Any time I see people say "I don't see why I should care about my privacy, I've got nothing to hide" I think about how badly things can go if the wrong people end up in positions of power.
The classic example here is what happens when someone is being stalked by an abusive ex-partner who works in law enforcement and has access to those databases.
This ICE stuff is that scaled up to a multi-billion dollar federal agency with, apparently, no accountability for following the law at all.
It reminds me of when Eric Schmidt, then CEO of google, tried that argument about people's worry of google collecting so much personal data. Some media outlet then published a bunch of personal information about Schmidt they had gathered using only google searches, including where he lives, his salary, his political donations, and where his kids went to school. Schmidt was not amused.
That questionable-sounding stunt by the media outlet wasn't comparable: Google/Alphabet knows much more about individuals than addresses, salary, and political donations.
Google/Alphabet knows quite a lot about your sentiments, what information you've seen, your relationships, who can get to you, who you can get to, your hopes and fears, your economic situation, your health conditions, assorted kompromat, your movements, etc.
Schmidt is actually from OG Internet circles where many people were aware of privacy issues, and who were vigilant against incursions.
But perhaps he had a different philosophical position. Or perhaps it was his job to downplay the risks. Or perhaps he was going to have enough money and power that he wasn't personally threatened by private info that would threaten the less-wealthy.
We might learn this year, how well Google/Alphabet protects this treasure trove of surveillance state data, when that matters most.
Eric had also once said in a CNBC interview "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Back in the day, Google eng had pretty unguarded access to people's gmails, calendars, etc. Then there was a news story involving a Google SRE grooming children and stalking them through their google accounts...
Thiel lost his shit because Gawker mentioned he was gay in an article on their site. Something _everybody_ in Silicon Valley already knew. Then he goes and forms what essentially amounts to a private CIA.
How about Musk? He felt he had a right to hoover up data about people from every government agency, but throws a massive temper-tantrum when people publish where his private jet is flying using publicly available data.
How about Mark Zuckerberg? So private he buys up all the properties around him and has his private goon squad stopping people on public property who live in the neighborhood, haranguing them just for walking past or near the property.
These people are all supremely hypocritical when it comes to privacy.
And this is what every hacker on the planet should be doing: exposing all of the secrets of the rich parasites. Leave them no quarter, no place too hide.
> This ICE stuff is that scaled up to a multi-billion dollar federal agency with, apparently, no accountability for following the law at all.
Apparently any time they do anything horrifying, they will just declare that victim as a "terrorist" or something, and their sycophantic supporters will happily agree.
What I find amusing is that when the Snowden leaks happened and I would discuss it, when I said something like "let's pretend for a moment that we can't trust every single person in the government" I would usually get an agreeable laugh.
But using these same arguments with ICE + Palantir, these same people will say something like "ICE IS ONLY DEPORTING THE CRIMINALS YOU JUST WANT OPEN BORDERS!!!". People's hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Yes, exactly. But, I’ll admit it took me until the republican primary before the 2016 election for this to register in my mind. I was born in the US in the 80s & fell into the “what you see is all there is” bias (and hadn’t read enough history before then either).
Another opinion that I’m sure will get me downvoted is that this is the primary reason I support gun ownership by private citizens. I think having a chance at stopping mass government slaughter like in Iran and Syria is overall better than the downside.
Bottom line is that human nature has not changed. Some of us westerners take comfortable lives for granted because we’ve been lucky.
It's not even that big of a leap. We've seen a off-duty ICE agent drunk driving his child, getting stopped by the cops, implied threats to one of the officers for being black with payback, spent the whole time saying "come on man" using his position as a federal officer as a way to get out of trouble, and ends to the point that I wanted to make, complained about his and I quote "bitch ex-wife" for divorcing him.
What is stopping this lowlife from going after his ex-wife, or one of those cops by using databases that they have access to? We know from journalists going through the process that there's no curation or training involved to join ICE specifically.
But this goes beyond them. We know that cops can be corrupt to, we know politicians can be corrupt to, what is stopping any of these people from using private data to not only go after their spouses, but also business rivals, and people who slight them?
Also always keep in mind that what is legal today might be illegal tomorrow. This includes things like your ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and much more.
You don't know today on which side of legality you will be in 10 years, even if your intentions are harmless.
The reaction from the masses: "But that isn't true today, anything could happen in the future, and why should I invest so much work on something that's only a possibility?"
They want to declare "Antifa" a terrorist organization. So anyone that is against fascism (ANTI-FAscist) will be labeled a terrorist. Let that sink in for a moment.
The thing also is, it doesn't matter what the truth is. If the computer says you did a thing, the thugs (ICE) will do what they want.
Here is someone out for a walk, ICE demanding ID, that she answer questions. She says she's a US citizen ... they keep asking her questions and one of the ICE people seem to be using a phone to scan her face:
What she says, the truth, none of it would matter if his phone said to bring her in. And after the fact? The folks supporting ICE have made it clear they've no problem with lying in the face of the obvious.
I think the "nothing to hide" argument is made for a different reason.
People are unafraid of the government knowing certain things because they believe it will not have any real repercussions for them. The NSA knowing your search history is no big deal (as long as you're not looking for anything illegal), but your church knowing your search history would absolutely be a big deal.
Do any of these actually prompt someone to reconsider their position? They strike me as more of argument through being annoying than a good-faith attempt to connect with the other side.
Which are quippy and dismissed because they fundamentally misunderstand privacy. There is such a concept as "privacy in a crowd" - you expect, and experience it, every day. You generally expect to be able to have a conversation in say, a coffee-shop, and not have it intruded upon and commented upon by other people in the shop. Snippets of it may be overheard, but they will be largely ignored even if we're all completely aware of snippets of other conversations we have heard, and bits and pieces have probably been recorded on peoples phones or vlogs or whatever.
That's privacy in a crowd and even if they couldn't describe it, people do recognize it.
What you are proposing in every single one of these, is violating that in an overt and disruptive way - i.e.
> "Let's send your mom all your text messages."
Do I have anything in particular to hide in my text messages, of truly disastrous proportions? No. But would it feel intrusive for a known person who I have to interact with to get to scrutinize and comment on all those interactions? Yes. In much the same way that if someone on the table over starts commenting on my conversation in a coffee-shop, I'd suddenly not much want to have one there.
Which is very, very different from any notion of some amorphous entity somewhere having my data, or even it being looked at by a specific person I don't know, won't interact with, and will never be aware personally exists. Far less so if the only viewers are algorithms aggregating statistics.
I'm pro-privacy and I still think these retorts just make it sound like you've put zero effort into understanding what the "nothing to hide" people are trying to articulate.
E.g. "Can we put a camera in your bathroom?"
Very few people are arguing that nudity or bathroom use shouldn't be private, and they are not going to understand what this has to do with their argument that the NSA should be allowed to see Google searches to fight terrorism or whatever.
Privacy arguments are about who should have access to what information. For example, I'm fine with Google seeing my Google searches, but not the government monitoring them.
> The classic example here is what happens when someone is being stalked by an abusive ex-partner who works in law enforcement and has access to those databases.
Which has literally happened already for anyone who thinks “there’s controls in place for that sort of thing”. That’s with (generally) good faith actors in power. What do you think can and will happen when people who think democracy and the constitution are unnecessary end up in control…
It doesn't even need malicious intent. If nobody rational is monitoring it, all it will take is a bad datapoint or hallucination for your door to get kicked in by mistake.
The same people saying that will also defend police wearing masks, hiding badges, and shutting off body cameras. They are not participating in discussions with the same values (truth, integrity) that you have. Logic does not work on people who believe Calvinistic predestination is the right model for society.
Police absolutely should have body cameras - quite frequently they’ve proven law enforcement officers handled things correctly where activists have tried to say otherwise.
The true problem is that it happens no matter who is in charge. It's like that old phrase about weapons that are invented are going to be used at some point. The same thing has turned out to be true for intelligence tools. And the worst part is that the tools have become so capable, that malicious intent isn't even required anymore for privacy to be infringed.
From everything we are seeing, the tools are not actually that capable. Their main function is not their stated function of spying/knowing a lot about people. Their main function is to dehumanize people.
When you use a computer to tell you who to target, it makes it easy for your brain to never consider that person as a human being at all. They are a target. An object.
Their stated capabilities are lies, marketing, and a smokescreen for their true purpose.
This is Lavender v2, and I’m sure others could name additional predecessors. Systems rife with errors but the validity isn’t the point; the system is.
The nazi's were easily able to find jews in the Netherlands because of thorough census data. Collection of that data was considered harmless when they did it. But look at what kind of damage that kind of information can do.
This is the moment for Europe to show that you can do gov and business differently. If they get their s** together and actually present a viable alternative.
The simple response to that line of thinking is: "you don't choose what the government uses against you"
For any piece of data that exists, the government effectively has access to it through court orders or backdoors. Either way, it can and will be used against you.
For me, the angle is a bit different. I want privacy, but I also sense that the people who are really good at this (like Plantir) have so much proxy information available that individual steps to protect privacy are pretty much worthless.
To me, this is a problem that can only be solved at the government/regulatory level.
In principle, I agree with your point; in practice, I think the claims made my these surveillance/advertising companies are likely as overstated as Musk's last decade of self-driving that still can't take a vehicle all the way across the USA without supervision in response to a phone summons.
