←back to thread

You can't refuse to be scanned by ICE's facial recognition app, DHS document say

(www.404media.co)
574 points nh43215rgb | 8 comments | 01 Nov 25 08:58 UTC | HN request time: 1.291s | source | bottom
Show context
hexbin010 ◴[01 Nov 25 13:30 UTC] No.45781498[source]▶
> “ICE officials have told us that an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien,”

This is "computer says no (not a citizen)". Which is horrifying

They've just created an app to justify what they were already doing right? And the argument will be "well it's a super complex app run by a very clever company so it can't be wrong"?

replies(13): >>45781606 #>>45781662 #>>45781821 #>>45782252 #>>45782541 #>>45782817 #>>45782848 #>>45782971 #>>45783123 #>>45783772 #>>45784468 #>>45784720 #>>45786967 #
rgsahTR ◴[01 Nov 25 13:53 UTC] No.45781662[source]▶
> They've just created an app to justify what they were already doing right?

This was also one of the more advanced theories about the people selection and targeting AI apps used in Gaza. I've only heard one journalist spell it out, because many journalists believe that AI works.

But the dissenter said that they know it does not work and just use it to blame the AI for mistakes.

replies(5): >>45782107 #>>45782130 #>>45782878 #>>45783028 #>>45783384 #
bko ◴[01 Nov 25 16:18 UTC] No.45782878[source]▶
It's better that the alternative which is humans. Unless you think enforcing laws or ever having the need to establish identity should never take place
replies(11): >>45782905 #>>45782914 #>>45782959 #>>45782980 #>>45783029 #>>45783156 #>>45783385 #>>45784431 #>>45787217 #>>45788483 #>>45792841 #
1. 01HNNWZ0MV43FF ◴[01 Nov 25 16:48 UTC] No.45783156[source]▶
The real alternative would be the inalienable human rights we were promised
replies(2): >>45783313 #>>45783395 #
2. pfannkuchen ◴[01 Nov 25 17:06 UTC] No.45783313[source]▶
This sort of thinking is kind of a retcon, no? The people who wrote the line you’re referencing also decided that none of the people ICE is involved with were even eligible for citizenship. If their rules held out, this wouldn’t even be a thing. I’m not arguing that their rules were correct, just that picking and choosing things they said feels intellectually dishonest.
replies(1): >>45784725 #
3. verdverm ◴[01 Nov 25 17:23 UTC] No.45783452[source]▶
Thank you for prefixing your comment with the quality we should expect.

HN would appreciate you not making low quality comments in the first place though. The broader view of your comments on this post seem to be ideologically instead of curiosity driven

4. UniverseHacker ◴[01 Nov 25 19:49 UTC] No.45784725[source]▶
It’s more complex than that- initial drafts of the declaration of independence were more explicit about literally covering all people, and even had a rant about how slavery was unethical, and they compromised by cutting these in order to get enough consensus to make it happen at all. Thomas Jefferson himself was a hypocrite- he wrote a lot about how slavery was wrong and should be ended, all the while owning slaves himself.

Anyways, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to nowadays take that philosophy and apply it universally. Just because it was done unfairly and hypocritically in the past is no excuse for us to also be hypocrites nowadays.

replies(1): >>45787886 #
5. pfannkuchen ◴[02 Nov 25 04:43 UTC] No.45787886{3}[source]▶
Sorry is ICE going around enslaving Africans? I thought the topic was people being targeted for removal based on looking like a Native American. What does Jefferson’s view on slavery have to do with anything?
replies(2): >>45790560 #>>45791392 #
6. ◴[02 Nov 25 14:25 UTC] No.45790560{4}[source]▶
7. UniverseHacker ◴[02 Nov 25 16:21 UTC] No.45791392{4}[source]▶
The context is the question of if human rights are universal or only for certain privileged groups
replies(1): >>45794465 #
8. pfannkuchen ◴[02 Nov 25 23:50 UTC] No.45794465{5}[source]▶
Those are your personal abstraction boundaries. It is a perfectly coherent set of positions to oppose enslaving humans while at the same time being selective about which humans you allow into your nation. The “founding fathers” factually prohibited non-whites from being citizens of America. So what if they were opposed to slavery or not? Those are entirely different matters, and a position on slavery does not imply anything about a position on “any person on earth can be an American”.