Agenda Behind the Facial Recognition Tech Used by ICE and the FBI Revealed
motherjones.com
motherjones.com
Like most minds, the HN hive mind prefers to deny and suppress in response to various forms of cognitive dissonance, such as that which arises when one’s actions (or inaction) contradict one’s stated beliefs or morals.
HN also isn’t one for conscious introspection (ie meta commentary). Your comment and my response are generally no-nos.
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.
I imagine you won’t admit you have no evidence based in reality.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4637548-democrats-split-...
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.
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'.
Please tell me how many police officer did the BLM protesters killed per day, just to confirm how violent they were.
How many arsonists were among the j6 folks?
[1] https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/how-many-died-as-a-result-...
And after they broke in, for this first time in history the traitorous, racist, loser Confederate flag was flown inside out capital building.
Perhaps you can argue that Trumps ideas are worse, but that never creates a smart argument.
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.
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.
Except they're cheaper to run and don't physically risk a pilot.
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.
Because they'd more than likely target those same individuals with less precise weapons if not for the given alternative.
I don't think this is a fruitful debate but I doubt risk & cost are as much a determining factor as you'd like.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's this aspect that is being challenged, not the emotional reaction.
> Something being shocking is not the same as something being unforeseeable.
That is true only for one definition/common use of the word.
Clearview had compiled a massive biometric database that would eventually contain billions of images the company scraped off the internet and social media without the knowledge of the platforms or their users. Its AI analyzed these images, creating a “faceprint” for every individual. The company let users run a “probe photo” against its database, and if it generated a hit, it displayed the matching images and links to the websites where they originated. This made it easy for Clearview users to further profile their targets with other information found on those webpages: religious or political affiliation, family and friends, romantic partners, sexuality. All without a search warrant or probable cause.
A diehard Donald Trump supporter, Ton-That... Here, Ton-That appeared to conflate support for the Republican leader with American identity, proposing to scan migrants’ social media for “posts saying ‘I hate Trump’ or ‘Trump is a puta’” and targeting anyone with an “affinity for far-left groups.”
By the end of Trump’s first presidential term, Clearview had secured funding from right-wing billionaire Peter Thiel, one of Elon Musk’s earliest business partners, and signed up hundreds of law enforcement clients around the country. The company doled out free trials to hook users, urging cops to “run wild” with searches. They did. Many departments then bought licenses to access Clearview’s faceprint database.
A reversal is possible.