Posted by WaitWaitWha 2 days ago
If some data is shared with an external entity, it likely needs to be included in a few usual disclaimers, with at least a few meetings to clarify the exact wording and verification of the legal implications with the right dept and double check how it complies with others data protection rules, and don't forget the audit, and I think this contains a mistake so maybe let's investigate this issue first, and ...
Like always, the left’s problem is that their proposed solutions read like they were written by teenagers, based on emotions and dismissive of the reasons why their supposed “enemies” disagree with them.
Most Americans would support having ICE operate perhaps even entirely with nonlethal weapons. That would be a smart thing to push for! And popular too. But the party line is instead “Abolish ICE.” And of course nobody (who isn’t pro-open-borders) trusts that there’s any Democratic plan besides look-the-other-way and maybe amnesty.
1. Win elections
2. Pass laws (or win the Presidency, a cheat code that has been the main way most things get done since ... 2008 or so, and is basically effective unless the "thing" is kinda unconstitutional and SCOTUS is against you. Blame RBG btw for screwing Dems on that last part)
The reason why we won't get this outcome is that the Democrats stopped being serious about convincing the moderates to get onboard their platform, because they give too much of a platform to the people who just chant slogans like "No person is illegal!" Which, while I get the humanitarian point, reads to me like you'd really prefer that anyone caught here illegally should ethically just be let go, rendering the whole concept of borders, visa applications, green cards, all of that, a big joke on the people who follow the rules.
ICE, being under DHS, is part of the US security apparatus. It has a threat-orientation. INS did have an enforcement component, but it was substantially an administrative agency. Immigration enforcement agents should primarily be process servers, notifying people whose papers aren't in order either what they need to do to fix them, or when their court date is.
Yet now it's getting undone for seemingly no reason. But I hope that there would actually be one, so please enlighten me and the other commenters.
This makes a great talking point, but those immigrants eventually assimilated into the culture, and also importantly, they were specifically allowed to come because the US needed more people in order to power its economy. The Chinese came to build the railroad, the Irish and Italians and Germans came over and worked in factories and as police and many other industries. This was badly needed 100 years ago.
Today most illegal immigrants are uneducated and are either working in the unofficial economy or in service-sector jobs, which depresses wages for everyone with low education. We don't need every restaurant to have an unending stream of desperately poor would-be busboys and dishwashers, or for Uber to have a stream of poor drivers. Or for rich people to have an ample supply of housekeepers paid in cash. All that does is keep wages in the toilet for working people.
But about open borders, why are so many Latin American countries such bad places to live that so many of their people want to come to the US? Open borders just means anyone can walk right in and bring all of their problems with them, not to mention their drug and human trafficking operations and the criminal gangs that operate them. We already have enough of that as it is.
No Western country can stay civilized with open borders. Anyone with half a brain can see how it is going in the UK and France, where they are only a bit more "open borders" than the US has been. Thankfully for Americans, Latin-American culture is more compatible with Western culture than Islamic culture is.
Given the present tide of things, however, I think there's no amount of course-correction back toward the left that would prove excessive. My opinion on this will change as soon as the tide does, and e.g. a leftist president endorses indiscriminate murder of ICE agents, or something equally egregious to what we're seeing in the opposite direction.
In a more ideological sense, though, I tend to despise the left/right continuum and think it is unhelpful for analysis.
Comparing the rhetoric today, this might never happen. There are qualitative differences between both political geoups, so grouping them together as a single horseshoe is 'unhelpful for analysis'.
That said, you cant fully rule out leftist led atrocities aswell and maybe thats the reason why the right is escalating in violent rhetoric, they want this as a self fullfilling prophecy to justify more violence.
When Kirk was shot, all the "this needs to stop" commentary, as if it was an organized mass phenomenon, was sending shivers down my spine. We all know how the far right envisions stopping this 'mass' violence.
What party? What makes it "seem" that way? Could you link to anyone calling for this?
Merely for illustration, a single example: https://abc7.com/post/protests-expected-socal-part-nationwid...
> Protesters were seen carrying flags, signs and spraying graffiti on nearby property, including on the U.S. Courthouse sign where it read "No one is illegal on stolen land".
This is completely orthogonal to the conversation, but I think you misunderstood that slogan. It does not mean “immigration rules must not be enforced”.
It means differentiating between a potentially illegal action (illegal entry/overstaying) and the person itself. You never talk about an illegal driver, or an illegal drinker, but people talk about illegal immigrants, with the implication that the person itself is illegal.
It’s subtle but it’s a step towards dehumanizing a person, or making infractions to their rights “count less” in the public eye.
Worse than that, we more and more often just see the term "illegals" being used, which completely removes the person from the description.
It only matters what we call them, if you want to keep them here forever. I think the present-day recommended term is probably just "immigrant" right? So basically we should call them the same thing we call the people who waited years for their turn and proved that they had a positive contribution to make to our society.
You think it makes no difference if we call them "the scum of the earth" or "below human entities" otherwise? Surely there's a line of what rhetoric you would tolerate. This is ours.
You are either misinformed, willfully ignorant or lying, and I've had it with this discussion style.
