while denying them the constitutional protections that all accused criminals are entitled to.
>[2] If they were criminal cases, every accused would be constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury.
Are there any reputable law scholars that supports this argument? Otherwise this feels suspiciously close to sovereign citizens argument about how they don't need drivers licenses because they're "traveling" or whatever.
>[3] Anyone using the term 'illegal' to refer to those people is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to make them sound like criminals, while denying them the constitutional protections that all accused criminals are entitled to.
What about "illegally" parked cars? Those are also civil infractions.
> Are there any reputable law scholars that supports this argument?
Yes, literally everyone, because that's how the law is written.
Note https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 - this would reclassify it from a civil to a criminal offense, but did not pass into law.
Also note that entry into the US after having been removed from it is, by law, a criminal offense.
----
> What about "illegally" parked cars? Those are also civil infractions.
You should note that nobody calls the people who put them there 'illegal drivers'. (We also don't apply that moniker to people speeding, failing to signal on a lane change, or being responsible for many other moving violations. We do apply it to people driving drunk or without a license - which are criminal offenses.)
>Note https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2436 - this would reclassify it from a civil to a criminal offense, but did not pass into law.
I stand corrected, thanks.
>You should note that nobody calls the people who put them there 'illegal drivers'. (We also don't apply that moniker to people speeding, failing to signal on a lane change, or being responsible for many other moving violations. We do apply it to people driving drunk or without a license - which are criminal offenses.)
Nobody calls them "illegal" drivers because there's a more specific term, specifically "driver who parked illegally" or "speeder". The latter already incorporates an implication if illegality, and the former is basically the same as "illegal driver" but with slightly different phrasing. The equivalent for immigrants would be "person who immigrated illegally", but that's basically the same as "illegal immigrant". I suppose you can try to use the latter term as an attempt to destigmatize the term, but that feels like the whole "autism vs people with autism" thing from a few years ago all over again.
Because they have funding and Deportations are a priority for this administration.
Do you think they’re not gonna use this on you next?
They totally are but since we don't have data privacy laws and SCOTUS has ruled time and time again that getting data from 3rd parties the user has voluntarily turned this information over to is not illegal, I'm at the loss what to do here.
I talk about this issue with people time and time again including my wife. I then watch her pretty much turn over location to every app because she just clicks top button to make prompt go away. I finally got into her iPhone and number of apps that had widespread location access was so frustrating.
Don't you think they're using this on you now?
Because the government was elected with a strong mandate to deport illegal migrants?
48% is not a strong enough mandate to break federal appropriations and spending laws, to use the military as a weapon against civilian protesters, or, in this case, to shred the 4th amendment.
So 52% is enough to import 15 million new people that don't speak the language and take a crap-ton of jobs and houses making a lot of people homeless.
(and that's forgetting immigration became an 80/20 issue when we found out the number)
Immigration issues of any scale do not justify violating citizen's rights, though. Side effects matter and the risks are tremendous. 52% enough or not - that's what already happened in the past and no one can change the past. There's only the present, that needs to be carefully driven towards a desirable future, with conscious and significant effort to avoid undesirable ones. History is full of stories about how easy it is to fuck up.
It possibly would be very different if federal administration would openly recognize the potential issues and put at least a sliver of effort in showing how it deals with those. I can understand their statement that the scale of the problem requires action of comparable scale - that is logical. However, careless actions become incredibly dangerous at scale, and I have yet to see a sliver of understanding of this, for all I'm seeing so far is arrogant stubborn self-confidence that is very hard to distinguish from malicious intent. And I'm putting a lot of effort here with my suspension of disbelief for the sake of civilized discussion.
Those hotheads are supposed to be a conservative government. They don't act like one at all.
No, just no. You don't get to say any of that because of what WE witnessed. You did not have a SLIVER of care to the thousands of people that died of fentanyl. They must go.
I get to think and say whatever I want as long as my First Amendment rights still exist. You get the right to disagree and think and say whatever you want. I sincerely hope it's how things will remain, and so will all our other Constitutional rights. Because I witnessed first-hand what could happens when the Constitution becomes a piece of paper, and I hope that no one would ever have to experience that.
But more than this, I'm curious what logical connection have made you bring fentanyl into the discussion about purported government surveillance of illegal migrants and possible side effects of this on US citizens and legal permanent residents. Seriously, why have you even thought of it?
This totally incoherent my dude. People shipping contraband don’t normally hang around at the destination, they go back when they’re done.
And if someone did, like, overstay a visa used to traffic narcotics or something and “must go”, you’re just cutting their expenses for the next trip.
Tons of gangs have established long term distribution systems. Just because CNN didn't tell you that, doesn't mean it's not true.
So you’re asking us to let criminals free? Just stop and think for a sec.