The evidence I have that causes me to believe them to be overstated, is how even Facebook has frequently shown me ads that inherently make errors about my gender, nationality, the country I live in, and the languages I speak, and those are things they should've been able to figure out with my name, GeoIP, and the occasional message I write.
> The classic example here is what happens when someone is being stalked by an abusive ex-partner who works in law enforcement and has access to those databases.
There’s a world of difference between a government using legally collected data for multiple purposes and an individual abusing their position purely for personal reasons.
The parent's example is of an individual using that "legal" state collected data for nefarious purposes. Once it's collected, anyone who accesses it is a threat vector. Also, governments (including/especially the US) have historically killed, imprisoned and tortured millions and millions of people. There's nothing to be gained by an individual for allowing government access to their data.
There is 0 difference. None. There's not even a line to cross.
> legally collected data
In both cases, the information is legally collected (or at least, that's the only data we're concerned about in this conversation).
- government using
- individual abusing
^ Both of those are someone in the government using the information. In both cases, someone in the government can use the information in a way that causes an individual great harm; and isn't in the "understood" way the information would be used when it was "pitched" to the public. And in both cases, the person doing it will do what they want an almost certainly face no repercussions if what they're doing is morally, or even legally, wrong.
The government is collecting data (or paying someone else to collect that data, so it's not covered by the rules) and can then use it to cause individuals great harm. That's it, the entire description. The fact that _sometimes_ it's one cop using it to stalk someone or not is irrelevant.
& effectively if there is no checks on this is there actually a difference? There only difference is that the threat is to an entire cohort rather than an individual.
The whole social battle is a constant attempt to align our laws and values as a society. It's why we create new laws. It's why we overturn old laws. You can't just abdicate your morals and let the law decide for you. That's not a system of democracy, that's a system of tyranny.
The privacy focused crowd often mentions "turnkey tyranny" as a major motivation. A tyrant who comes to power and changes the laws. A tyrant who comes to power and uses the existing tooling beyond what that tooling was ever intended for.
The law isn't what makes something right or wrong. I can't tell you what is, you'll have to use your brain and heart to figure that one out.
Musk and his flying monkeys came in with hard drives and sucked up all the data from all the agencies they had access to and installed software of some kind, likely containing backdoors. Even though each agency had remit for the data it maintained, they had been intentionally firewalled to prevent exactly what Palantir is doing.
There is also a world of difference between a government using data to carry out its various roles in service of the nation and a government using data to terrorize communities for the sadistic whims of its leadership.
Think I'm being hyperbolic? In Trump's first term fewer than 1M were deported. In Obama's eight years as president, 3.1M people were deported without the "techniques" we are witnessing.
Even if you trust the intentions of whoever you're giving your data to, you may not trust their ability to keep it safe from data breaches. Those happen all the time.
The source of the problem is the respect of the rule of law and due process
Data collection is not the source of the problem because people give their data willingly
Do you think data collection is a problem in China, or do you think the government and rule of law is the problem?
Companies collecting data is not the true problem. Even when data collection is illegal, a corrupt government that doesn't respect the rule of law doesn't need data collection.
yeah, this is exactly it. all the arguments kind of boil down to
"well how about if the government does illegal or evil stuff?"
its very similar to arguments about the second ammendment. But laws and rules shouldnt be structured around expecting a future moment where the government isnt serving the people. At that moment the rules already dont matter
I do not think this is really about privacy as much as it is about our broken immigration system. Let’s look at a simple case where both Democrats and Republicans largely agree.
On January 6, 2026, all South Sudanese nationals lost their TPS status and ordered to leave the US. At this point, they are all effectively declared illegal. I have not seen a single Democrat seriously argue that something should be done about this.
So what do we think people from South Sudan will actually do? Pack their bags and return to South Sudan?
My point is that a system where someone is admitted to the US completely legally, lives here for years, and is then suddenly reclassified as “illegal” is fundamentally broken.
Undocumented immigrants often have legally-resident and/or citizen family members who are eligible for Medicaid.
But yes, it's disgusting that ICE has access to that data via Palantir, or that this data is being used for anything other than administering Medicaid.
This is the same thing I thought when liberal-minded folk talked about giving the Federal government more power over States in order to enact some good work, or to achieve some policy win. Yes, for now, I thought, but you can't assume a good natured centralized power will persist, and when it doesn't, what is your alternative? I have watched as liberal minded folks rediscover the value of State Sovereignty and power in the face of an autocratic Federal executive, bearing arms when the an autocrat sends masked agents to terrorize your city. Lean into it, I say. Winner take all Federal system means no alternative but to win at all costs, rather than live and let live. We need more, smaller, States. We need more Representatives than 1 per 700,000 citizens...by 10x
> This ICE stuff is that scaled up to a multi-billion dollar federal agency with, apparently, no accountability for following the law at all.
It should be mentioned that "illegal" is a definitive word. There are definitely people not willing to follow the law, including political entities which are dependent on it. The moniker of privacy in this respect is a shield for illegality, because there is no reason that Medicaid data regarding SSNs should be shielded from the federal government.
To take this to its logical conclusion, Americans must concede that EU/UK systems of identity and social services are inherently immoral.
I have a hard time parsing your first paragraph, but there is no reason at all for any part of the US government that isn't CMMS to have any access to Medicaid data, writ large, at all. And even CMMS should only see de-identified data. It's absolutely absurd to think that law enforcement has any reason to see anything in any MC database.
One interesting point about the volume of data that might be available about any individual is that law enforcement will only look for data points that suit their agenda.
They won't be searching for counter evidence. It won't even cross their minds to do so.
You're on record saying one thing one time that was vanilla at the time but is now ultra spicy (possibly even because the definition of words can change and context is likely lost) then you'll be a result in their search and you'll go on their list.
(This is based on my anecdotal experience of having my house raided and the police didn't even know to expect there to be children in the house; children who were both over ten years old and going to school and therefore easily searchable in their systems; we hadn't moved house since 15 years prior, so there was no question of mixing up an identity. The police requested a warrant, and a fucking judge even signed it, based on a single data point: an IP address given to them by a third party internet monitoring company.)
Keep your shit locked down, law enforcement are just as bad at their jobs as any other Joe Clockwatcher. In fact they're often worse because their incentive structure leans heavily towards successful prosecution.
> The classic example here is what happens when someone is being stalked by an abusive ex-partner who works in law enforcement and has access to those databases.
Or if you're currently married to an abusive partner and want to leave: how can you make a clean break with all the tracking nowadays? (And given how 'uncivilized' these guys act in public (masked, semi-anonymous), I'd had to see what they do behind closed doors.)
> The classic example here is what happens when someone is being stalked by an abusive ex-partner who works in law enforcement and has access to those databases.
I'd say the classic example is when a small german man with a mustache starts looking in religious registries to find the address of certain types of people
It’s usually not a great example because it’s basically the one thing that is “never going to happen here”. Normally the one about abusive law enforcement offices stalking ex-partners (or helping their buddies stalk their ex-partners) is better because it happens fairly regularly.
We really are in unprecedented times when it’s looking like the big one could happen in the United States though…
I never really understood that angle - do you think the Germans would have thrown their hands up and not killed anyone because they lacked accurate data on who was Jewish?
And (with a heavy dose of purposeful suspension of disbelief), if ICE does deport those people they've determined are "illegal", does anyone believe that the agency will scale down and stop? There will be new "enemies of the state"
They won't run out of people to deport, because all those jobs (and occasionally, benefits) the illegals profit from will still exist. If you remove the people but not the incentive you just get new and different people.
This is by design to make sure ICE and CBP jobs program for psychopaths always exists. Did you think they were actually going to put themselves out of the job by going for the roots?
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say"
~ Edward Snowden
Are you saying that, because there is one way in which people are vulnerable, that it doesn't matter if we add more ways they are vulnerable? Because that makes no sense whatsoever.
I don’t agree. I’m fine ICE can see my data, as long as there are process enforced to track those usage and I have a right to fight back for their misuse.
Problem today is ICE has no accountability of misuse data/violence, not they have means to data/violence.
> I’m fine ICE can see my data, as long as there are process enforced to track those usage and I have a right to fight back for their misuse
I agree with this in theory, but its a fantasy to think they have this restriction at this point. ICE seems to be taking all comers, the lowest of the low, the vilest of the vile, giving them "47 days of training," and sending them off armed into the populace. I have seen no evidence they believe they have any restriction on anything. It's basically DOGE but with guns instead of keyboards.
I'd rather ICE (or whatever government agency) not see my data... because, even if there are processes that are enforced, there might not be tomorrow. If that data isn't collected in the first place, that threat vector disappears.
The business is equally blamed. But ever aince Uber showed up and violated laws in all jurisdictions, we always focus on the cops and not the criminals.
The "they look like us" fallacy is so deep in this.
ICE and DHS already were bloated and somehow grew from not existing 25 years ago to a $100 billion budget. Then the big Trump spending bill added another $200 billion to their budget. And there’s no accountability for who gets that money - it’s all friends and donors and members of the Trump family.
They have money for this grift of epic scale but complain about some tiny alleged Somalian fraud to distract the gullible MAGA base. And of course there is somehow not enough money for things people actually need like healthcare.
But there are people trying to hide their locations even though they are here legally; because ICE has made it very clear they don't care if you're here legally or not. They arrest and deport US citizens. They arrest and deport people that show up to court to become US citizens.
It's clear the government cannot be trusted to use information in a reasonable way; so we should not allow them to get that information.
I'm very sorry but even criminals have access to our constitutional rights.