Yes, people who use "no one is illegal" do also say "no more borders". Not every single one, clearly humans are diverse, but your statement is just false.
Here a UK example even combining the statements (as I said, the movement is not limited to the US). https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.11073215
Another example, also showing this is an older movement (2005): https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/news/2005/apr/int... ("No Borders/No One Is Illegal campaigns")
Because we're looking for people saying borders should be completely opened. An example of people saying something else is irrelevant.
> Yes, people who use "no one is illegal" do also say "no more borders".
Ok but the conversation is about people saying the latter. It was you who brought the former into the conversation.
> Here a UK example
Which British parties are active in the United States?
> Another example, also showing this is an older movement
The claim was that "the left" has no response to emigration issues beyond "open all borders" and that this was the policy of "one party." The existence of an anti-borders movement is again irrelevant to the questions I raised in response to this assertion.
Liar! That is mentioned by many throughout this discussion!
> Which British parties are active in the United States?
What does THAT have to do with anything??? Why do YOIU suddenly limit this international phenomenon to just the US? I explicitly pointed out that it is older and international and not recent and US-only! If you cannot cope with that information, it is your problem, not mine.
The grandparent post accurately captured what I have understood people to mean by "no one is illegal" -- it is meant to protest a dehumanizing way to describe a class of people.
Why do you invent something I didn't say? I know why: People like you, when they don't have any arguments they just go and invent something and pretend like they just scored a point. If you are inventing stuff, you may as well chat with yourself, since you don't care what the other person actually says.
Also, your argument is arguable at best. What is a border when crossing it without permission is not illegal? So yes, now that you bring it up, I would actually very much argue that one implies the other.
Don't you guys remind us about Obama being "the deporter in chief" every time you are given the occasion ?
Obama and Biden, famously, deported more people than Trump. And with a substantially smaller budget too. Is this "no immigration enforcement" party in the room with us right now?
It was aggressive, it was inhumane, and immigrants were killed despite a massive effort by people from "the left" to feed and clothe people who were detained in open fields or between two border fences without any care being provided by the US agencies detaining them.
Maybe you are right that nobody who is right-leaning trusts that the US democratic party isn't pro border enforcement and anti immigration, but that's based purely on lies and propaganda.
If I want what I believe is a reasonable policy and the enforcers of that policy start doing the worst job ever, it is my duty to call them out, not to call out the opposing side for mostly imaginary reasons.
Abolish ICE is not a unreasonable take. If the agents working in this agency have become some ultra politicized paramilitary, it makes sense to abolish it and create a new agency altogether.
Is it? I'm not aware of legislation introduced by the democrats, either when they were in power or today, that proposed anything resembling this. There are individual congresspeople calling for ICE to be abolished (which is not the same as having no immigration enforcement) but leadership within the democrats is very clear that they support extremely minor reforms like making ICE agents wear masks less frequently. This is considerably more minor than disarming ICE agents, which you claim would have nationwide support.
It's using immigration as a pretext to build an unaccountable group of thugs that disappear people into camps, murder political opponents and surveil the populace (as seen in OP). It's recruiting primarily from far-right militias, regularizing them into a paramilitary force of the regime.
There is no justifiable reason to have them terrorize an entire city like they have been doing in Minneapolis.
The brownshirts needed to be abolished in the 1920s, a pinky-swear they wouldn't do the thing they were designed to do wouldn't have been enough.
The same applies to their modern equivalent.
Indeed, this is the modus operandi, though I'd argue that it doesn't have to make sense but rather be in the political canon. I recall hearing arguments that "some gun deaths are necessary" (in the context of mass shootings at schools) for us to have our "god-given right" to own guns, but the purpose—owning guns for the ability to... checks notes... stand up to entities that can legally commit violence against you—isn't so obviously sensible.
That people get killed is a tragedy, but that the people that killed them do not get the proper training, guidance or consequences for their action is a problem.
It's fine to make reasonable sounding comments but for the love of God, a bit honesty wouldn't kill you.
"The party told you to ignore the evidence you see with your own ears and eyes*
Whoever told you this made it up. You should stop listening to whoever told you that. They are lying to you about this, and everything else they have told you is a lie too.
Or the 'you aren't doing anything illegal but the masked government agents don't like it so they are going to use your biometrics to harass you in whatever ways the feds can make your life more difficult' laws?
Can the officers in any of these incidents even articulate a threat, and how the only remedy was to shoot through the driver side window, or in the back of the head?
No, it’s on the streets. They have already murdered two Americans on camera.
And citing that statute doesn't address ICE saying on the street they are adding people using biometrics to a database for targeted federal harassment (without any conviction violating the Constitution, if you are, you know, concerned about our nation's HIGHEST laws). Does address ICE using and normalizing secret police tactics of hiding their identities for routine, daily enforcement operations. Doesn't address claiming administrative warrants (able to be issued on the spot by ICE agents Judge Dred style) have the same power as actual Article III judge issued criminal warrants.
put simply ice is a violent private militia. and people like you won’t see it until they are knocking at your door. or never. goes back to my first point. you are already living in hell
nvm this has to be bait Bye
They will find out. And act accordingly. And your career will end, with the mess cleaned up and billable to you.
