| ▲ | KnuthIsGod 3 days ago |
| When China did this, this was seen as a terrible violation of rights.... Now that we do this hundreds of times a day, it has become routine. |
|
| ▲ | FuturisticLover 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The US literary attacked a country and captured its leader. They always have a double standard. |
| |
|
| ▲ | tartoran 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is still not fully supported by law. It is becoming normalized indeed, especially by the current admin. Let's hope this is not going to become widely used or that it doesn't stay permanently, eg. it gets at least restricted to some type of crime by future administrations. |
| |
| ▲ | otterley 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Not supported by law where? I’m unaware of any legal proscription of this practice in the USA, and the Journal article makes no such claims, either. (IAAL but this is not my primary field of expertise, and this is not legal advice.) | | |
| ▲ | _delirium 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There are many unresolved gray areas around what exactly the 4th amendment permits in the way of what United States v. Knotts called "dragnet-type law enforcement practices". Knotts suggested they might not be permitted, even if they were made up of permissible individual parts, but didn't elaborate. More recent case law has held, for example, that cell phone companies turning over large quantities of records is a 4th amendment search requiring a warrant, even if they do it voluntarily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States). Most other types of dragnets haven't been litigated enough to have solid caselaw on their boundaries afaik. I don't know if it's likely a court will do anything about this particular program, but from what I've read I don't think 4th amendment scholars think this area is at all settled. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 2 days ago | parent [-] | | From what I understand, this isn’t so much a “dragnet” operation involving combing through mass quantities of records on demand; it’s more like “this person is in public in my field of view, and I want to know who they are.” More importantly, though, the cases so far have focused on the investigative activity that follows once a suspect has been identified. Here, we’re talking about de-anonymization: identifying one or more individuals who occupy a public space. AFAIK, the Court has never established a reasonable expectation of privacy of one’s identity in public. That will be a steep hill to climb. | | |
| ▲ | bakies 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't have to identify myself to police where I live. That's why, in my opinion, this is an unreasonable use of technology. I'm not sure what qualifies under the fourteenth but force-ably identifying me when I don't want to be and not required to seems unreasonable. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 2 days ago | parent [-] | | In the U.S., current law holds that for a law enforcement officer to stop and request identification, the officer needs at least some sort of articulable basis for doing so (Terry stop). The key word here, though, is “stop.” Electronic surveillance of a public space, though, involves stopping nobody. It’s not clear to me that passive identification involves either a “search” or “seizure” within the traditional meaning of the 4th Amendment. We’ll see what the courts think, though. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | b112 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Indeed. And the latest admin is only a string in the ever increasing use of such tech. It should be illegal, but people are deluded if they think it started here. | |
| ▲ | reaperducer 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not supported by law where? I’m unaware of any legal proscription of this practice in the USA Using facial recognition on people without their consent is illegal in a growing number of states. Facebook lost a class-action lawsuit about this and I (and many other people) got a check for a little under $500. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It was a settlement, not a “loss” in any legal sense. It sets no legal precedent, and no future plaintiff can cite it. > The settlement, announced Tuesday, does not act as an admission of guilt and Meta maintains no wrongdoing. https://www.texastribune.org/2024/07/30/texas-meta-facebook-... While you are correct that some states do regulate facial recognition, all they can do is regulate their own law enforcement and private entities doing business there. They cannot regulate the federal government (ICE and CBP are federal agencies). |
|
| |
| ▲ | netsharc 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ah, what's good is law when the branch^W [after rereading about it, executive power is given to one] person tasked with executing laws is... lawless? The notion that future administrations won't be offshots of the current regime (again, why do you think laws regarding democracy, like fair elections, will be upheld?) is also too hopeful. Happy new year! | |
| ▲ | SlightlyLeftPad 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It won’t be restricted until the people push against it to a point where it becomes too politically expensive to not restrict. | |
| ▲ | wslh 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Law is expensive. |
|
|
| ▲ | servo_sausage 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| China is already doing abominable things; how people react to additional surveillance is always related to what the state is actually doing with that information. So a system that supports the abduction of polital rivals (an actual human rights violation) is not the same as a system that supports the lawful arrest of someone breaking a law that's accepted as part of a democracy. I also think the scale of investment plays a part, the investment in surveillance in China is absurd. Its a significant number of people (per capita) that do nothing but monitor people. These new systems are rather cheap; so much so that they feel a whole lot more inevitable. |
| |
| ▲ | vkou 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > is not the same as a system that supports the lawful arrest That is not the system that the US has had since 2025, and the executive has made it very clear that it is not the system that it wants the US to have. Meanwhile, SCOTUS has made it very clear that nothing this executive does will have any consequences for it. Rule of law is a fairy tale when ICE can snag anyone they want off the street and throw them into some CECOT torture pit. Rule of law is a fairy tale when the executive disregards direct judicial orders. | |
| ▲ | heavyset_go 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Democracy is when you get abducted and sent to CECOT because some shitty AI face app said so | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Democracy is when the useful idiots cheer on the abductions/renditions with full-throated support, relishing in the spectacular human suffering of others as if two wrongs make a right. But those pounds of flesh are merely being chummed at them by the same exact corporate-government propagandists that shipped their jobs to China in the first place, now promising naked fascism as a way of somehow putting things right when it's really just the next step of the ongoing destruction of their country. But I'm sure when they start to wake up to the grave error they've made (ten+ years too late), their egos will protect themselves with cognitive dissonance while the machine throws them some new scapegoats to distract themselves with. |
| |
| ▲ | watwut 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | ICE does not care about "lawful arrests". Like common, that is not their thing. | | |
| ▲ | fiyec30375 3 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | metalman 2 days ago | parent [-] | | comming through the door with a throw away account to monitor and disparage someones reputation under the increadably dubious cover of maintaining "standards" as a self appointed gramer/spelling enforcement officer.