"Hey I know that guy is a criminal" does not give people the right to search their property without a warrant. Too bad if that makes law enforcement more difficult.
Rank dishonesty. I'm hiding my location because I don't want you to have it when it's inevitably hacked. Friends are hiding it because they have Antifa-friendly posts on their social media. Etc.
"Everyone who does a thing I don't like is a criminal" is obviously and intentionally fallacious bullshit.
More immigration has drastically improved this country. I don't understand your position at all. ICE is far worse for our culture than then people providing me an actual livable diet.
FWIW, people here illegally are already not eligible for Medicaid, [0] so it's hard to see why ICE having access to a roster of Medicaid enrollees would help them with their stated mission of enforcing removal orders.
Then again, we have ICE shooting American citizens in the streets, so I guess the law is whatever they decide it is, not least because our legislative branch is uninterested in laws.
> FWIW, people here illegally are already not eligible for Medicaid, [0] so it's hard to see why ICE having access to a roster of Medicaid enrollees would help them with their stated mission of enforcing removal orders.
Presumably, it's because a lot of them are getting Medicaid despite not being eligible to. Isn't the point of every audit, investigation, etc. to find things that aren't being done correctly?
> Presumably, it's because a lot of them are getting Medicaid despite not being eligible to
How would this even work? You can’t just start billing things to Medicaid if you’re ineligible for it. That would be like you deciding to bill United Healthcare for something despite not being a customer. How is this hypothetical fraud supposed to work? What am I missing?
> Isn't the point of every audit, investigation, etc. to find things that aren't being done correctly?
ICE isn’t auditing Medicaid. They’re trying to use records to find people to detain and deport which is an orthogonal dataset.
The only plausible explanation is that they’re using medical records as an additional source of data on people who live in houses that they’re raiding or looking at.
Which is insane. Imagine police rolling up to your front door on suspicion of something and loading up a system which has your medical records.
> Presumably, it's because a lot of them are getting Medicaid despite not being eligible to
Why are you presuming this? There is no evidence this is happening in any widespread fashion.
> Isn't the point of every audit, investigation, etc. to find things that aren't being done correctly?
If it is being honest about it's intention, yes. I think we have seen an absolute mountain of evidence that this administration does "audits" as massive data collection waves to suit any and every purpose they want, though.
If this was about fixing things being done incorrectly, DHHS should be doing the audit, not DHS. Perhaps the latter doesn't understand the difference between the two, though, not noticing they're missing an H in their abbreviation.
bear in mind that ICE are forcibly deporting people in the process of applying for green cards whose lawyers have assured them that a lapsed VISA isn't an issue (it never used to be) as they have married an American citizen and maybe even have children with them.
A robotics engineer from Germany was forcibly deported a few months back because ICE were waiting for him at the immigration office when he went to visit to further the application.
Literally would not matter if he were violent prior to being shot. By the time that they shot him, he was face down on the floor and disarmed. That’s illegal in basically any context. It’s an execution.
And yet we do nothing to punish the actual criminals, the employees who knowingly higher then abuse them. Why don't we deport Trump, Trump tower wouldn't even be around without polish workers who were here illegally
Why would Medicaid have the data of anyone who is at risk of immigration enforcement? The reported connection seems tenuous:
> The tool – dubbed Enhanced Leads Identification & Targeting for Enforcement (ELITE) – receives peoples’ addresses from the Department of Health and Human Services (which includes Medicaid) and other sources, 404 Media reports based on court testimony in Oregon by law enforcement agents, among other sources.
So, they have a tool that sucks up data from a bunch of different sources, including Medicaid. But there's no actual nexus between Medicaid and illegal immigrants in this reporting.
My wife works in autism services in a predominantly Latino city. Those kids all have Medicaid, which includes info about their parents. It would be pretty trivial to cross reference with other data points to identify kids with undocumented parents and then you have their home address. Many of these kids go to a clinic everyday, so now you know when someone (likely a parent) is dropping them off too. She’s had patients with parents who have been picked up by ICE. I wouldn’t be surprised if that data came from Medicaid. It’s basically the same as the IRS data they’ve been using.
And it is next to impossible for average people to get adequate care for their kids with autism without Medicaid and early intervention can make the difference between someone who can live relatively independently with supports and someone who will spend their adult life chemically restrained in an institution. So they are in between a rock and a hard place.
Pam Bondi is now demanding voter rolls. It's clearly about suppressing liberal voters in liberal areas through a show of force. They're using this data to optimize who to harass.
If citizenship is required to vote then how would accessing voter rolls suppress liberal voters? Honest question; I'm not concern trolling. I had to Google who's allowed to vote.
I found this article[1] by the Brennan Center. It alleges this is an attempted federal takeover of elections but it doesn't suggest or allude to voter suppression. I'm not convinced by the article that having access to voter rolls can be considered a federal takeover of election administration (but I'm not in the know and would need things explained more verbosely).
If you have more information about the attempted centralization of election administration and its impacts on voter suppression I would be interested to know more.
If you think making sure only citizens can vote equals "suppressing liberal voters", that sound like a big self report. The voter lists don't tell you how people voted, it only tells you who did.
Medicaid-receiving immigrants could have their immigration status change, legal violations, emergency medicaid use, sometimes there's state funded coverage that immigrants are offered, etc. There's lots of reasons where Medicaid will have information on immigrants.
That doesnt mean they are illegal right off the bat - there is no reasonable way to filter out the "illegal" members of the roles and essentially making it so the DOJ has a list of people who they can cross reference with expiring status and the moment the clock strikes midnight and their status changes they can get picked up. They should not have all those records for fishing expedititions.
They hold both that people whose citizenship depends on birthright citizenship are not in fact citizens and that naturalized citizens can be denaturalized either for disloyalty or based on some sham pretext. They also see people getting benefits as leaches worthy of targeting.
Also naturalized and birthright citizens are far more likely than others to associate or live with others of less legal status.
Naturalized and birthright citizens quality for benefits and they and their families are at risk.
If they are allowed to detain and deport without any due process as they have asserted anyone not white is at risk.
The DHS official social media presence shared a picture of an island paradise with the caption America after 100 million deportations.
This is the number of non-whites not the number of immigrants in even the most ridiculous estimates.
ICE has been harassing and following legal observers to their houses. They've shot and executed at least two people who were exercising their legal right to record their activity.
The FBI has been showing up at the door of some people who dare to organize protests against ICE.
Stingrays have been deployed to protests, ICE is collecting photos of protestors for their database, and has been querying YCombinator funded Flock to pull automated license plate camera data from around the country. Trump, Vance, Noem and Miller are calling anyone who protests them domestic terrorists.
It's pretty clear this isn't just about immigration, that this is about pooling data for a surveillance state that can quash the constitutional rights of anyone who dares to oppose the current regime. We've seen this story before.
When your whole system works by giving absolutely ridiculous amount of power to a single individual who has nobody above or at least on the side capable of interfering and changing things, this is what you eventually get. Crossing fingers and praying given person isn't a complete psycho or worse is not going to cut it forever, is it. Especially when >50% of population welcomes such person with open arms, knowing well who is coming.
Given what kind of garbage from human gene pool gets and thrives in high politics its more surprising the show lasted as long as it did.
Now the question shouldn't be 'how much outraged we should be' since we get this situation for a year at this point, but rather what to do next, how we can shape future to avoid this. If there will be the time for such correction, which is a huge IF.
> EFF claims that some states enroll illegal immigrants in Medicaid
Actually they don't. They say "Some states, using their own funds, allow enrollment by non-citizens" - but they never say if it's legal residents or illegal immigrants. I am not sure whether it's part of the ongoing attempt to blur the line between legal and illegal immigrants, or all the states that allow that genuinely do not distinguish between legal residents and illegal immigrants, but we can not assume it by default.
But I am not sure if the states use their own money for this - why would they send this information to HHS?
> Actually they don't. They say "Some states, using their own funds, allow enrollment by non-citizens" - but they never say if it's legal residents or illegal immigrants. I am not sure whether it's part of the ongoing attempt to blur the line between legal and illegal immigrants, or all the states that allow that genuinely do not distinguish between legal residents and illegal immigrants, but we can not assume it by default.
If a state bureaucracy doesn't explicitly check for legal immigration status then yes the policymakers in that state are trying to blur the line between legal and illegal immigration.
Palantir is interesting. Founded by a closeted German, run by an Israeli operative, and a 3rd arm of the federal gov. I wish we could prosecute it in my lifetime for the numerous violations of privacy it undertakes, but the world does not work that way. The rich enjoy private jets subsidized by our hard-earned taxes, while violating ideals held by our Founding fathers (for what would Thiel or the current CEO know about our morals, when they have none and are American by name only.. their loyalties lie elsewhere)
Palantir will never be prosecuted because they don't actually engage in any violations of privacy themselves or take possession of any data. They just sell software that enables it. And their main customer is the people who do the prosecuting. For the government prosecuting Palantir would be an admission of guilt, so it will never happen.
They most likely do engage. And they are not going to be prosecuted just because they are useful for government - and until this status quo persists, palantir can do whatever they like.
For the same reasons banks rarely get any sensible fines/lawsuits.
There are a whole raft of "ideals" the Founding fathers held that we've obviated, beginning with who got the franchise. I can confidently say that government being the payor for ~50% of all healthcare, and operating the databases necessary to monitor all the money and behavior, was certainly not among their "ideals" either.