I worked for a big corp. None of this is out of ordinary.
But yeah, if you need to survive and worry about being fired, you make your own decisions that you'll be able to live with.
People unwittingly deploy this whole handbook back to front throughout the entire process of the sdlc.
It's impressive that anything ever gets done ever.
Blind, which I realize is a bit of the wild west, is full of racist anti-immigration/pro ICE hatred. Obviously, you can see where users work/worked, and it’s every company you could imagine.
The sad reality is that a lot of people will do what they can to support racist agendas, possibly even motivate them to work at certain companies as it feels moralizing to their hateful beliefs.
I don’t know that things are that black and white.
Do you feel the same about the billions of consumers who buy and use the products these companies make?
Consumer pays $1.10 for a can of coke, $0.10 of that goes to ad-tech, the consumer watches some coke ads, ad-tech pays $0.05 to the publisher and the consumer receives $0.05 in benefits in the form of "free ad-supported content" (which they already paid $0.10 for).
The only way for consumers to avoid this is to just stop spending money with any brand that advertises online, which is completely unrealistic and a much taller ask than asking employees to give up their deal with the devil (and work for just about anyone else except big tech).
Does your argument still hold up?
>”employees are making the actual thing that inflicts harm while consumers' actions are completely diffused and many steps removed from the harm they cause.”
“employees are making the actual thing that inflicts harm while consumers' actions directly cause deadly harm.”
I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t be voting with our wallets and supporting these people but your initial argument is flawed. They produce goods precisely because consumers buy them…
Can you explain why you think it wouldn't?
Tons of principled engineers choose not to pursue opportunities at military contractors, for instance, and this is not widely seen as unreasonable.
Or they could stop drinking coke? But I guess that is too much to ask.
Stores still fund the advertising industry but to nowhere near the extent that name brand goods do.
You can't buy a car or any smartphones you've ever heard of, you won't find an ISP that doesn't advertise online, and good luck finding a decent job without supporting ad-tech.
A big chain like kroger, for example, is spending around 10 to 100M. Coke is spending around $5B.
Avoiding national branded products goes a long way in avoiding contributing to the problem.
Things don't need to be all or nothing.
If the goal is to decrease money going into advertisement budgets, then the best thing you can do is buy store brand when possible. Even if both products are ultimately made from Nestle corp, the cheaper store brand will send less money into Nestle's pockets which means less money for advertising.
That's what I mean by "avoiding nationally branded products". A package of "signature frozen peas" will taste just as good as the "birds eye green peas" without sending money to a major company (Looks like all the major companies have spun off their frozen food departments, but at one time this was a Nestle brand. I spent too much time looking into major frozen food brands :D).
The advertisement budgets for the grocers are simply a lot smaller than that of the national brands across the board. It also doesn't seem (to me at least) to have been really spent on invasive advertisements.
They are the victims, not the source.
If you want to put the blame on consumers, at least show them on your adverts, product packaging, etc. all the morally abject methods used in the production of the product.
If you hide it from them, all the blame is on you.
Everything else is an excuse
Also, you can retain your morals and choose a career, it is optional to select where you work as it’s hopefully voluntary.
Thankfully I don't live in the US and I don't work for anything even remotely related to this. I don't know if I would have the fortitude in the current US job market (based on what I read here) to threat the well being of the wife and daughter by taking principled stances.
You can call it an "easy buck", and it is just coping. An easy way to make some poor schlemiel creating a miserable report with user location data during his sprint into a greedy bastard that is just enriching his bank account out of the suffering of plenty.
If many were to sacrifice their morals out of financial pressure easily (the control over which is in increasingly few hands) the path the US is treading becomes pretty deterministic... We've seen it in the movies and read it in the books.
You guys seem to need collective action and civil disobedience.
Then again.. maybe the will for collective action comes only after the repossessions...
One of the reasons I chose to move to Europe is because I value the mininal safety nets and labor protections on this side of the pond. Yes, I make less money and pay more taxes but I believe this is how society should work, I reject the hyper individualism that ignores any sort of collective.
But I am also not naive. Expecting individuals to take the burden for decisions way beyond their control is silly. It takes immense fortitude to threaten the well being of those dear to you based on principle, when the only outcome is your own suffering (the company will likely find another employee right away anyway).
No charity from church or family needed. Just the State- and it does not care about your religion or sexual preferences.
You do realize this is what most criminals of the world just so happen to say as well, right?
Where is the line?
It's an extremely unfair system based on coercion - you are beaten down into submission by the implicit threat that without work you won't be able to make ends meet.
Maybe you have a family that can support you financially. Maybe you already own the place where you live and could save up money over an extended period that you can weather a storm. If you are in these situations, that's great, but it is also an extremely privileged position to be in.
Thankfully, that isn't most of them. Despite the job market not being as good as it used to be, the vast majority of software engineers in the US could still find another job to pay the bills before becoming homeless and starving.
At the time I was still paying rent and needed employment to keep my visa. I also had little savings, and an ill parent that depended on me. I certainly couldn't take the principled stance of "fuck this, I'm out".
