This statement is true. If you are downvoting because it is incorrect, I'd appreciate an explicit correction. Other posters provided links in this thread.

* https://www.wired.com/story/us-judge-rules-ice-raids-require...

* https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2026/01/judge-orders-release-...

> A federal judge in Minnesota on Thursday ordered the release of a Liberian man four days after heavily armed immigration agents broke into his home using a battering ram and arrested him.

> U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Bryan said in his ruling that the agents violated Garrison Gibson’s Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.

Can you provide a news link to this? As I understand it, courts have historically followed the precedent that “you can’t suppress the body”, meaning even if the method of an arrest is illegal, you don’t have to let the person go if their arrest is otherwise valid.

Sure. I’m calling out data-retention discussions as entirely orthogonal to HHS data being used for immigration enforcement.

There isn’t a data-retention issue with HHS having home records, there is an abuse issue with DHS giving it to Palantir to VLOOKUP addresses out of.

>Palantir was used to prevent terror attacks in Europe

...according to an unsubstantiated claim by the CEO of Palantir while on a PR tour.

“A concentration camp is a prison or other facility used for the internment of political prisoners or politically targeted demographics, such as members of national or ethnic minority groups, on the grounds of national security, or for exploitation or punishment.”

Do we know what is happening to these people? What their conditions are? Why do we not hear from them afterwards?

It's an important topic and it's worth getting the terms correct. Concentration camps and extermination camps are two different things. Not that Jewish and other peoples were not killed in concentration camps, either by being worked to death or by summary execution, but they were not the almost assembly line killing factories of the extermination camps.

This is a term that is also used (in an American context) to refer to the sites where Japanese-Americans were imprisoned during WWII.

> A concentration camp is a place where large amounts of Jews were killed. U

That's incorrect. A concentration camp is a place where a government or authority detains large numbers of people without normal legal process, usually because they belong to a particular group rather than because of individual crimes.

Historical examples:

- Nazi Germany (1933–1945)

- British camps during the Second Boer War (1899–1902)

- Imperial Japan

- United States (1942–1945)

People can be concentrated without being killed.

Not so! Concentration camps predate the Nazis by quite a bit, and the term was/is used for all kinds of prison-like setups where inmates are held outside the rule of law.

E.g. US camps holding Japanese immigrants during WW2.

Sure, it might be somewhat hyperbolic (arguable, because ICE/current administration has few qualms dismissing constitutional rights whenever convenient), but the term is definitely not Nazi-exclusive (even the Germans had concentration camps long before Hitler, in Namibia)

That's an extermination camp. Concentration camps are just for segregating and isolating people from society. Like what US did to Japanese in the past.

And it has nothing to do with Jews.

You are talking about extermination center which is a subset of concentration camps. First concentration were open after Hitler took power and were always referred to as concentration camps by historical books. They were not used as extermination camps yet, the gas chambers were not invented yes. The first prisoners were political opposition, low level criminals and yes, jews. The frequent pattern with political prisoners was to imprison them for 1-3 months, break them and then release them to create terror.

Jews were removed from public life at first, over-punished for minor infractions and deported or pushed toward self deportation. The thing to notice here is that Germany did not had that many Jews in the first place, they were rather small minority. The tens of thousands thing was possible only after Germans conquered foreign lands and started to kill non German Jews. The WWIII did not started yet, so yep, we are not there, but it is actually OK to comment on similarities before that.

There were concentration camps before and after the Holocaust (not to mention millions on non-Jewish people were murdered on the camps you allude to).

Also, tens of people have already died in those concentration/detention camps.

> I'm referring to mobile phones, software that constantly spies on you, location tracking, and mass data fusion without any regard for legal limitations or privacy

None of that is relevant to the article. It’s about HHS data being queried to give ICE probable addresses. What you’re doing is indistinguishable from whataboutism.

I don’t think that’s your intent. But we have an actual abuse of public data at hand here. Going on a tangent about dragnet surveillance is off topic and misleading.

The government restructures endlessly what are you talking about.

DHS was founded in 2002, TSA was founded in 2001. CFPB in 2010, Space Force in 2019.

Even agencies that have been around “forever” aren’t that old. The EPA was founded in 1970, and OSHA was founded in 1971.

TikTok is blocking upload of ICE videos and Facebook is blocking posts with information about the ICE agents. Amazon just paid millions of dollars to put out a movie nobody wants about Donalds wife. Every major tech company paid millions of dollars for Donalds library at the beginning of all this for "the library"

The surveillance non state actors are already doing anything this administration wants.

You're under the belief that private actors can't influence state actors to use violence on their behalf, completely isolating them from responsibility? If a private business calls the police on a suspected trespasser and the police shoot that person, is the business held liable? Ever? Seems like they have the better end of the bargain than the state.

They seem to be able to induce whistleblowers to off themselves at a shocking rate, though.

>Non-state actors can't easily use violence to throw me in jail.

Let me rephrase: why wouldn’t state actors be scary?

The state might have a monopoly on legal physical violence, but I think it is naive to think private interests can’t harm you just as much, with or without state connections. See my previous examples.

Blackwater, Wagner, Aegis, Triple Canopy, DynCorp, etc enter chat..

>but philosophically it's pretty easy to see why it's worse for the government to do a Bad Thing than for any individual or private enterprise to do the exact same Bad Thing.

This was not the claim though, the claim is that it’s not scary to be surveilled until that information reaches state actors.

States acting against citizens can be worse in a moral/political sense, but a victim is not more or less harmed depending on the aggressor.

(I didn’t downvote, if it matters, I just saw the message).