This was predicted by many, long ago. The predictions were ignored because they were inconvenient to desires and ambitions. Yet here we are. One wonders if it were known at the time, before we constructed these schemes, that one day there would be fabulous machines that would wade through all the (predicted) streams of data, hunting people, if perhaps those predictions might have been heard.
The cynic in me says "no." At some point, as the streams of politics oscillate, they occasionally converge very strongly, and all doubts are overcome, and the ratchet makes another click.
But it's not all bad news. In the natural course of events there is a high probability that one day, you'll have such folk as you prefer back at the helm, and they'll have these tools at the ready. If you make the most of it, you'll never have to suffer the current crowd ever again!
Most of the founding fathers were slavers that wanted to keep their slaves while hating the vast majority of people. When they wrote the constitution they were only thinking of rich white landowners, 80% of the people posting in this thread would not have suffrage and couldn't legally participate in the government. Remember this next time you read words about the "rights of man" because it's not me or you.
The founding fathers would absolutely love the idea of Palantir and if you don't think so go look at who wrote the Fugitive Slave Act, who agreed with it, and who enforced it.
I mean the "tyranny of the majority?" What a crock of shit, they were the tyranny that enforced slavery for 80 years.
George Washington would have absolutely used this tech to try to steal back his "property" from free states (something he tried to do but regularly failed or didn't want to argue in the courts):
At least the billionaires also act indignant when you suggest that they weren't singularly responsible for literally every good thing that has ever happened.
tbh it's hard not to dunk on a gay christian fundamentalist and a coked up israeli boot licker POC teaming up together to deport people, so many layers of meta and jokes to be made
How would they target people using voter rolls? Is the concern that it includes party affiliation? Couldn't they just provide the rolls without party affiliation?
Honestly it seems crazy even state governments know party affiliation. I know it's so they know who can vote in primaries etc, but it seems like you should just be able to register to vote with your party directly.
It’s not gonna happen. The people who work at Palantir, if they’re not just there for the money, think they’re doing the right thing, they see themselves as keeping the country safe and improving government efficiency (and who could be against that?)
The “opposition” has never not funded ICE. Throwing out national level republicans is not enough, almost all national level democrats have to be thrown out too.
The current administration’s ICE chaos theater is clearly something very different than the past few administrations. Let’s not try to pretend this is normal, because it’s not. They’re doing a shock and awe campaign and maximum fear and news coverage are part of the new agenda.
These tools are there to make sure no such leader ever gets to power, and to ensure the death of the free state. Luckily there's a constitutional amendment (and therefore a constitutional duty upon true Patriots) that has a patch for such regressions.
Reality is that once the next group is in power they keep all the same infra in place so they themselves can use it oft expanding it further. Then when they are kicked out, the next one comes in and does the same.
I dont like any of it but patriot act, covid vaccine tracking, flock, etc are all arms of the same hydra. This is just one more expanding arm of power and control in a long history of gov attempts to control populations.
I'm afraid of the day strongmen come into power in my country and start targeting people on their social media history. I'm sure to end on _some sort_ of naughty list. You kind of get how people become depoliticized and apathetic when resistance has no apparent effect and speaking up only gets you in trouble. That's how civic societies atrophy and die.
Medicaide data is pretty much covered by HIPPA. So Evil. Also it seems like it is too late, even if a court says do not do it, they will anyway and get away with it since the supreme court rules the president is allowed to break the law.
HELP I AM SOOOO F**NG ANGRY. Sorry I just don't have anywhere to safely put this rage.
The fourth amendment is basically gone at this point. Private companies can harvest location data from phones or facial recognition cameras/license plate readers in public spaces and sell that to entities like Palantir that aggregate it for government use (or for other commercial use). No warrants required, very little oversight (especially in this admin).
Undocumented immigrants/illegal immigrants are not generally eligible for federally funded Medicaid coverage in the United States, as federal law restricts such benefits to U.S. citizens and certain qualified immigrants with lawful status.
They are eligible for Emergency Medicaid, which covers emergency medical needs like labor and delivery or life-threatening conditions; hospitals that accept federal dollars for medicare/medicaid are required under federal law (EMTALA) to provide stabilizing emergency care regardless of immigration status or ability to pay.
People keep forgetting that it's possible to legally migrate, work for awhile, and so on, and then "become illegal" due to deadlines or administration issues.
An example every tech worker should understand is H1-B, where as an added bonus your employer can make you illegal.
They're not just going after the so-called "illegal aliens", something made clear after the numerous extrajudicial killings by ICE officers recently, such as the one that occured yesterday.
Someone bought a Sig Sauer gun that’s known to go off when moved suddenly (you can find as many videos as you want on the issue) - grabbed an agent and resisted arrest. The gun went off during the arrest, officers thought the man was firing at them.
It’s tragic - the way to prevent this is to increase calm, give the federal officers some support, stop conspiracy theories (eg like the boy that abandoned by his father that people say was ‘arrested’ or your comment pretending it was a murder) and stop vigilante groups from causing chaos.
There's no reason to believe that ICE, DHS or any other agencies will use this data carefully, judiciously or in good faith. Instead, it's quite clear at this point that all they will do is abuse the power they do have, execute and antagonize anyone they disagree with and then lie despite ample evidence to the contrary.
I'd say Palantir should be ashamed for facilitating this, but their entire business model is built around helping the government build an ever more invasive police state.
The problem seems to be that half of America voted for this, twice, and will continue cheering this kind of outcome on, despite any amount of evidence it is harmful.
I’m also confused. I think the Medicaid data might just be one additional source they’ve added to a data lake style system, which they pull from for some reporting based on address?
So if ICE puts your address into their computer, they get to see something about the people inside. How much do they see? Do they get to see your medical conditions too? Could a creatively inclined person get an LLM to read medical data out of it? Who knows, there’s no transparency for this sharing.
They cannot receive from federally funded Medicaid but some states have programs or state-funded Medicaid programs that allow non-citizens to benefit. CA and NY do for some categories. See this example for WI: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/medicaid/noncitizens.htm
Imagine what they could do with mental health data if they ever decide to start deporting people with mental "problems", just like the Nazis did in their time. The same goes for people with physical disabilities.
It likely will. There’s major impact on literally everyone in tech, there’s huge data privacy concerns, and it has less coverage or discussion than a new version of jQuery. The US gov could fall but that would count as politics here so clearly irrelevant.
Tons of political posts are on the front page of Hacker News all the time. The ones I actually see get flagged are generally bad articles. Sure, there's real stuff that gets flagged down too, but Hacker News is far from a place where politics is always flagged.
Yes. I think the problem is people that drive into police officers, abandon their children or bring a gun to a law enforcement event then resist arrest. HN is full of activism these days and I’m tired of the support for vigilantism.
What I see today on HN mirrors the processes I've witnessed in Russian speaking parts of the net during the 2010s. Despite the escalation of totalitarianism in Russia, the growing internet censorship and military operations in nearby countries, which left the posters on the same websites on the different sides of military conflicts, some sites have stuck to their "no politics" rule. Both to avoid upsetting people in power and out of their owners' naïve beliefs.
Reading them was like living in an alternate reality where nothing more notable happens than a release of new version X of a framework Y. Large portions of the tech community had exactly the same attitude that could be seen here and now - refusal to consider the societal implications of their daily work, adherence to technical solutions over the real world ones ("I'll just work remotely and use a VPN, who cares") and just simple willful ignorance.
It was around that time that I started to frequent English speaking discussions, which were much more vibrant and open. It saddens me to see the same kind of process repeat itself here.
If it was only that... What I really take issue with are all the mentally ill trolls jumping in to defend ICE, lying through their teeth about the content of videos we all saw. But actually supporting murder isn't enough to get you banned in here.
There’s probably a lot of people that have say mainstream left (eg Obama and Sanders statements around 2010), centrist and conservative views on illegal immigration and support enforcing the law. What you see as something bad happening is something very normal made more difficult by unhelpful state governments and vigilante groups.
Damn near everything on HN gets flagged eventually. Either get everyone to drop their biases as Silicon Valley tech VCs or make it so that flags can ONLY be used to remove clear abuse. Sick of it
I actually think it’s best that HN flags and removes them because we are quickly entering a stage in this country where you will be flagged by the government monitoring the internet. I would caution people to start using VPN and continuously flush your IPs. I would even go as far as to recommend removing face ID from your devices which basically offers zero protection once you’re detained (or have a quick way to disable it).
And still there are people here using Twittler for communication. Who drive Swasticars. Who applaud AntichrisThiel. RapisTrump from the parts of Germany known to grow Potatoes in the soil and in the minds.
It's a pity our American friends haven't noticed that while yes, indeed, the worst of the worst scum got sent to the US. It is just that you had set your brain UI theme to dark mode, and did not notice that the threat isn't that kid with brown skin getting sent to concentration camp by your Gestapo, but those "we want immigrants that look like they are from Norway" folks. 1)
In the distant past, you US Americans still had libraries. You could have used them to find out what there is a reason we over here in Europe and Africa did not want the Trunps and Thiels and Musks and Karps. 2)
For those who are reading this from inside the US: At what point if EVER are you going to get out of your chair, use your second amendment rights, and get rid of your crazy fascist brainworm Nazi scum that you had been praying to?
I know. It is too much to ask for. OK OK. Outside of your comfort zone to fight back. Then go watch MELANIA, a documentation on how about rape and abuse and illegal immigration is totally fine as long as your skin has the right color and the boob job was done well.