My point is that if you are in the position to take a principled stance, good for you. Maybe you already own your home, maybe you had time to accumulate savings, maybe you can do a few interviews and land a less evil job even in the current market (and perhaps a pay cut won't be a massive blow in you life). All that is awesome, but also a position of relative privilege.
Prescribing principled stance as universal without recognizing this is just cruelty though.
None of the individual acts seem evil. Conducting a census isn't evil. Collating the data isn't evil. Arresting people with the wrong papers isn't necessarily evil. Driving a train isn't evil. Operating a switch isn't evil. Processing paperwork isn't evil.
Look what's proposed now: Adtech has the data, this would feed into ICE systems leading to arrests, flights are conducted, and people get put into prison camps like CECOT where they have no recourse and where people are already talking about forced labor.
So no, I'm not saying to these folks "you're literally causing Auschwitz". That's a famous Vernichtungslager, and that's not true yet.
But people getting locked up in Concentrationslager or Arbeitslager (like historically : Mittelbau-Dora, Flossenbürg, Mauthausen, and Monowitz). I think we're getting there.
I guess the question is: at which point do you decide maybe to wear extra layers or skip a meal instead? We're not there yet. The chain has many links. Eternal vigilance is needed to make sure they don't actually link up.
(ps. Imagine if I was posting this in 2024! Can I exchange this timeline for another please? )
But it may well become true soon.
From the angle of your 2015 post, I can at least see where you're coming from. Modern adtech is much more granular and up to date than a census ever was.
And hopefully the worst case can be prevented.
I reject that societal and systemic issues can be fixed by individual action, unless as an individual you are extremely powerful (and the ones that are typically are the ones causing the societal and systemic harm).
As an common man you can do small things. Do a lousy job when processing the paperwork of evil. Malicious cooperation to the powers that be. Small acts of charity. That sort of thing.
Systemic change can only be achieved through collective action. Easier said than done.
The world is cursed. Life is tough even at the best of times. The system as it is ensures compliance through coercion and threats.
I honestly believe we would agree more than disagree on the current state of things. I just reject the approach that individual action is a way out of this sort of mess.
But I ask him, "But would you work for Lex Luthor?"
He doesn't have a good comeback to that.
Anyway, I (mostly, hopefully) try to make my small corner of the world a happy place. And I hope everyone else does for theirs.
Sure, I don't earn half a million a year total comp to kiss some billionaire's ass, but I still have a very comfortable lifestyle that is well above the median.
You really think adtech is the way to avoid starving on the street? There are a hell of a lot of jobs between entry level and adtech dev that could give you the same basic peace of mind.
Also, layers are resining from positions in doj they find unethical. It is not like the jobs for them were easier to find.
Some of those folks were cultural leaders in the orgs I belonged to. Some even passed for nice people.
No, my conscience is clean.
Now let me say the same: But those tools buy Teslas and $8 donuts and cardboard apartments in trendy neighborhoods for people too young to understand how money works.
There, now there's no longer a high horse concern.
Hey, thanks for doing the right thing.
It takes real courage and it costs to have principles. And just like I detest those that fall for the money I have insane respect for those that stand up.
I strongly agree. There's even the argument to be made that if no legislation exists, even if you're anti X, you might get incentivized to build a company for X just so it's not a fan of X at the helm of the top company for X.
Blaming it on the employees is pointless. It's the law that should dictate what's allowed and what isn't and if the lawmaking or enforcement isn't working you probably want some "good" people in those companies.
You're basically saying "There isnt anything inherently wrong about working for the 4th Reich"
Not all LEOs are brown shirts, In my experience, few are, but they give the lot a bad rap.
Treating LEOs uniformly as evil is just counterproductive
No one becomes a cop because they want to be nice and help vulnerable people. Some might say they did but that is some coping technique. Being a cop involves exerting violence towards people who are vulnerable and desperate, and to become one you have to be fine with this. Some would say that this alone is enough to deem a person ethically dubious.
Even if one would accept the premise that society requires some degree of organised violence towards its members, one would also have to handle the question of accountability. Reasonably this violence should be accountable in relation to the victims of it, and police institutions inherently are not.
I think that we should also note that the other person above used "childishly" to denote something negative, apparently they don't think of kids as the light of the world and childish as something fun and inspiring. This is something that makes me quite suspicious of their morals.
Your other note is also well taken, it does however not imply that anything a kid or teen does is OK or automatically positive.
Finally, it's OK to be suspicious. I am too. What I am saying is that one cannot just make the decision "all cops are evil or must be treated as such" and then hope for a good outcome in all cases. I argue it's a better policy to keep an open mind and decide on a case by case basis.
However, many others have come to this conclusion and made a rather long tradition out of their arguments.
Perhaps the conflict is that you just want to make people who work in ad tech feel bad, and don't care whether or not they enable ICE? That's fine, I suppose, there's industries I feel the same way about. But then we don't have much to talk about and I'm not sure what you hope to gain from being here. To me opposing ICE is very important - I think tobacco companies are pretty bad too, but if ICE sent out a request for cartons of cigarettes I'd shovel praise on them for declining.
