←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 | 5 comments | 01 Nov 25 08:58 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
UniverseHacker ◴[01 Nov 25 15:43 UTC] No.45782563[source]▶
Per thousands of videos on social media, it doesn’t matter what your rights are anymore, if you try to ask for them ICE will just become even more sadistic and violent, and the DOJ/government will refuse to cooperate in bringing them to justice for denying you your rights- you have no rights or recourse anymore even as a citizen. Moreover, the agents are masked and refuse to self identify as the law requires so you will never be able to say who violated your rights- they are hiding their identities because they are committing crimes. They are not police that follow laws, they are state sponsored white supremacist terrorists.
replies(5): >>45782750 #>>45782770 #>>45783287 #>>45786761 #>>45789826 #
potato3732842 ◴[01 Nov 25 16:05 UTC] No.45782750[source]▶
Fedcops have ALWAYS been like this. They don't go away from an interaction empty handed like local cops sometimes will because the person they're after is following the law.

But of course fed-cops were never seriously prowling neighborhoods where the nearest grocery store is a Whole Foods so nobody on HN cared until now.

replies(5): >>45782893 #>>45783181 #>>45784467 #>>45784672 #>>45787579 #
dragonwriter ◴[01 Nov 25 16:19 UTC] No.45782893[source]▶
Most of Federal law enforcement except for those that patrol certain, usually sharply defined (but see border patrol for a big exception) areas historically has been in one of two modes interacting: either gathering information (this includes serving a search warrant), or arresting based on an existing arrest warrant, usually from a felony indictment. In the former case, something really out of ordinary has to happen to turn it into an arrest in that interaction (though that doesn't mean you wont be indicted and arrested based on it) and in the latter nothing is likely to deter arrest.

Border patrol specifically is wildly different, looking for people who are suspected of being subject to their jurisdiction without a specific indictment, detaining with in practice, if not in law, a much lower standard of suspicion than applies usually, and then generally having those detained subject to process that is almost entirely within executive branch “courts” with consequences as severe as criminal process but much lower protections than criminal process (where literal toddlers defend themselves in “court" against government lawyers.)

The current “immigration” crackdown, while ICE (which historically has worked more like a regular federal law enforcement agency despite its detainees often flowing into the executive immigration system and not the criminal justice system) has been the public face of it is effectively applying the Border Patrol culture/approach far more broadly (which is also why, in frustration with the “inadequate” results so far ICE middle leadership is being purged and replaced with Border Patrol personnel.)

replies(1): >>45783065 #
potato3732842 ◴[01 Nov 25 16:38 UTC] No.45783065[source]▶
I agree with all that generally.

There's real serious questions about what rights people have when being accused of non-criminal infractions and to what degree the punishments can overlap that people ought to be asking here.

But nobody on HN wants to ask these questions because all the things HN wants strictly regulated are done so using the same legal theories and doctrines and precedents.

replies(1): >>45783834 #
lukan ◴[01 Nov 25 18:03 UTC] No.45783834[source]▶
Are you aware that HN is not of a single mind?
replies(2): >>45784994 #>>45785771 #
joquarky ◴[01 Nov 25 21:55 UTC] No.45785771{3}[source]▶
I'm almost 50 and I've seen this pattern many times now.

Once the fallacy of composition starts becoming common in a forum, it is the beginning of the end for good discourse.

replies(1): >>45786115 #
1. potato3732842 ◴[01 Nov 25 22:43 UTC] No.45786115{4}[source]▶
Oh really?

I dare you to say with a straight face that opinions questioning the legal doctrine or legitimacy of civil regulation are anything other than an occasional rounding errors when the subject is any sort of regulation that people here generally likes.

It is not at all a stretch to say this HN believes strongly that administrative/civil law as it mostly currently stands is highly legitimate.

Of course, backpedaling and hair splitting ensues and the "doesn't represent us all" excuse flies when someone points out that those legal doctrines and, precedents are also empowering ICE. At some point you're responsible for who you associate with.

replies(2): >>45786356 #>>45786450 #
2. lukan ◴[01 Nov 25 23:13 UTC] No.45786356[source]▶
Have you ever read the guidelines around here?
replies(1): >>45786871 #
3. joquarky ◴[01 Nov 25 23:28 UTC] No.45786450[source]▶
Here's some wisdom for you:

"The world is what you make of it" can be interpreted multiple ways.

4. potato3732842 ◴[02 Nov 25 00:37 UTC] No.45786871[source]▶
Yes, I have. So you're conceding my point then? Because why else would you drag the conversation towards "you're making your point with poor manners"?
replies(1): >>45788353 #
5. lukan ◴[02 Nov 25 06:58 UTC] No.45788353{3}[source]▶
In the guidelines there is an emphasis on curious debate. Also about political things, but those tend to be more controversial, so are avoided by default.

Do you understand that point? Political debate is discouraged here by design.

So the reason you won't find so much about this concrete ICE issue is simply that this type of debate is not welcome in general and does not say anything about "HN" communities position.

Second thing is, there is no such thing as "HN mind".

You can extrapolate some averages, but .. I for example ain't even from the US.

"opinions questioning the legal doctrine or legitimacy of civil regulation are anything other than an occasional rounding errors when the subject is any sort of regulation"

And from radical anarcho anarchists to radical communists, I have read all sorts of opinions here.

Lastly, the guidelines strongly advice against debating in a "engaged mind". Meaning, you sound a bit emotional and aggressive. I perceive that as attacking .. and my default mode would answer in a different way and we would be in a flamewar situation. (Despite we likely agree on the political side of things here)