1) I myself am German, male, straight, blonde hair. I am allowed to say that our type is the cancer of the human race. After all these hundreds of years, you STILL haven't understood you can not trust us?
2) I know Karp is not from Germany. But he wrote his doctoral thesis in Germany, and it can be summarized as "I am a totally crazy asshole and want to cause as much pain and suffering as possible onto humanity, can I please do that kthxbye?"
Something seems to have gone wrong with the timestamps on comments on this thread. At present nearly all comments have been posted < 4 min ago. I know I'm slowing down as I get older, but I don't think the internet is jabbering that fast, is it?
Yes, sorry, that was a keyboard error on my part as I'm working very late at night to deal with a follow-up/duplicate thread about this topic that hit the front page. We'll restore all the correct timestamps in due course. I'm manually doing the top level ones now.
How about this: no masks, no weapons (if they feel they are in danger they can call the cops who already have more weapons than they possibly need). Every time a citizen is detained in jail, detaining agent and their manager lose their paycheck for that period. Family with kids jailed and separated? No paycheck. You know, do it in the Christian compassionate way, not in the shooting single moms way.
We would have to pass a more general law that said children cannot be separated from their parents based on any crime the parents have committed, as there's no reason to special-case illegal immigration.
They sold us on a lie about the extent of the illegal immigrant "problem". It's numerically impossible to make the promises they made and not deport people who it's hard to argue should be deported.
Immigrants also commit crimes at fewer rates than US born people and crime is at all time lows. Yet they sold us for years on a crime moral panic and phantom "migrant crime".
So you said, propose a solution that also involves deporting people, and I will say NO. You are wanting to target a mostly fake problem.
It is fairly well established that social economic status is the largest predictor for crime than any other predictor. In order for immigrants to commit crimes at a lower rate than US born people we would have to make the claim that immigrants has an average higher social economical status than US born people.
The statistics you are looking for is that the sum of all crimes is lower for immigrants than US born people. 13.8% of the US population are immigrant residents, so in order for the sum of immigration crime to be higher than US born people the rate would need to be close to 1000% larger, which it is not.
The US cannot afford, demographically, to curtail immigration, illegal or otherwise. Simple fact is the US needs more people because we’re under the replacement rate.
Legal immigration - as is today - is about 1% of the US population. That's pretty standard, and would result in an slowly increasing population.
But regardless, saying "we need immigrants" then jumping to "illegal or not" is not a logical argument. We absolutely can have a system that prevent illegal immigration, while carefully screening legal immigrants. Heck, every country in the world does this except the US.
Most of these people didn't protest ICE under Biden and Obama, who both deported more than Trump 1. That's because we see a difference in how illegal migrants were prioritized (violent offenders first) and treated (more humanely) then compared to now. And how citizen protests were handled then and now.
Why? Deportation is a reasonable response when a person violates a country’s immigration laws. That is the standard around the world.
Alternatively, you have an essentially open border, which obviously can lead to unmanageable waves of immigration that strain a country’s housing, healthcare, schools, welfare, and other resources, among other effects.
Disruption to peoples’ lives happens when we have administrations who arbitrarily decide not to enforce the immigration law (e.g. the previous administration). It sends mixed signals to potential immigrants, and leads to the outcomes we have today when we decide to resume enforcing our laws.
Otherwise you're proving his point, which is that there's no middle ground, only "ICE raids terrorizing people" and "sanctuary cities/states where local governments refuse to do any sort of immigration enforcement and specifically turn a blind eye to immigration status".
Bovino says "the officer [who killed Pretti] has extensive training as a range safety officer and less lethal officer,” and had served for eight years.
You’re right. We should throw away the constitution so we can deport.. (checks notes) 600,000 undocumented immigrants, only 5% of which have committed a violent crime.
I don't have a horse in this race, but I do have a question. If you don't deport illegal immigrants, why not just open the border to everyone to come in? (let's ignore criminal records, etc for this exercise). What's the point of not letting people in but then if they manage to come in illegally, assume it's all good and they can stay?
Who needs to care about the Constitution, Individual Liberty, or limited government when there are iMmIgrAnTs around?!
It's like these people never got past their childhood phase worrying about the monster in the closet. In fact I do have to wonder how much of the non-Boomer+ support for this regime is just from naive kids who have zero life experience.
You're right. I guess that means we should deny them any due process, target them (and anyone who looks like them, even vaguely) indiscriminately, and murder anyone who deigns to get in our way.
There is a lot of room between unfettered immigration and having a roving band of apparently unaccountable agents violating 1st, 4th, and 6th amendment rights while also gunning down unarmed citizens in the streets.
We could try mandating e-verify with increasing penalties before we start asking people for papers and kicking down doors.
I think people are forgetting that ICE has been around for decades at this point and some if not most of the stuff they do is routine(Not including some recent enforcement behaviors). I agree with you that is not necessarily bad that the government is using its own data fed in to a vendor tool to enforce immigration.
Wish the proponents of stricter immigration would push for a proper national ID first.
Right now you have all the cons anyway, with none of the pros. A stitched-up database that has no laws attached to prevent its misuse. Just like with gun control, law enforcement could've made their job easier decades ago.
The government already has every record ever generated, and no law has ever permitted or prevented it. Once it was revealed, the only thing that happened was they exiled the guy the told us. A codified national ID doesn't afford any benefit to anyone. On top of that, nobody, regardless of political persuasion, wants it. At least we can agree on that.
Don’t act like the current policy is the only possible alternative to open borders.
In spring of ’24, a bipartisan bill negotiated with Republicans included the following:
* Personnel surge: 1,500+ new Border Patrol agents, 4,300 asylum officers, and 100 immigration judges with staff to address 5-7 year case backlogs
* Emergency shutdown authority: Presidential power to close the border and suspend asylum processing when daily encounters exceeded capacity thresholds
* Fentanyl enforcement: 100 cutting-edge inspection machines at Southwest ports of entry, plus sanctions authority against foreign nationals involved in transnational drug trafficking
* Detention and support: Funding to address overcrowded ICE facilities, $1.4B for cities/states providing migrant services, and expedited work permits for eligible applicants
* Asylum system overhaul: Faster and fairer asylum process with massively expanded officer capacity to reduce years-long delays in adjudication
This bill had flaws and reasonable people disagreed on details, but it represented serious bipartisan compromise. Republicans walked away from it after Trump opposed it and it was blocked in congress.
If you think that specific bill was bad, show me the Republican legislation introduced to solve the immigration crisis. They don’t want to solve the problem because it fires up their base.
This is not accurate. The details were kept secret during negotiation which consisted of 2 Democrats (1 "Independent" who caucused D) and 1 Republican. When the text of the bill was released, it was widely disparaged by Republicans.
It never had a chance of passing. It wasn't some amazing bill that everyone loved until Trump told them not to. That is a fantasy that fits the narrative.
A lot of people who support the current US government do not want the laws to be enforced, they just want to see people who look brown or foreigners to be deported, regardless of if they are in the US legally or illegally.
The immigration laws are saying that we should stop illegal immigration, but respect the legal immigration. And because of that, it means that each case should be carefully treated to discover if the person is illegal or not.
But a majority of people supporting the crack-down on immigration are more than happy to see 10 innocents being deported if it means 1 illegal being deported, and they will wave around the illegal being deported to explain that before the crack-down, the law was not respected, forgetting that the current situation is breaking the law way more than the previous one (before: 1 illegal not deported, 1 error. after: 10 innocents being deported, 10 errors).
In other words: if you care about the law, you cannot "pick and choose" and say "the laws are not respected because 1 illegal is not deported" but also "10 innocents are being deported, this breaks the law, but this does not count".
Where are you getting the idea that 10 innocents are being deported for every 1 illegal? Or that the "majority" of people supporting the crackdown would support that?
The information I can find suggests only a handful of cases, maybe a dozen, out of 600,000 or so.
@cauch: let me ask you this: how do you weed out the illegals besides asking for proof or citizenship or proof of a passport visa that you are in the US legally?
Have you actually read immigration laws? They are not as Manichean or prescriptive as many commenters make them out to be. Enforcement-first proponents often seem unaware of or indifferent to the difference between civil and riminal violations and the lack of mandatory remedies. I've also noticed a distinct tendency to hyperbolize and outsize lie about past policy choices in order to justify their position.
There’s a lot more nuance than might be obvious at first thought. For example, many of the people being violently deported now came here legally, followed the rules, and are now being targeted because their protected status or asylum cases were cancelled under highly suspicious circumstances, with a lot of the rush being to get them out of the country before the shady revocations are reviewed.
We also have a lot of inconsistent enforcement because some employers love having workers who can be mistreated under the threat of calling ICE. If we really wanted to lower immigration, we’d require companies to verify status for everyone they hire. You can see how this works in Texas where they’ve had a ton of bills requiring that get killed by Republican leadership on behalf of major donors:
No, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it should be ruthlessly enforced with dangerous and deadly action or even enforced at all when the majority of the public doesn't support them. Do you believe the feds should go into marijuana legal states and start arresting everybody for breaking the law? Marijuana is illegal after all.
Like that law that says it's illegal to HIRE workers that cannot show work authorization? IIRC that carries pretty steep penalties. And if enforced, will have a huge chilling effect on the whole illegal immigration thing. But, as sibling commenters have pointed out, it's not about enforcing laws but punishing outgroups. This is only not obvious to the willfully ignorant.