Yes—and one of the tools we have for that is shunning.
If enough of us who are appalled and disgusted by the state of things, and the people who willingly lend themselves to creating said state, make our disgust with those people known, it can lead to some of them choosing to act differently, because they care about being thought well of by their fellow techies.
No, it won't be. Except perhaps to too few to make a difference. The money is too good.
In the words of the XO from the Alfa class submarine to his CO in The Hunt for Red October: "You've killed us, you ass."
I would argue that whatever is happening now is part of the revenge of the nerds once the nerds remain unsatisfied despite the material possessions they acquired as software ate the world.
People deeply disconnected from the real world, seeing numbers and thinking with numbers without understanding the underlying realities of those numbers is a trait of any low touch system that developers and other IT professionals operate within.
Just yesterday apparently when asked Trump said "it's just two people" that were executed by ICE and steered the conversation when he was pushed to elaborate.
Probably from tech perspective ICE is incredibly well working, in tech world you can take away the livelihood of thousands of people by a single line of a code that changes an algorithm that bans someone or re-sorts the search results. Someone loses their Youtube account they built for years due to algorithm misfiring, someone loses their developer account on an App Store and can't even get a reason for it.
The tech world is very used to operate in a fascist high efficiency environment that enshittifies everything that touches but keeps improving on some selected KPI. Maybe they wish it doesn't happen but they are not going to sacrifice higher numbers for the lives of a few people. Welcome to the highly efficient(according to selected KPI) new world order.
I know you don't like to hear that as this is a place for IT people but the governance of online platforms is quite fascist across the board. People are banned, shadow banned or rate limited when don't behave or don't say the right stuff. Preserving order and increasing engagement is above everything, even those who claim that they came to make "speech free again" quickly turned into just changing what speech to be allowed.
Anything controversial that is attracting negativity is hidden away unless it is feeding the narrative of the platform, then it is actively promoted.
Therefore, I don't think that IT workers have any remorse or any problem with this new reality. Its the reality they built and most are loving it.
The medium is the message but the medium was built bit by bit by IT professionals in a span of 20 years.
Major political groups:
Liberals/centrists - maintain order/decorum at all costs
Fascists - gain power at all costs, in groups of decreasing size
Libertarians - reduce taxes at all costs
Leftists - argue for an equal society but never get there
Conservatives - return to monke
Gaining power is at all cost as a fascist trait is a good point, Tech companies do that all the time too so techies are often accustomed with that.
Its main mode of operation is fish-net-style catching brown people on the streets and making them sign voluntary deportation. That allows to bypass any court orders and any requirements of the law (like hearing, lawyer, etc).
Edit: to the commenter below:
>I care because my children are approaching the workforce and I want their opportunities to open up to them
do you really want your children to work in strawberry fields in CA in 100+ degrees weather? That is the opportunities which mostly get open when you remove the migrants, legal or illegal, that ICE is targeting.
I love how the accounts defending ICE are always brand new.
"Wow this looks just like the rise of the nazis!"
Which was covered extensively during my history classes.
Why did you even have all the school schootings if you don't use that stupid second ammendmend thing you have? This is the tyranical government you've all been waiting for.
The recent tragedies are indeed thoroughly depressing for all of us, but we shouldn’t let our emotional reactions destroy our ability to reason and think objectively about history and statistics. We can feel and think. Some of us believe enforcement of laws is the villain in this. Some feel the laws themselves or the idea of borders and sovereignty are to blame. Others that a surge of violent criminals such as those who killed Jocylan Nungary or Laken Riley is the cause of the recent tragedies. None of these views are inherently evil. All of these views have some merit. Truth is manifold. Don’t be narrow minded, we need broad thinking not simplistic pathos driven dogmas and references to nazis. Grow up.
Learn about the tolerance paradoxon, there is no negotiating, nuance and reasoning with fashists.
Your enlightened centrism is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Get educated.
Just because we currently have our own right wing populist faschists rearing their heads again, doesn't mean that the parallels of the current events in the US and the rise of the Nazis aren't real and glaring to someone who has had this as part of their basic education curriculum.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250503162240/https://www.verfa...
If you want to know: In my personal opinion that conflict is fucked beyond repair because a small group of powerful people on both sides benefit from it, while a huge number of deep interpersonal conflicts and histories fuel it, with any moderates getting squashed by their own side. So I wouldn't send weapons, but I'd send humanitarian aid or the blue helmets. That whole region is thoroughly fucked beyond my pay grade.
This dualist thinking seems to be a particular US thing, based on your two party system.
I see the erosion of the rule of law and decency in the US, the persecution of minorities, the populism, the defamation of journalism as "lügenpresse" and alignment of media to the party line, the personal police force (what the fuck is ICE doing in Italy), the person cult around a single madman, the violence without consequence, the fancy SS/SA style cosplay uniform by the head of ICE, and I think "that looks a lot like the stuff we learned about in school".
