Agenda Behind the Facial Recognition Tech Used by ICE and the FBI Revealed

So a journalist at Mother Jones is shocked, but did anyone here on HN not predict this strategy long before Trump got his 2nd term?

Sadly this prediction could have been generalized to the US executive branch regardless of the most recent election. It's more of the same from what we've seen in the past, Democrat and Republican leader alike.

Speculation is fun and one thing, but this article appears to be journalism and comes with a lot of receipts for the Vietnamese/Australian white nationalist supporter with connections to the usual suspects in Silicon Valley accelerationism.

Far be it from me to interrupt your both-sides deflection but I’d like to ask you to cite any report in the recent past when democrats have called for the arrest or use of violence and/or the military against protesters

What does this accomplish? I genuinely don't understand why this fallacy is so common, even trying to come at it from a psychology perspective.

Something being shocking is not the same as something being unforeseeable. Being shocked by shocking behavior doesn't make you some kind of idiot. Acting as if having emotions about immoral behavior is beneath you is self-aggrandizing.

I'm sorry for my tone, but I'm sick of this genre of internet comment in particular.

Perhaps you slept through the year leading up to the 2024 election, when Democrats sent riot police into student protests? They arrested thousands, and were plenty violent. Democratic president & governor & mayor (NYC and LA and Boston, for example).

Or perhaps you missed the Occupy movement which was violently disrupted on a national scale with coordinated raids across the country, organized through the “Fusion Centers” (FBI + DHS + State & Local law enforcement)?

Anyhow, my point here is that organized violence against leftist protestors is a fully bipartisan policy, and has been for more than 100 years.

You just forgot the Palestine protests or what.

The trick is to call them something else. The January 6 protesters come to mind, but since they actually threatened the lawmakers - not just random proles - they aren't called "protesters". Conversely, make sure the BLM folks are definitely not called rioters, even if you have to call them "fiery but peaceful" protestors.

I'm sorry, like the other comment said you're still both-sides-ing.

States / cities (democrat or republican) sent riot police, which is something they have always done. How they handled protests is worth criticism e.g. I don't like that they use curfews to suddenly make protesters breaking the law. I don't like the use of tear gas on otherwise peaceful protestors. As a note, these are state / city officials not federal guidance typically.

However,

The current administration, Donald Trump, the president of the united states, and the top most members of his cabinet, as a federal, top-down policy will:

- Automatically identify protesters

- Arrest them for simply saying things the admin doesn't like.

- Bypass due-process.

- Will ship them to a gulag outside of the united states.

- Are on track to be found in contempt of court for refusing to bring back a lawful resident.

Both sides are not the same here. Name me a democrat president who has done equal or worse what the trump admin has done.

The rules state you need to stay on topic. Your reply violates that requirement. If you want to discuss politics instead of the technology of the post, feel free to engage other social media networks, Reddit would be a much better fit for the kind of discussion you are directing people to engage in.

In the interests of fostering better quality dialogue, I think you could have replied something like, “Democrats did (X in relation to technology) where Republicans have done (Y in relation to technology). It would have accomplished the same thing and at least stayed in relation to the topic.

I'm going to need a shower after this but Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless mass surveillance were still a thing under Obama, no? Still, not even comparable to what we're witnessing now.

> Both sides are not the same here. Name me a democrat president who has done equal or worse what the trump admin has done.

I think you might have missed the point. The way I read the comment, and perhaps I'm wrong, is that this sort of power creep was inevitable. Which administration it happened under is likely an influencing factor, but to think it was never going to happen seems a bit far-fetched at this point.

Obama also created ICE as we know it today. And normalized drone strikes.

They didn’t call for mad violence against protestors. They didn’t call for arresting protestors.

I imagine you won’t admit you have no evidence based in reality.

Insurrectionists are not protestors.

Yep. Trump's taken it to a new level by targeting American citizens while they're physically in the USA, and while immigration courts were always a bad joke he's even skipping the kangaroo court and just shipping people off without even a pretense of due process or legal justification. Rather than an incremental step forward on the path of authoritarianism, this administration has taken a flying leap out the frog-boiling pot, straight into the inferno.

> The trick is to call them something else

If it's politically expedient, that is. For one thing, they were far less violent than the BLM protesters. Yet one group is called 'protestors' and the other 'insurrectionists'.

"Shocking" carries a meaning of a being sudden, surprising, or startling.

It's this aspect that is being challenged, not the emotional reaction.

Not really. Until recently, ClearView has been used by local police departments, which are not strongly aligned with both sides of the political spectrum. Likewise, DHS and TSA are not strongly aligned with both sides of the political spectrum. ClearView, which the article is about, is only strongly aligned with one side of the political spectrum and notably uses political misalignment as a warning sign.