This has nothing to do with immigration law. If it did, there would be no offer on the table to withdraw the ICE troops in exchange for the MN voter database.
Yes, with humanity and with respect for due process. And laws should not be applied selectively against people you don't like while turning a blind eye to violations by people on 'your side'.
I hope that we can agree that blowing off the 10A and allowing all of this federal bloat has not been a swift call.
Social services left at the State level would be subject to a smaller pool of votes for approval and are more likely to be funded by actual tax revenue instead of debt.
That is: sustainably.
Furthermore, the lack of One True Database is a safety feature in the face of the inevitable bad actors.
In naval architecture, this is called compartmentalization.
There are good arguments against this, sure, but the current disaster before you would seem a refutation.
Some states are too poor to effectively fund and maintain their own safety nets. It's common for folks laid off in these states to get a dubious mental health diagnosis to justify SSDI, because doctors know they have no prospects and could well become homeless without it.
Any time I see people say "I don't see why I should care about my privacy, I've got nothing to hide" I think about how badly things can go if the wrong people end up in positions of power.
The classic example here is what happens when someone is being stalked by an abusive ex-partner who works in law enforcement and has access to those databases.
This ICE stuff is that scaled up to a multi-billion dollar federal agency with, apparently, no accountability for following the law at all.
It reminds me of when Eric Schmidt, then CEO of google, tried that argument about people's worry of google collecting so much personal data. Some media outlet then published a bunch of personal information about Schmidt they had gathered using only google searches, including where he lives, his salary, his political donations, and where his kids went to school. Schmidt was not amused.
That questionable-sounding stunt by the media outlet wasn't comparable: Google/Alphabet knows much more about individuals than addresses, salary, and political donations.
Google/Alphabet knows quite a lot about your sentiments, what information you've seen, your relationships, who can get to you, who you can get to, your hopes and fears, your economic situation, your health conditions, assorted kompromat, your movements, etc.
Schmidt is actually from OG Internet circles where many people were aware of privacy issues, and who were vigilant against incursions.
But perhaps he had a different philosophical position. Or perhaps it was his job to downplay the risks. Or perhaps he was going to have enough money and power that he wasn't personally threatened by private info that would threaten the less-wealthy.
We might learn this year, how well Google/Alphabet protects this treasure trove of surveillance state data, when that matters most.
36 replies →
Eric Schmidt the rapist?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37457418/eric-schmidt-mistress...
He's got a whole lotta people doing over-time trying to bury this.
18 replies →
For some specific quotes, here are some excerpts from In The Plex: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34931437
Eric had also once said in a CNBC interview "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Back in the day, Google eng had pretty unguarded access to people's gmails, calendars, etc. Then there was a news story involving a Google SRE grooming children and stalking them through their google accounts...
Thiel lost his shit because Gawker mentioned he was gay in an article on their site. Something _everybody_ in Silicon Valley already knew. Then he goes and forms what essentially amounts to a private CIA.
How about Musk? He felt he had a right to hoover up data about people from every government agency, but throws a massive temper-tantrum when people publish where his private jet is flying using publicly available data.
How about Mark Zuckerberg? So private he buys up all the properties around him and has his private goon squad stopping people on public property who live in the neighborhood, haranguing them just for walking past or near the property.
These people are all supremely hypocritical when it comes to privacy.
6 replies →
And this is what every hacker on the planet should be doing: exposing all of the secrets of the rich parasites. Leave them no quarter, no place too hide.
Nowadays we got doxing laws in my country, but... the guy behind Palantir (look up where that name stems from, too) is called Peter Thiel.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
- Eric Schmidt
2 replies →
> This ICE stuff is that scaled up to a multi-billion dollar federal agency with, apparently, no accountability for following the law at all.
Apparently any time they do anything horrifying, they will just declare that victim as a "terrorist" or something, and their sycophantic supporters will happily agree.
What I find amusing is that when the Snowden leaks happened and I would discuss it, when I said something like "let's pretend for a moment that we can't trust every single person in the government" I would usually get an agreeable laugh.
But using these same arguments with ICE + Palantir, these same people will say something like "ICE IS ONLY DEPORTING THE CRIMINALS YOU JUST WANT OPEN BORDERS!!!". People's hypocrisy knows no bounds.
How do we know whether they're people or bots?
18 replies →
Yes, exactly. But, I’ll admit it took me until the republican primary before the 2016 election for this to register in my mind. I was born in the US in the 80s & fell into the “what you see is all there is” bias (and hadn’t read enough history before then either).
Another opinion that I’m sure will get me downvoted is that this is the primary reason I support gun ownership by private citizens. I think having a chance at stopping mass government slaughter like in Iran and Syria is overall better than the downside.
Bottom line is that human nature has not changed. Some of us westerners take comfortable lives for granted because we’ve been lucky.
7 replies →
[flagged]
40 replies →
It's not even that big of a leap. We've seen a off-duty ICE agent drunk driving his child, getting stopped by the cops, implied threats to one of the officers for being black with payback, spent the whole time saying "come on man" using his position as a federal officer as a way to get out of trouble, and ends to the point that I wanted to make, complained about his and I quote "bitch ex-wife" for divorcing him.
What is stopping this lowlife from going after his ex-wife, or one of those cops by using databases that they have access to? We know from journalists going through the process that there's no curation or training involved to join ICE specifically.
But this goes beyond them. We know that cops can be corrupt to, we know politicians can be corrupt to, what is stopping any of these people from using private data to not only go after their spouses, but also business rivals, and people who slight them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_1X7MVrnPY
>What is stopping this lowlife
Same as with all other crime, we hope it's the law that stops him. We hope that more policemen want to be good men than bad.
The illusion of safety is based on the honor system. Society doesn't work without that.
11 replies →
Also always keep in mind that what is legal today might be illegal tomorrow. This includes things like your ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and much more.
You don't know today on which side of legality you will be in 10 years, even if your intentions are harmless.
The reaction from the masses: "But that isn't true today, anything could happen in the future, and why should I invest so much work on something that's only a possibility?"
42 replies →
Don't forget your comments on HN, which, as we all know, don't go away. I think the chilling-effect is absolutely real now.
Privacy itself can become illegal just as easily as religion, etc. if we follow your argument.
12 replies →
Data are immortal times of peace are not!
They want to declare "Antifa" a terrorist organization. So anyone that is against fascism (ANTI-FAscist) will be labeled a terrorist. Let that sink in for a moment.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/desi...
Which is why I generally vote for people who believe in freedom versus an overreaching state.
3 replies →
Don’t forget about social media posts. In the UK, people are being jailed for those today.
Imagine if they used your past post history against you.
26 replies →
Laws can not be applied retroactively.
>ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and much more.
In this case you will very likely be given an option to leave or change (not possible for ethniticity).
Wanting to be able to break the law in the future is not a just motivation.
31 replies →
The thing also is, it doesn't matter what the truth is. If the computer says you did a thing, the thugs (ICE) will do what they want.
Here is someone out for a walk, ICE demanding ID, that she answer questions. She says she's a US citizen ... they keep asking her questions and one of the ICE people seem to be using a phone to scan her face:
https://np.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1qbawlr/minneap...
What she says, the truth, none of it would matter if his phone said to bring her in. And after the fact? The folks supporting ICE have made it clear they've no problem with lying in the face of the obvious.
People have a real hard time understanding that they are only as free as the most oppressed citizen in their country/state/city.
> I've got nothing to hide.
Some retorts for people swayed by that argument:
"Can we put a camera in your bathroom?"
"Let's send your mom all your text messages."
"Ain't nothin' in my pockets, but I'd rather you didn't check."
"Shall we live-stream your next doctor's appointment?"
"May I watch you enter your PIN at the ATM?"
"How about you post your credit card number on reddit?"
"Care to read your high-school diary on open mic night?"
I think the "nothing to hide" argument is made for a different reason.
People are unafraid of the government knowing certain things because they believe it will not have any real repercussions for them. The NSA knowing your search history is no big deal (as long as you're not looking for anything illegal), but your church knowing your search history would absolutely be a big deal.
3 replies →
> Some retorts for people swayed by that argument
Do any of these actually prompt someone to reconsider their position? They strike me as more of argument through being annoying than a good-faith attempt to connect with the other side.
13 replies →
Which are quippy and dismissed because they fundamentally misunderstand privacy. There is such a concept as "privacy in a crowd" - you expect, and experience it, every day. You generally expect to be able to have a conversation in say, a coffee-shop, and not have it intruded upon and commented upon by other people in the shop. Snippets of it may be overheard, but they will be largely ignored even if we're all completely aware of snippets of other conversations we have heard, and bits and pieces have probably been recorded on peoples phones or vlogs or whatever.
That's privacy in a crowd and even if they couldn't describe it, people do recognize it.
What you are proposing in every single one of these, is violating that in an overt and disruptive way - i.e.
> "Let's send your mom all your text messages."
Do I have anything in particular to hide in my text messages, of truly disastrous proportions? No. But would it feel intrusive for a known person who I have to interact with to get to scrutinize and comment on all those interactions? Yes. In much the same way that if someone on the table over starts commenting on my conversation in a coffee-shop, I'd suddenly not much want to have one there.
Which is very, very different from any notion of some amorphous entity somewhere having my data, or even it being looked at by a specific person I don't know, won't interact with, and will never be aware personally exists. Far less so if the only viewers are algorithms aggregating statistics.
I'm pro-privacy and I still think these retorts just make it sound like you've put zero effort into understanding what the "nothing to hide" people are trying to articulate.