Another way of phrasing this is that it's a call to stop assuming good faith discussion on the part of the boosters, stop being derailed by pondering nuance, and focus on putting the brakes on the new Nazi movement. History doesn't repeat but we're teetering on the edge of a large-scale horrific rhyme. Regardless of one's preferred policies regarding immigration, there is zero justification for where we're at.
Use your words, direwolf. Even if your moral outrage is valid, calling everyone you dislike a "Nazi" is unhinged.
I make a new account at least every week to get around this. This is my only account. Don't like it? Encourage your comrades to engage in good faith and tolerate perspectives that they personally disagree with.
Downvoting my comment, flagging my comment, getting my account shadow banned (it might be already and you'll never see this comment...), while dismissing my comment because it's from a new account.
People can't have it both ways. Stop censoring civil comments that you disagree with, or stop complaining that people make new accounts to circumvent the censorship. Or, I guess, be honest enough to explicitly ban anyone from disagreeing with the hivemind and enjoy your echo chamber in peace.
Lately I'm not sure that's the case.
see:
I'm not threatening anybody, I'm just pointing out that in the aggregate anonymity does not exist as told by TFA whereas the GP seems to believe it holds some weight. The only reason you are able to write your comment is simply because I'm not hiding.
You on the other hand are.
> I personally, am glad we have this, so I don't experience what I do when I go to Europe, and get a bunch of illegal Africans terrorizing people in front of police. Or let alone the no go zones.
Funny, that hasn't happened to me yet. What also hasn't happened to me yet is that I got shot in the face at a protest.
But: you are part of the problem, you believe you are part of the solution. The fact that you believe that you are part of the solution but you're not proud enough of it to do so under your own name tells the whole story. It's the equivalent of the mask of those ICE goons.
https://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/
https://jacquesmattheij.com/trackers/
> I'm glad, to have spend most of my career in the government to stop these people coming in and terrorists. Which is why I can report, the US has a very low terror rate, especially when you look at foreign extremists, unlike other parts of the world.
That has something to do with two oceans and nothing at all with your efforts.
And you're proudly delusional.
But that's fine, stick your head in the sand and continue, you are so invested in this that the thought that you might be on the wrong side seems to scare you into flinging abuse and digging in deeper.
The USA is not 'the best in the world', not by a long shot. Witness the turd sitting in the half demolished White House that you serve.
> Anyways, I will be submitting a tip personally
Haha, so you are now threatening to take revenge on someone you've never met because they're calling you out for exactly that sort of thing. I don't think I could have asked for harder proof.
WTF dude, have you entirely lost it?
The women shot in the face by an ICE agent was not "violating her visa", nor was she violating American laws by being halted for a short time across a single lane with traffic passing her by.
She was given conflicting instructions by two agents, and was within her rights to leave as she did, slowly, carefully, when she was shot through the front and then through a side window by the same agent.
> I proudly stop terrorists, I proudly help law enforcement
These particular agents were a clown show textbook example of how not to behave .. you should be not be proud to associate with them.
As for American law - it's falling apart from the top: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/the-trump-doj-has...
The people shooting US citizens in the face and in the back are repeatedly in violation of judges orders.
Not the state government, and the federal government is in the midst of not a investigation under the pretence of having one.
> But if you try to run over the police.
She did not. It's very clear that she did not.
Also .. ICE agents .. not "the police" - these were immigration agents overstepping their bounds.
See stories about breaking multiple judges orders.
> And I gotta ask, you think it's just two oceans, and what your experience is in the intelligence community field? Are you just assuming without knowing the inner workings?
This depicts the distribution of refugees caused by iraq and afghan wars. Which, to remind you, were proudly based on lies.
> https://www.unhcr.org/news/press-releases/iraqis-afghans-and...
> As a region, Europe received 75 percent of all asylum applications although the United States remained the single largest recipient country with an estimated 13 percent of all applications
Are you still proud making the world a better place? Maybe you are too busy fighting terrorists to reply.
Also, they arnt killing Americans anymore are they? We gave them everything we could. But the afghan army chose to just do drugs and do nothing and now their women can’t go to school and don’t have rights again.
There are still terror orgs seeking to destabilize the region, like israel or ISIS. Besides the destruction, thats at least one reason why you wouldnt want to go back.
But why can they stay? Maybe a familiy -- a life -- is a reason to stay too. Why is "why dont they go back" your initial reaction? Why do i have to remind you about that human element of migration? Are you implying all refugees are terrorists? Or are you a racist?
Id really would like to see your mind rn. How it tries to spin the convo to "but they are illegal aliens". Such a pitty that even you cant see it.
We built a vast surveillance network under the guise of servings ads and making money, and lost track of how this power could be abused by an entity not aligned with our own values.
For example, we all stood by when we let Twitter and other US-based social media become the main way politicians communicate with the public. This has, in my opinion, had disastrous consequences on how they communicate and actively blocks politicians from achieving consensus.
This is to say that you don’t need to have actively worked on something.
However, I think a lot of people in tech could and did see those consequences coming and were pretty vocal about it. So, I don't think we all did stand by, we exercised what limited power we had. I don't want to seem accusatory here and I don't mean it harshly, but maybe you just didn't see the folks who have talked about problems like this.