Whether or not this could have happened is completely irrelevant. This is happening. My comment here, linked to my real name, has the potential to get me put on a list of political agitators. My grandpa wore a red triangle in Soldau, and while I'm not eager to do the same, nor will I be silent. American citizens are being deported on suspicion of being immigrants today. Both-siding this is exceptionally dishonest. The article is about the actual technology being employed by today's actual government.

Shock in this context probably refers to the meaning of the word that is surprise, rather than the meaning of the word that is disgust or revulsion. Basically, people use the same word to mean subtly different things. Something giving you a shock can mean being startled, but not disgusted. Or it can be the inverse of that.

> Something being shocking is not the same as something being unforeseeable.

That is true only for one definition/common use of the word.

How are drone strikes any different than a pilot, a warplane, and advanced precision bombs/missiles?

Except they're cheaper to run and don't physically risk a pilot.

No, he didn’t miss the point. “Power creep” doesn’t necessitate or justify the behavior of this administration.

Didn't they kill one police officer? Or was it two? In a single afternoon?

Please tell me how many police officer did the BLM protesters killed per day, just to confirm how violent they were.

The issue is not really with the difference in impact between drone attacks and other types of aerial attacks, but with the dramatic increase in scale, resulting from reduced cost and risk.

It probably would have been more accurate to say something like "mass extra-judicial assasination/execution of individuals opaquely labelled as 'militants,' including US citizens, in foreign jurisdictions" instead of "drone strikes," but the latter is shorter and I thought would be understood as implying the former.

If you go look it up, it was zero, IIRC. Don't believe everything you're told.

How many arsonists were among the j6 folks?

That appears to be an issue of policy not one of technology.

Because they'd more than likely target those same individuals with less precise weapons if not for the given alternative.

And they didn't have Dem backed companies surveilling and trying to track protestors.

My comment here was based on the fact that the US government has been developing biometrics databases since the late 1960s. The 'agenda' for decades has always been to monitor and control the population. When protesters do things like suicide bomb buildings from inside their Tesla, torch Tesla dealerships, attack Tesla drivers, and call for the shooting of ICE agents, is it any wonder that DHS will utilize these tools against political protesters?

The technology enables the policy. If the cost and risk were higher, there would be fewer strikes.

They invaded two countries simultaneously (one landlocked). Then used secret stealth helicopters to fly a hit squad into an allied nations territory for one particular individual.

I don't think this is a fruitful debate but I doubt risk & cost are as much a determining factor as you'd like.

They physically broke into our nation's Capital. That is not a 'politically expedient' statement. That is not 'protesting'. They interrupted our Government and government activity had to be postponed. THEY STOPPED THE GOVERNMENT, the election process, and by extension the peaceful transfer of how that had never be prevented before in the nations history. That is not protesting no matter how many air quotes you put around it.

And after they broke in, for this first time in history the traitorous, racist, loser Confederate flag was flown inside out capital building.

Are you serious? Surveillance has been on the agenda at least for 25 years. Maybe Trump is president because his opposition cannot match his very, very smart mental capacities as they tumble to make such topics some bipartisan issue.

Perhaps you can argue that Trumps ideas are worse, but that never creates a smart argument.

> “Power creep” doesn’t necessitate or justify the behavior of this administration.

Well, neither one of those words showed up in my comment. I said that, based on the growth of this technology, power abuse was inevitable. Not justified, not necessary, simply the natural outcome of such things as history has shown us time and again.

teamwork makes the reamwork

They definitely called for arresting protesters. People don’t forget that easily lol.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4637548-democrats-split-...

You’re in too deep into the fake conspiracy theories and lies. Please seek professional help and come back to reality

No. You’re being willfully ignorant at this point.

There’s a difference between convicting people of crimes and arresting protestors because one side doesn’t like what they’re saying.

The republicans are literally kidnapping people who have committed no crimes but are exercising their first amendment right to free speech, writing and publishing their political views. These people are now being held in inhumane conditions. This is stage one of torture: dehumanize.

And you’re dodging the more pressing and serious issues: republicans in government are advocating of using violence against protestors they don’t like. You’re avoiding this because deep down you know you have no logical nor ethical standing.

You need to stop accusing me of made up things derived from your paranoid delusions lol. Democrats wanted the protesters in jail and they put them in jail be they didn’t like what the protesters said. It really was that simple, so stop making things up from your fantasies so you can imagine this is something new and special or try to “win” some internet argument by accusing people of things that exist only in your imagination.

Buddy I'm using factcheck.org [1]. But keep going with the intellectual condescension - long as you convince yourself that people who disagree are wrong and need help and idiots, you'll never have to leave your comfy little bubble. But you will become increasingly detached from reality.

[1] https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/how-many-died-as-a-result-...