E.g. "Can we put a camera in your bathroom?"
Very few people are arguing that nudity or bathroom use shouldn't be private, and they are not going to understand what this has to do with their argument that the NSA should be allowed to see Google searches to fight terrorism or whatever.
Privacy arguments are about who should have access to what information. For example, I'm fine with Google seeing my Google searches, but not the government monitoring them.
2 replies →
You, someone's friends, and someone's mom are not law enforcement investigating a crime.
There's a big difference between these scenarios.
1 reply →
> The classic example here is what happens when someone is being stalked by an abusive ex-partner who works in law enforcement and has access to those databases.
Which has literally happened already for anyone who thinks “there’s controls in place for that sort of thing”. That’s with (generally) good faith actors in power. What do you think can and will happen when people who think democracy and the constitution are unnecessary end up in control…
https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/politics/nsa-snooping/
It doesn't even need malicious intent. If nobody rational is monitoring it, all it will take is a bad datapoint or hallucination for your door to get kicked in by mistake.
Plus there is inherent biases in datasets. Folks who have interactions with Medicaid will be more vulnerable by definition.
To quote the standard observability conference line "what gets measured gets managed".
The same people saying that will also defend police wearing masks, hiding badges, and shutting off body cameras. They are not participating in discussions with the same values (truth, integrity) that you have. Logic does not work on people who believe Calvinistic predestination is the right model for society.
Anyone on the right who implicates Pretti for carrying a licensed firearm is a good litmus test for bad faith.
18 replies →
Wait. Is calvinistic predestination the majority view of republicans? I thought most of them are some form of (tv) evangelism, or secularism
I am not American and genuinely curious on this.
19 replies →
Police absolutely should have body cameras - quite frequently they’ve proven law enforcement officers handled things correctly where activists have tried to say otherwise.
1 reply →
The true problem is that it happens no matter who is in charge. It's like that old phrase about weapons that are invented are going to be used at some point. The same thing has turned out to be true for intelligence tools. And the worst part is that the tools have become so capable, that malicious intent isn't even required anymore for privacy to be infringed.
From everything we are seeing, the tools are not actually that capable. Their main function is not their stated function of spying/knowing a lot about people. Their main function is to dehumanize people.
When you use a computer to tell you who to target, it makes it easy for your brain to never consider that person as a human being at all. They are a target. An object.
Their stated capabilities are lies, marketing, and a smokescreen for their true purpose.
This is Lavender v2, and I’m sure others could name additional predecessors. Systems rife with errors but the validity isn’t the point; the system is.
The nazi's were easily able to find jews in the Netherlands because of thorough census data. Collection of that data was considered harmless when they did it. But look at what kind of damage that kind of information can do.
This is the moment for Europe to show that you can do gov and business differently. If they get their s** together and actually present a viable alternative.
They are doing it differently alright.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_control
3 replies →
Europe can't do business differently. Or at least it doesn't seem to be able to. China can.
4 replies →
How is it not viable now?
What would you like to see changed in the EU?
"Best I can do is Chat Control 3.0"
The simple response to that line of thinking is: "you don't choose what the government uses against you"
For any piece of data that exists, the government effectively has access to it through court orders or backdoors. Either way, it can and will be used against you.
For me, the angle is a bit different. I want privacy, but I also sense that the people who are really good at this (like Plantir) have so much proxy information available that individual steps to protect privacy are pretty much worthless.
To me, this is a problem that can only be solved at the government/regulatory level.
In principle, I agree with your point; in practice, I think the claims made my these surveillance/advertising companies are likely as overstated as Musk's last decade of self-driving that still can't take a vehicle all the way across the USA without supervision in response to a phone summons.
The evidence I have that causes me to believe them to be overstated, is how even Facebook has frequently shown me ads that inherently make errors about my gender, nationality, the country I live in, and the languages I speak, and those are things they should've been able to figure out with my name, GeoIP, and the occasional message I write.
2 replies →
Palantir don't sell data though, they just give you a software platform.
1 reply →
> The classic example here is what happens when someone is being stalked by an abusive ex-partner who works in law enforcement and has access to those databases.
There’s a world of difference between a government using legally collected data for multiple purposes and an individual abusing their position purely for personal reasons.
The parent's example is of an individual using that "legal" state collected data for nefarious purposes. Once it's collected, anyone who accesses it is a threat vector. Also, governments (including/especially the US) have historically killed, imprisoned and tortured millions and millions of people. There's nothing to be gained by an individual for allowing government access to their data.
There is 0 difference. None. There's not even a line to cross.
> legally collected data
In both cases, the information is legally collected (or at least, that's the only data we're concerned about in this conversation).
- government using
- individual abusing
^ Both of those are someone in the government using the information. In both cases, someone in the government can use the information in a way that causes an individual great harm; and isn't in the "understood" way the information would be used when it was "pitched" to the public. And in both cases, the person doing it will do what they want an almost certainly face no repercussions if what they're doing is morally, or even legally, wrong.
The government is collecting data (or paying someone else to collect that data, so it's not covered by the rules) and can then use it to cause individuals great harm. That's it, the entire description. The fact that _sometimes_ it's one cop using it to stalk someone or not is irrelevant.
That difference is looking very thin right now.
1 reply →
Is this legal though?
& effectively if there is no checks on this is there actually a difference? There only difference is that the threat is to an entire cohort rather than an individual.
At this moment, the primary difference appears to be scale.
When did legality make something right?
The whole social battle is a constant attempt to align our laws and values as a society. It's why we create new laws. It's why we overturn old laws. You can't just abdicate your morals and let the law decide for you. That's not a system of democracy, that's a system of tyranny.
The privacy focused crowd often mentions "turnkey tyranny" as a major motivation. A tyrant who comes to power and changes the laws. A tyrant who comes to power and uses the existing tooling beyond what that tooling was ever intended for.
The law isn't what makes something right or wrong. I can't tell you what is, you'll have to use your brain and heart to figure that one out.
Musk and his flying monkeys came in with hard drives and sucked up all the data from all the agencies they had access to and installed software of some kind, likely containing backdoors. Even though each agency had remit for the data it maintained, they had been intentionally firewalled to prevent exactly what Palantir is doing.
There is also a world of difference between a government using data to carry out its various roles in service of the nation and a government using data to terrorize communities for the sadistic whims of its leadership.
Think I'm being hyperbolic? In Trump's first term fewer than 1M were deported. In Obama's eight years as president, 3.1M people were deported without the "techniques" we are witnessing.
> how badly things can go if the wrong people end up in positions of power
This is why there shouldn’t be any organization that has that much power.
Full stop.
What you described is the whole raison dêtre of Anarchism; irrespective of whether you think there’s an alternative or not*
“No gods No Masters” isn’t just a slogan it’s a demand
*my personal view is that there is no possible stable human organization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism#No_gods,_n...
Have you read Graeber & Wengrow?
3 replies →
Even if you trust the intentions of whoever you're giving your data to, you may not trust their ability to keep it safe from data breaches. Those happen all the time.
Or the person that takes over after them
The source of the problem is the respect of the rule of law and due process
Data collection is not the source of the problem because people give their data willingly
Do you think data collection is a problem in China, or do you think the government and rule of law is the problem?
Companies collecting data is not the true problem. Even when data collection is illegal, a corrupt government that doesn't respect the rule of law doesn't need data collection.
yeah, this is exactly it. all the arguments kind of boil down to
"well how about if the government does illegal or evil stuff?"
its very similar to arguments about the second ammendment. But laws and rules shouldnt be structured around expecting a future moment where the government isnt serving the people. At that moment the rules already dont matter
7 replies →
I do not think this is really about privacy as much as it is about our broken immigration system. Let’s look at a simple case where both Democrats and Republicans largely agree.
On January 6, 2026, all South Sudanese nationals lost their TPS status and ordered to leave the US. At this point, they are all effectively declared illegal. I have not seen a single Democrat seriously argue that something should be done about this.
So what do we think people from South Sudan will actually do? Pack their bags and return to South Sudan?
My point is that a system where someone is admitted to the US completely legally, lives here for years, and is then suddenly reclassified as “illegal” is fundamentally broken.
If ice only goes after undocumented or expelled immigrants, why are they in the medicade system?
Undocumented immigrants often have legally-resident and/or citizen family members who are eligible for Medicaid.
But yes, it's disgusting that ICE has access to that data via Palantir, or that this data is being used for anything other than administering Medicaid.
This is the same thing I thought when liberal-minded folk talked about giving the Federal government more power over States in order to enact some good work, or to achieve some policy win. Yes, for now, I thought, but you can't assume a good natured centralized power will persist, and when it doesn't, what is your alternative? I have watched as liberal minded folks rediscover the value of State Sovereignty and power in the face of an autocratic Federal executive, bearing arms when the an autocrat sends masked agents to terrorize your city. Lean into it, I say. Winner take all Federal system means no alternative but to win at all costs, rather than live and let live. We need more, smaller, States. We need more Representatives than 1 per 700,000 citizens...by 10x
> This ICE stuff is that scaled up to a multi-billion dollar federal agency with, apparently, no accountability for following the law at all.
It should be mentioned that "illegal" is a definitive word. There are definitely people not willing to follow the law, including political entities which are dependent on it. The moniker of privacy in this respect is a shield for illegality, because there is no reason that Medicaid data regarding SSNs should be shielded from the federal government.
To take this to its logical conclusion, Americans must concede that EU/UK systems of identity and social services are inherently immoral.
