Posted by geox 12 hours ago
It's still rare, but so are most horrible things that can happen to a person. "There's a pretty low risk of you getting into a car accident, so why wear a seatbelt?" because the risk, while low-ish in absolute terms, is still unacceptable - so you do what you can to mitigate it.
And if you’re waiting for the mid-terms, you’re already acquiescing to their plans.
Also, it says something — to me, at least — that I have to think seriously before posting this. All I’m calling for is timely criminal prosecution of what I think and believe are crimes. I.e. for a lawful process. Yet doing so puts me at risk of an overbearing, unaccountable response?
This is some serious sh-t.
ICE doesn't exactly have a track record of following any laws or courts in general. So I wouldn't expect them to answer any FOIA obligation.
This is the fundamental flaw uncovered in the US system by the current administration. Turns out that if one agency decides to go rogue and declare that no laws apply to them, there is no mechanism in place to prevent that.
https://www.muckrock.com/foi/list/?page=1&per_page=100&agenc...
The basis is "come and take it." A court order doesn't work on the brownshirts.
- ICE is moving to start using cameras (currently not using them) so this move overall increases the amount of footage that exists and can be released.
- Their stayed approach is analogous to other law enforcement approaches already in use.
So the headline should be "ICE to start using body cameras". I suspect this is in general good news for ICE - most police departments that once felt "forced" to use body cameras have found that the cameras have been good for their image. Incidents that could have previously been trumpeted as an unjustified police action now have the context of what the suspect was doing just prior that justify the action. I think ICE is betting on the same and the "look what our agents have to deal with" footage may get public airplay into their favor.
We'll see
One example is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49076441
There is, of course, simply no good faith rationale for demanding the HN guidelines must somehow be applied to forbid someone quoting a spokesman of the US government verbatim. Honestly quite abhorrent and dishonest to try and pressure people to not even quote what the US government says if it makes the US gov look ridiculous.
The rest of the account is trivial, nonsensical quibbling about wholly honest headlines or otherwise generic affirmations.
A supposed desire for "neutrality" betrayed by a thinly veiled demand for moderators to censor and punish people for merely quoting the article itself if it doesn't make their favored politicians look great, despite it being the admin's own words. Further betrayed by repeatedly suggesting moderators change headlines to be more "neutral" (but in almost every case actually suggesting a borderline dishonest, whitewashed version to make the terrible actions be as mundane and as normal as possible)
Lots of data to feed into their Palantir systems to keep track of l̵a̵w̵f̵u̵l̵ ̵p̵r̵o̵t̵e̵s̵t̵o̵r̵s̵ terrorists.
i didnt think of that, actually, and facial recognition training and such actually sounds like a pretty plausible reason.
(that's why i wrote my opinion on a message board, instead of a letter addressed to the director of ice)