We also as individuals [without billions] have fairly limited capacity to directly act against these things. I donate a fair bit to the EFF for instance and I've sent outreach to representatives multiple times over the years for specific bills and when its possible I vote against surveillance.
I don't necessarily mean to berate the public, but rather the politicians, who saw that they could use social media/big tech for their own personal gain, and the media, who went along with the narrative that putting all our public communication into privately owned platforms was good for democracy. And maybe our own governments and institutions (speaking from a EU perspective) for dropping the ball in protecting us.
I think Evgeny Morozov's 2010-ish writing was prophetic in this regard.
There are also articles from 2011 where political commenters noted how the Obama campaign broke new ground using targeted Facebook advertisement and outreach, and how EU politicians could learn from it. The many smaller, but in total larger donations given to Obama was contrasted with Hillary Clinton who had larger individual donations but less in total, and the commenters attributed this to the use of Facebook and finding and meeting a younger audience on those online platforms.
People thought that targeted advertisement was a good thing and politicians looked on the techniques from that election and saw the potential for power. It was mostly just those privacy advocates, free software advocates and security experts that expressed doubt and warned about the dangers.
It's exactly why I don't do more because I really don't want to be associated with people like you folks.
My intent wasn't to pat myself on the back it was to make OP aware people have not all just been going along with it using myself as an example, and then it turned into a nice little side thread with me and the OP talking about that conceptually.
I can appreciate you disagree with how I chose to go about that though as objectively it was self centered.
What are you doing to organize around that?
Or is it just “I decided to leave so my hands are clean” self adoration?
It's the gateway to any sympathetic contingency.
This user is still on twitter and actively promoting their handle there
I'm totally fine stopping at minimizing my culpability. I sleep just fine at night and don't really jump at purity tests like you seem to want. I'm not other people's savior and I don't want to be. If you want to put your energy into that, I support you.
I don't think you know how to read because I certainly didn't do that. But also go fuck yourself.
This is why no one cares about your causes btw because weird angry little dudes isn't a good look.
We can't seriously believe that this agency has any sense of respect for privacy right? They literally are going around thinking they don't need judicial warrants. I mean nobody's going to stop them using the purchased data however they want, but don't lie and say you'll be good with the privacy and care of the data.
https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-...
Noem at the Senate hearing : "Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, and suspend their right to ..."
For the software builders the conclusion is that we should not store ANY identifiable data.
While trying to degoogling, removing most proprietary software and use sandboxing for everything that's still needed as proprietary, you would often hear that stupid pro-surveillance thesis: "oh, what's wrong in someone trying to show you relevant things in the internet to buy by your interests?".
Maybe now some people would think about it. That giving someone's leverage over youself is a ticking bomb until the actually scary people will use it as an advantage. That's humanity 101.
Same about non-encrypted emails, cloud AI providers, SMS/real-identity based auth and 2fa, telemetry. The industry is full of trash and has to be revived from VC garbage.
Maybe the answers must be blunt and unpleasant.
This sort of thing should also help put the "adblocking is unethical" argument to bed.
> Intellexa also uses malicious ads on third-party platforms to fingerprint visitors and redirect those who match its target profiles to its exploit delivery servers.
-- https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2025/12/leaks-show-in...
Not blocking ads is bordering a self-destructive behaviour now.
Finally. There are a lot of high profile YouTubers who have been saying this like LinusTechTips.
e.g. Hacker news uses no tracking url but uses Cloudflare which tracks the user across sites for things like bot detection.
e.g [flagged] Target director's Global Entry was revoked after ICE used app to scan her face [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46833871]
Stuff like actively expressing opposition to taking them on as a customer, trying to persuade management to do otherwise, and so on would all be perfectly kosher. But the stuff the top post in this thread alludes to, let alone what it links to, is how you end up in prison for a very long time after the 'I didn't know it was illegal' defense fails.
There has been a few news articles (and court cases) where this question has been raised and it is not strict true. Employee actions are only actions for which the employee has been given as an task as part of their employment and role. Actions outside of that is private actions. When this end up in court, the role description and employee contract becomes very important.
A clear case example is when a doctor is looking up data on a patient. Downloading patient records from people who they are not the doctor for can be criminal and not just a breech of hospital policy, especially if they sell or transfer the data.
There is no in group, out group, or whatever else. Go to Mexico or Canada illegally, as an American, and you're getting deported, same as everybody and everywhere else. Vice versa if a Canadian, Brit, or whoever else comes into the US illegally, they're also getting deported.
But from a logical point of view, it also fails, even in a parallel reality where you were right. Countries are generally deemed to have the right to kill their citizens for major violations of the law, in the pursuit of justice. But that does not mean a country has the right to just start killing their citizens on a whim. And similarly, every single country has the right to expel people who enter their country illegally or remain beyond the terms of a granted temporary stay. This does not mean a country has the right the randomly start expelling their own citizens, en masse, for no normal reason.
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Classifications...
Those who do not read their links are doomed to misrepresent them.
Except they were not and your whole point was wrong.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
A close mirror of what is happening in this thread, if you will.
> They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’
> "And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic.
[...]