The immigration policy of the last ~13 years was not reached by a singular, 1-time 52% consensus. They were the product of decades of often bipartisan legislature, and both-parties-taking-turns partisan executive policy, much of it set decades ago, with plenty of opportunity in the intervening years for steering and review.
You're acting like some prior President cracked his knuckles one day, and signed an EO to import 15 million people in, and justifying the unconstitutional insanity of the past 8 months based on that falsehood.
You're drawing a false equivalence fallacy, and covering blatantly illegal and unconstitutional actions. A 52% consensus isn't enough to achieve those, either. You need 66% consensus in Congress, and 3/4s of States.
If the issue is as existential as you think it is, it's on you to build the consensus necessary to achieve that. If you can't, tough luck.
Well I have a different opinion and just because you say "unconstitutional" doesn't make it so.
> it's on you to build the consensus necessary to achieve
We did and it's happening so have a great day.
Are you going to continue to be so smug when it is your turn to go to a concentration camp?
I almost forgot for a second that you like to call everyone a nazi. Thanks for the reminder.
You think I have no empathy, I just have more empathy for Americans (including ones of color of which is me too) that lost everything including their life over fentanyl.
They all must go.
> call everyone a nazi
The parent poster didn't call you anything, but one does raise eyebrows at people who look at the crazy authoritarian shit that is being done, and say 'this is legal, and good, and desirable and it makes me happy :)'.
They are certainly a prominent and loud and very defensive group of people, they are definitely not 'everyone'.
I don't think we'd ever interacted, and I can't remember the last time I called anyone a Nazi.
FWIW I'm pretty sure when someone is at the point of saying they "have empathy ... but", it means they do not have empathy. It sounds like something deeply hurt you in the past, and for that you have my sympathies, but lashing out at others is not going to solve that.
How would you substantiate this statement? He won with among the smallest popular vote % margins in history [0]. In fact he won by less than HRC beat him by in 2016. There is no strong mandate for this administration, regardless of how you slice it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
Why would they even wait for a civil infraction? What difference does that make? Why are they doing mass surveillance on people wearing brown shoes?
If the dossiers are available on the market, and the price is right, and they're allowed to for some reason even though they wouldn't be allowed to collect that information themselves, they should just buy them for every citizen just in case.
The overstay is the civil infraction I'm referring to.
Of course you’re being downloaded for this on hacker news. Because hacker news is part of the surveillance state. All the people here who are coding and working for these people are part of this new horrific society. Constant surveillance, constant AI mind bending algorithms that promote division and violence.
>Of course you’re being downloaded for this on hacker news. Because hacker news is part of the surveillance state.
I'm not sure what HN you're reading, but basically every mass surveillance comment thread is overwhelming against it, eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45173277
for those of us who have tried to keep our soul while working in tech, what would you recommend going forward?
Because the government has decided mass-surveillance is OK so long as they really, really want to do it.
[dead]
[dead]
Leave your phone at home, if you are worried.
That's where the network of CCTV cameras with facial recognition and gait detection come in!
Barreling towards a complete lack of privacy is scary and waving it away as "just don't bring your phone" is massively naive. There are many many ways you can be identified and tracked besides your own phone, because there is so much incentive to do it. Even if everyone stopped bringing their phone everywhere out of fear of tracking, they would _still be tracked_
I cannot do my job without my phone. Increasingly, I also cannot pay or utilize services without my phone.
And you don’t think you’ll be marked as suspicious for leaving your home phone at home?
Why did you leave your phone at home? What are you hiding? Why are you afraid of being tracked by us?
Do you not understand anything about privacy and why it’s important?
The talking point that private industry is tracking you as well is tired, and ostensibly smart people should stop trotting it out. Meta and Apple can't arrest you or secret you away to a foreign country -- at least not yet. That makes the distinction a difference.
No, but they can easily be subpoenaed for said information.
Absolutely, but that doesn't erase the fact that the government gathering the information directly is an escalation. They know they can subpoena it -- that presents a hurdle. They're opting to end around said hurdle.
Or paid
What does "surveilance capitalism" mean in your opponion?
Just some companies which collect unfathomable troves of data but have no incentive to clamp down individuals or manipulate democracies?
I just spilled my rhetorical counter argument...
You are right, the distinction between public or private abuse of power is futile in the end, but this doesnt mean we should put a blind eye on private corporations doing the dystopian ground work, by eg. relativizing all this with a "It could be worse. It could be the government but thank god its only palantir bundling the data, so no f'ing issue here. Calm down smart people!".
The better talking point here is that once the data is collected, you must assume the government can get to it, always. Who actually stores it (a public or private entity) is an irrelevant implementation detail, and people pretending otherwise are being foolish.
Sure, but how is the government simply obtaining the data directly not an escalation? A subpoena at least requires an additional step and ostensible checks.