When China did this, this was seen as a terrible violation of rights....
Now that we do this hundreds of times a day, it has become routine.
Now that we do this hundreds of times a day, it has become routine.
The notion that future administrations won't be offshots of the current regime (again, why do you think laws regarding democracy, like fair elections, will be upheld?) is also too hopeful.
Happy new year!
(IAAL but this is not my primary field of expertise, and this is not legal advice.)
And the latest admin is only a string in the ever increasing use of such tech.
It should be illegal, but people are deluded if they think it started here.
I don't know if it's likely a court will do anything about this particular program, but from what I've read I don't think 4th amendment scholars think this area is at all settled.
More importantly, though, the cases so far have focused on the investigative activity that follows once a suspect has been identified. Here, we’re talking about de-anonymization: identifying one or more individuals who occupy a public space. AFAIK, the Court has never established a reasonable expectation of privacy of one’s identity in public. That will be a steep hill to climb.
Using facial recognition on people without their consent is illegal in a growing number of states.
Facebook lost a class-action lawsuit about this and I (and many other people) got a check for a little under $500.
> The settlement, announced Tuesday, does not act as an admission of guilt and Meta maintains no wrongdoing.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/07/30/texas-meta-facebook-...
While you are correct that some states do regulate facial recognition, all they can do is regulate their own law enforcement and private entities doing business there. They cannot regulate the federal government (ICE and CBP are federal agencies).
So a system that supports the abduction of polital rivals (an actual human rights violation) is not the same as a system that supports the lawful arrest of someone breaking a law that's accepted as part of a democracy.
I also think the scale of investment plays a part, the investment in surveillance in China is absurd. Its a significant number of people (per capita) that do nothing but monitor people. These new systems are rather cheap; so much so that they feel a whole lot more inevitable.
This should be challenged in a court.
I think it's cruel and inhuman to deport people already here unless they're engaged in criminal activities. Most of them are hard working people who gave up everything to flee bad circumstances in their home countries. We're a nation of immigrants.
You want the border secure, fine (I would prefer immigration reform since we have a large country and tons of economic opportunity migrants fulfill). But don't be so cruel as to support what ICE is doing to hard working people who have established lives here. Most of them are not criminals.
Agreed on the reform, we are in a pendulum stage now where the previous admin let too many in without reform (The first 3 years) and how it's gone too far the other way.
Asylum seekers are being abducted and deported to countries they have no ties to. It's perfectly legal to cross borders without inspection to seek asylum.
And no, the vast majority are not overstays. Less than half are overstays that came here legally [0]. So 58% crossed the border illegally.
Asylum seekers have been coached on what to say to claim asylum. Few are seeking asylum at all. The system is obviously being abused when these people vacation back to their home country that was so "dangerous" they claimed asylum.
Why didn't the previous administrations change it? Perhaps next time they will?
I think it's cruel and inhumane to let millions unvetted into our neighborhoods, schools, and communities.
It means less jobs for American young people. It means loss of culture and shared spaces. It means your kids can't play with their neighbors because they don't speak the same language.
It's weakness and we need to stop rationalizing it.
Would you want these people as your neighbor? Not speaking English? How about your whole town?
It's cruel. The modern left does not care about Americans, only the foreigners who can't build a safe and prosperous country of their own.
I’m not sure it is though, there are plenty of headlines about judicial orders being disregarded. This last few weeks it has been the required release of the Epstein papers, though that has been railroaded by a conveniently timed attack on a neighbour.
There are plenty of other examples.
What is our legal or moral obligation to eviscerate our already-limited social safety net for outsiders who, by and large, do not contribute to them?
You are free to die on the cross and spend your income this way, but how is it "humane" to use violence (taxes) to reappropriate the fruits of my labor for your special interests?
When an illegal immigrant making $2/hr under the table cuts his hand off at a meat packing plant, who pays the hospital bill? How many tax dollars does this one incident wipe out?
A universal healthcare system would cover everyone in the country when it's needed. The US is a massive, highly developed economy, no reason we couldn't fund that.
That is not the system that the US has had since 2025, and the executive has made it very clear that it is not the system that it wants the US to have.
Meanwhile, SCOTUS has made it very clear that nothing this executive does will have any consequences for it.
Rule of law is a fairy tale when ICE can snag anyone they want off the street and throw them into some CECOT torture pit.
Rule of law is a fairy tale when the executive disregards direct judicial orders.
Couldn’t have timed it better, we just pulled off the most high profile abduction of a geopolitical rival in history.
We literally did the same thing in 1989 [1]. Russia planned to do it to Zelensky when they first invaded.
None of this makes it okay. But it's hyperbolic to say it's unprecedented, even in U.S. history.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...
>You're thinking Chinese surveillance
>US-based surveillance helps victims and prevents more victims
https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955
American capitalists are ideologically driven hypocrites.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" [1].
Beijing showed the way. We followed their path. Both are at fault.
[1] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
lol, just like China invented social credit scores which are for social control and definitely not like US credit scores which are just good business sense
Edit: to be clear I am saying this from a US centric viewpoint. China is catching up but they’ve been behind us for over a century tech wise and the US has been really good at pioneering new forms of injustice. I’m laughing at the idea that we were trailing behind them on learning new for handling their population
…yes. You don’t get your credit score dinged because you tweeted something naughty. You can be a felon with perfect credit.
Your credit score can be checked in multiple other situations that have nothing to do with you taking on debt, but still somehow your debt factors into the decision.
If you think there is no social control as part of this system, then you are just blind to the system you grew up in
Sure. They’re evaluating your creditworthiness. What they’re not measuring is your political coherence or social “goodness.”
The closest thing we have to a social score is a criminal record.
Does the US system that gets used to influence your behavior also social control? yes
I could really say the same to you. Emphasizing original sources, not summaries.
> In effect, it does little more than the US credit scores that inspired it
“Little more” does a lot of heavy lifting here.
The nuclear bomb was inspired by the explosive power of TNT.
It is infuriating to see my fellow countrymen criticize another system so heavily, when we are living under a largely similar system.
Especially after finding out that the current credit score system was only adopted in 1989, so it’s just another yoke millennials and younger have to live with, that our forefathers got to start their adult life without having to deal with
In China government is controlled by chosen members of the ruling party who become wealthy through it;
In the US the government is controlled by billionaires who become powerful through it.
Neither is a "government by the people" nor a "democratic people's republic" and both are enacting more and more similar policies.
Normally questions like this would be labeled as whataboutism, false equivalence etc. One rule for thee, another one for me.
Personally I think we (The West) are heading to disaster. I really missed older times before 9/11
whataboutism
Regardless, it's quite relevant to point out that at this point two of the world's superpowers are actively engaging in this. Claiming that the technology won't be used this way - that people are just fearmongering - clearly doesn't hold water. (Not that it ever did, but now we've got concrete evidence.)
It is not, I said it is usually labeled as one here