conventions are strictly a tool used by entrenched beurocracys to discredit voices that wont, or cant, conform to there little tedious "rules", and fully weaponised in situations where someone is to be detained and held against there will.The standard method bieng to choose one specific statement, taken out of context, to diagnose
a person, and justify further action, for "saftey" but our discussion centers on this whole process bieng automated and rendered down to an image, likely begining with a pantone # for skin tone errors be fucking damned eh! |
|
| |
| ▲ | oulipo2 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's a totally wrong way to think about it, akin to "I have nothing to hide so why not let the government look into all my communications" | |
| ▲ | fooker 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > abduction of political rivals Couldn’t have timed it better, we just pulled off the most high profile abduction of a geopolitical rival in history. | | | |
| ▲ | kingkawn 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | In both systems the law is being carefully followed to support inhumane goals | | |
| ▲ | concinds 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | ICE and USBP are quite famously breaking many laws. | | |
| ▲ | mlrtime 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Unfortunately ICE has somewhat broad powers that allow them to enforce Federal laws that local LEOs cannot get away with. This should be challenged in a court. | | |
| ▲ | hwguy45 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Some say unfortunate, others say fortunate. It's a luxury belief to want to let people walk across the border and have no repercussions. Enforce the border, get all the illegals out. | | |
| ▲ | goatlover 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Everyone in this country regardless of their status is still guaranteed due process by the Constitution. The Venezuelans and Abrego Garcia sent to CECOT was done without due process and in violation of a Federal Judge's orders. Not to mention CECOT is a horrible prison. I think it's cruel and inhuman to deport people already here unless they're engaged in criminal activities. Most of them are hard working people who gave up everything to flee bad circumstances in their home countries. We're a nation of immigrants. You want the border secure, fine (I would prefer immigration reform since we have a large country and tons of economic opportunity migrants fulfill). But don't be so cruel as to support what ICE is doing to hard working people who have established lives here. Most of them are not criminals. | | |
| ▲ | hwguy45 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is suicidal empathy. Mercy for the guilty is cruelty for the innocent. It means no jobs for American young people. It means loss of culture and shared spaces. It means your kids having a worse educational experience because his classmates don't speak the same language. It means terrorists and spies can sneak across the border. It's weakness and we need to stop rationalizing it. Would you want these people as your neighbor? Not speaking English? 6 kids? Loud Mexican music? How about your whole neighborhood until you're the last one left? | |
| ▲ | mlrtime a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Unfortunately for them they are technically criminals by entering illegally. They all knew they were taking a calculated risk by coming here, some made it, some did not. Agreed on the reform, we are in a pendulum stage now where the previous admin let too many in without reform (The first 3 years) and how it's gone too far the other way. | |
| ▲ | pandaman 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You believe laws were not followed in the case of deportations and seem to be angry about that but simultaneously you want the laws, that demand deportations of illegal aliens, to not be followed. Do you notice any irrationality with this position? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kingkawn 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I admit I didn’t expect this pushback against America’s corrupt current regime which is obviously morally bankrupt. But, by the letter of the law and the function of the court system they are acting with complete impunity within what they have been permitted to do to the detriment of people everywhere. |
| |
| ▲ | lostlogin 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > In both systems the law is being carefully followed to support inhumane goals I’m not sure it is though, there are plenty of headlines about judicial orders being disregarded. This last few weeks it has been the required release of the Epstein papers, though that has been railroaded by a conveniently timed attack on a neighbour. There are plenty of other examples. | |
| ▲ | 15155 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why do we need to give free stuff to every person that wades across the southern border? What is our legal or moral obligation to eviscerate our already-limited social safety net for outsiders who, by and large, do not contribute to them? You are free to die on the cross and spend your income this way, but how is it "humane" to use violence (taxes) to reappropriate the fruits of my labor for your special interests? | | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | US foreign "policy" is part of why you call them shitholes, then you wonder why they come there. | |
| ▲ | kingkawn 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Bc these immigrants as a whole contribute more to the federal state and local tax base than they take out, it’s super simple. I guess you don’t like the economy. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Another artful legal vs. illegal conflation - citation needed. I have no doubt in my mind folks coming in on H-1B and O-1 visas contribute more than they take out: nobody is disputing that. When an illegal immigrant making $2/hr under the table cuts his hand off at a meat packing plant, who pays the hospital bill? How many tax dollars does this one incident wipe out? | | |