> But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
~ They Thought They Were Free - The Germans, 1933-45; Milton Mayer
And this argument about the Nazis being subtle and just slowly indoctrinating society toward a grand scheme is complete disinformation. Hitler was bonkers and as far back as 1919 he was ranting and raving about removing the Jews from all of Europe. And his speeches certainly didn't moderate that even the slightest. Even in Mein Kampf, again well before he was in major politics, he wrote about how if Germany had gassed some Jews during WW1, they could have saved millions of German lives. You didn't have to spin his words, or argue that innocuous acts might lead to the most egregious - he made his intent unabashedly and unambiguously clear.
So for instance if you listen to the rhetoric of Jewish leaders regarding Palestinians, you can see the same thing. You don't seem to appreciate that people with genocidal intent do not see themselves as evil. They see themselves as the saviors of society, trying to save everybody from some greater evil, and taking on the burden of 'what must be done' upon themselves. The most vile of villains see themselves as the great protagonist of their story.
Just like you're talking about removing the "illegals".
The ugly details of what said removal entails are slow-rolled in a spiral of normalization.
Again, initial talk was of deportation in the case of the Jews as well. The "final solution" was only introduced in '42, after consensus on removal had already been manufactured.
If you are illegal, you can literally show up fresh off of jet and on day one in .ar, file a court case for citizenship, have a lawyer run down the clock for a few years (by constitution in argentina illegal residence and subsistence for a few years = citizenship), and all the meanwhile they are legally barred from deporting you.
One thing that I really don't like about the way the Democrat party is handling illegal immigration is that they know it's overwhelmingly unpopular, so they say one thing and do another. For instance part of the DNC 2024 platform was "Securing the Border" [2] which they tried to argue Biden had done, and that the only reason he hadn't doing more was because of Congress. Obviously that's overt gaslighting. If they want to run on a platform of defacto open borders, more power to them - laws can be changed, but they need to actually run on that platform instead of lying and gaslighting.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal
[2] - https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTE...
* They followed the law. Crackdowns like the one Trump is taking are only possible if you treat law as a fluid concept and ignore judges consistently. A democrat is never going to get around that, and yes, laws can be changed, but notice how Trump isn't even bothering to do that also (he just ignores them), the best he got from a Republican congress was extra funding for ICE (and remember, Bush was worse than Obama on illegal immigration).
* They just treated them with some dignity (which Trump sees as soft, dignity isn't really in his vocab).
So for an example from the previous administration, they wanted race based admissions for colleges. That is obviously illegal and unconstitutional. After the Supreme Court predictably ruled against them, they worked to circumvent their ruling in various ways including in a 'Dear Colleagues' letter [1] offering guidance on ways universities could achieve a racial quota while remaining within the bounds of the law, effectively laying out a proposed blueprint for intentional Disparate Impact [2], which is *drum roll* also illegal.
The main difference you're seeing in contemporary times is the way the media is spinning everything, intentionally looking to foment conflict and radicalism. We live in amoral times and so working around the judges and legal systems is framed primarily in terms of who's doing it.
[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20241127174625/https://www.ed.go...
Yes, that poor justice lawyer who broke down when the judge berated her that they were just ignoring his rulings, the lawyer replied that being sent to jail for contempt would at least let her get some sleep!
So you shifted from immigration to DEI stuff? Yes, white people no longer get preferential admission like they once did and it’s somehow now racist, do you even realize how bad you guys sound? Anyways, yes, Obama looked for places in the law where he could do things, which I guess you will just claim is just as bad as ignoring laws and rulings straight up?
The main difference is that we literally elected a fascist with dementia as President. And you guys would claim media bias if the press simply played videos of Trump talking.
There are several countries that refuse involuntary repatriation of their citizens. With the Jews in germany, same issue, hardly anywhere was willing to take them. And that's when you ended up with the perpetrator buffering them in these camps until they just gave up because there was no place to send them other than back into the broad population.
Of course it is the fault of the USA if these people are abused in these camps, but these peoples' home country are not doing any favors to the people stuck there by refusing to take them back.
People in i.e. France are dealing with similar issue where much of their criminals are Algerian because Algeria is refusing much of the repatriation of illegal immigrants in France. France has chosen to just release them back into population rather than build camps, with end result Algerian gangs terrorize the populace knowing they can't be sent back, which obviously plays into the hands of pushing voters towards the right-wing.
But the situations are again nothing alike because in that case you're speaking of Germany trying to dump Germans on other countries. In this case you're speaking of the US returning e.g. Salvadorans to El Salvador, which the latter country generally having obligations under international law to accept their citizens. The handful of exceptions, like with Venezuela, have all generally been resolved.
Israeli companies are constantly working on spyware and advertising technologies.
Take a look at abominations such as the product Sherlock produced by Insanet:
https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/16/insanet_spyware/
https://cyberjustice.blog/2024/01/22/sherlock-the-terrifying...
There are loads of others.
Spyware is produced in many countries - although the Israeli ones are very good, because Israelis are very good at what they do.
All of our people should feel ashamed of this—being deceived by the media day after day for decades. Too stupid. Even today, there are still many people who firmly believe it.