| ▲ | goatlover 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Vastly less than the tax dollars for all the foreign military interventions including the latest adventure in Venezuela, if you're really worried about wasting tax dollars. A universal healthcare system would cover everyone in the country when it's needed. The US is a massive, highly developed economy, no reason we couldn't fund that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | saubeidl 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Let me quote the CEO of ycombinator. >You're thinking Chinese surveillance >US-based surveillance helps victims and prevents more victims https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955 American capitalists are ideologically driven hypocrites. |
| |
|
| ▲ | mizzao 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yep, it's converging to the same system... In China government is controlled by chosen members of the ruling party who become wealthy through it; In the US the government is controlled by billionaires who become powerful through it. Neither is a "government by the people" nor a "democratic people's republic" and both are enacting more and more similar policies. |
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > When China did this, this was seen as a terrible violation of rights "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" [1]. Beijing showed the way. We followed their path. Both are at fault. [1] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.... |
| |
| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Beijing showed the way. We followed their path. lol, just like China invented social credit scores which are for social control and definitely not like US credit scores which are just good business sense Edit: to be clear I am saying this from a US centric viewpoint. China is catching up but they’ve been behind us for over a century tech wise and the US has been really good at pioneering new forms of injustice. I’m laughing at the idea that we were trailing behind them on learning new for handling their population | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > like China invented social credit scores which are for social control and definitely not like US credit scores which are just good business sense …yes. You don’t get your credit score dinged because you tweeted something naughty. You can be a felon with perfect credit. | | |
| ▲ | thrance 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You should read up on China's credit score. There are a lot of misinformations about it online. In effect, it does little more than the US credit scores that inspired it. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > You should read up on China's credit score I could really say the same to you. Emphasizing original sources, not summaries. > In effect, it does little more than the US credit scores that inspired it “Little more” does a lot of heavy lifting here. The nuclear bomb was inspired by the explosive power of TNT. | | |
| ▲ | lenocinor 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I’m often not a fan of the Chinese government’s practices, but I think the parent is right here personally. I think Wikipedia does a nice job discussing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit_system#Misconcep... | | |
| ▲ | lovich 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Thank you. It is infuriating to see my fellow countrymen criticize another system so heavily, when we are living under a largely similar system. Especially after finding out that the current credit score system was only adopted in 1989, so it’s just another yoke millennials and younger have to live with, that our forefathers got to start their adult life without having to deal with |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lovich 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Brah, some employers in the US check your credit score to make sure you are trustworthy enough. Your credit score can be checked in multiple other situations that have nothing to do with you taking on debt, but still somehow your debt factors into the decision. If you think there is no social control as part of this system, then you are just blind to the system you grew up in | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > some employers in the US check your credit score to make sure you are trustworthy enough Sure. They’re evaluating your creditworthiness. What they’re not measuring is your political coherence or social “goodness.” The closest thing we have to a social score is a criminal record. | | |
| ▲ | lovich 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Does the chinese system go farther than the US one in control? yes Does the US system that gets used to influence your behavior also social control? yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | FpUser 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >"When China did this, this was seen as a terrible violation of rights....
Now that we do this hundreds of times a day, it has become routine." Normally questions like this would be labeled as whataboutism, false equivalence etc. One rule for thee, another one for me. Personally I think we (The West) are heading to disaster. I really missed older times before 9/11 |
| |
| ▲ | expedition32 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | America is not the West. There are a lot of things wrong in my country but we don't worship Jesus nor billionaires. | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How is pointing out this inconsistency whataboutism? It might be reasonable to ask if it's a strawman since it seems reasonable to wonder if perhaps the people against what the Chinese are doing might also be against what ICE is doing. Regardless, it's quite relevant to point out that at this point two of the world's superpowers are actively engaging in this. Claiming that the technology won't be used this way - that people are just fearmongering - clearly doesn't hold water. (Not that it ever did, but now we've got concrete evidence.) | | |
| ▲ | FpUser 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >"How is pointing out this inconsistency whataboutism? " It is not, I said it is usually labeled as one here |
| |
| ▲ | aurareturn 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | whataboutism
This is the default response whenever HN commentators have no other way to say "china bad". |
|
|
| ▲ | golemiprague 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| But china is safe and clean and nice, so it might be worth it. Anyway we got no privacy anymore, cameras are everywhere and we all captured on someone hard disk, so might as well take advantage of the benefits that comes with this technology |
| |