I have a hard time parsing your first paragraph, but there is no reason at all for any part of the US government that isn't CMMS to have any access to Medicaid data, writ large, at all. And even CMMS should only see de-identified data. It's absolutely absurd to think that law enforcement has any reason to see anything in any MC database.
Unfortunately, this also means that everyone is taking a risk when they participate in the US census.
https://exhibits.lib.berkeley.edu/spotlight/census/feature/j...
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/26/636107892/some-japanese-ameri...
One interesting point about the volume of data that might be available about any individual is that law enforcement will only look for data points that suit their agenda.
They won't be searching for counter evidence. It won't even cross their minds to do so.
You're on record saying one thing one time that was vanilla at the time but is now ultra spicy (possibly even because the definition of words can change and context is likely lost) then you'll be a result in their search and you'll go on their list.
(This is based on my anecdotal experience of having my house raided and the police didn't even know to expect there to be children in the house; children who were both over ten years old and going to school and therefore easily searchable in their systems; we hadn't moved house since 15 years prior, so there was no question of mixing up an identity. The police requested a warrant, and a fucking judge even signed it, based on a single data point: an IP address given to them by a third party internet monitoring company.)
Keep your shit locked down, law enforcement are just as bad at their jobs as any other Joe Clockwatcher. In fact they're often worse because their incentive structure leans heavily towards successful prosecution.
Sorry for the rant.
> The classic example here is what happens when someone is being stalked by an abusive ex-partner who works in law enforcement and has access to those databases.
Or if you're currently married to an abusive partner and want to leave: how can you make a clean break with all the tracking nowadays? (And given how 'uncivilized' these guys act in public (masked, semi-anonymous), I'd had to see what they do behind closed doors.)
> The classic example here is what happens when someone is being stalked by an abusive ex-partner who works in law enforcement and has access to those databases.
I'd say the classic example is when a small german man with a mustache starts looking in religious registries to find the address of certain types of people
It’s usually not a great example because it’s basically the one thing that is “never going to happen here”. Normally the one about abusive law enforcement offices stalking ex-partners (or helping their buddies stalk their ex-partners) is better because it happens fairly regularly.
We really are in unprecedented times when it’s looking like the big one could happen in the United States though…
I never really understood that angle - do you think the Germans would have thrown their hands up and not killed anyone because they lacked accurate data on who was Jewish?
And (with a heavy dose of purposeful suspension of disbelief), if ICE does deport those people they've determined are "illegal", does anyone believe that the agency will scale down and stop? There will be new "enemies of the state"
They won't run out of people to deport, because all those jobs (and occasionally, benefits) the illegals profit from will still exist. If you remove the people but not the incentive you just get new and different people.
This is by design to make sure ICE and CBP jobs program for psychopaths always exists. Did you think they were actually going to put themselves out of the job by going for the roots?
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say" ~ Edward Snowden
Privacy is one of the first defenses against tyranny.
You can be a target of pressure through no fault of your own. For example, if you were to witness a government official commit a crime.
When talking about government services, how do you have privacy? Does one not need to perform audits, etc?
This is why I personally prefer more devolved spending – at the federal level it is far too much centralized power.
It reminds me of the Sokovia Accords Debate[0]
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmjRhmk800U
That is not a good argument for privacy. I don't see how more privacy would have prevented any evil that has been doing.
Are you against income tax?
Are you against business registration?
All of these are subject to the similar issues with the stalker ex abusing a position of power?
> All of these are subject to the similar issues with the stalker ex abusing a position of power?
You seem to be asking a question. The answer is no.
The IRS does not need to know my sexual orientation or circumcision status. Medicaid, on the other hand, may. (Though I'd contest even that.)
Are you saying that, because there is one way in which people are vulnerable, that it doesn't matter if we add more ways they are vulnerable? Because that makes no sense whatsoever.
Post on http://icemap.app anonymously
Respect, thank you for using your voice.
I don’t agree. I’m fine ICE can see my data, as long as there are process enforced to track those usage and I have a right to fight back for their misuse.
Problem today is ICE has no accountability of misuse data/violence, not they have means to data/violence.
> I’m fine ICE can see my data, as long as there are process enforced to track those usage and I have a right to fight back for their misuse
I agree with this in theory, but its a fantasy to think they have this restriction at this point. ICE seems to be taking all comers, the lowest of the low, the vilest of the vile, giving them "47 days of training," and sending them off armed into the populace. I have seen no evidence they believe they have any restriction on anything. It's basically DOGE but with guns instead of keyboards.
2 replies →
There has been no point post Patriot Act where there has been accountability for data misuse. You need to update your priors.
I'd rather ICE (or whatever government agency) not see my data... because, even if there are processes that are enforced, there might not be tomorrow. If that data isn't collected in the first place, that threat vector disappears.
The business is equally blamed. But ever aince Uber showed up and violated laws in all jurisdictions, we always focus on the cops and not the criminals.
The "they look like us" fallacy is so deep in this.
The data isn't the problem, the jack-booted thugs kicking in doors is.
Which is now literally happening and people are still acting like their privacy is going to somehow prevent it.
[dead]
ICE and DHS already were bloated and somehow grew from not existing 25 years ago to a $100 billion budget. Then the big Trump spending bill added another $200 billion to their budget. And there’s no accountability for who gets that money - it’s all friends and donors and members of the Trump family.
They have money for this grift of epic scale but complain about some tiny alleged Somalian fraud to distract the gullible MAGA base. And of course there is somehow not enough money for things people actually need like healthcare.
That's in their playbook to cherry pick the most extreme cases and pretend it's the majority of cases.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
But there are people trying to hide their locations even though they are here legally; because ICE has made it very clear they don't care if you're here legally or not. They arrest and deport US citizens. They arrest and deport people that show up to court to become US citizens.
It's clear the government cannot be trusted to use information in a reasonable way; so we should not allow them to get that information.
8 replies →
I'm very sorry but even criminals have access to our constitutional rights.
"Hey I know that guy is a criminal" does not give people the right to search their property without a warrant. Too bad if that makes law enforcement more difficult.
Rank dishonesty. I'm hiding my location because I don't want you to have it when it's inevitably hacked. Friends are hiding it because they have Antifa-friendly posts on their social media. Etc.
"Everyone who does a thing I don't like is a criminal" is obviously and intentionally fallacious bullshit.
[flagged]
More immigration has drastically improved this country. I don't understand your position at all. ICE is far worse for our culture than then people providing me an actual livable diet.
How do you feel about ICE shooting people dead in the streets?
3 replies →
"I've got nothing to hide" is another way of saying "I don't have friends that trust me," which is another way of saying" I don't have friends."
FWIW, people here illegally are already not eligible for Medicaid, [0] so it's hard to see why ICE having access to a roster of Medicaid enrollees would help them with their stated mission of enforcing removal orders.
Then again, we have ICE shooting American citizens in the streets, so I guess the law is whatever they decide it is, not least because our legislative branch is uninterested in laws.
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF1191...
What about finding them through the records of their citizen children?
Edit: cael450 has already offered a specific example of this threat vector: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46758387
This is really insane levels of evil.
> FWIW, people here illegally are already not eligible for Medicaid, [0] so it's hard to see why ICE having access to a roster of Medicaid enrollees would help them with their stated mission of enforcing removal orders.
Presumably, it's because a lot of them are getting Medicaid despite not being eligible to. Isn't the point of every audit, investigation, etc. to find things that aren't being done correctly?
> Presumably, it's because a lot of them are getting Medicaid despite not being eligible to
How would this even work? You can’t just start billing things to Medicaid if you’re ineligible for it. That would be like you deciding to bill United Healthcare for something despite not being a customer. How is this hypothetical fraud supposed to work? What am I missing?
> Isn't the point of every audit, investigation, etc. to find things that aren't being done correctly?
ICE isn’t auditing Medicaid. They’re trying to use records to find people to detain and deport which is an orthogonal dataset.
The only plausible explanation is that they’re using medical records as an additional source of data on people who live in houses that they’re raiding or looking at.
Which is insane. Imagine police rolling up to your front door on suspicion of something and loading up a system which has your medical records.
> Presumably, it's because a lot of them are getting Medicaid despite not being eligible to
Why are you presuming this? There is no evidence this is happening in any widespread fashion.
> Isn't the point of every audit, investigation, etc. to find things that aren't being done correctly?
If it is being honest about it's intention, yes. I think we have seen an absolute mountain of evidence that this administration does "audits" as massive data collection waves to suit any and every purpose they want, though.
If this was about fixing things being done incorrectly, DHHS should be doing the audit, not DHS. Perhaps the latter doesn't understand the difference between the two, though, not noticing they're missing an H in their abbreviation.
6 replies →
ICE isn’t auditing Medicaid FFS. And no, there’s absolutely no evidence they’re getting access to Medicaid.
They’re single mindedly looking for undocumented immigrants to deport.
17 replies →
I just want to clarify why this is not so straightforward. It really depends on how the term “illegal alien” is defined.
Before BBB July 4, Medicare covered the following groups:
- Refugees
- Asylum seekers
- Immigration parolees
- TPS holders
- DACA recipients
Under the Trump administration, the following groups are now considered illegal aliens:
- Asylum seekers with pending claims or those whose claims were denied
- Immigration parolees
- Certain categories of TPS holders (for example South Sudanese TPS ended Jan 6 2026 so all people under that protection are ordered to leave)
- Certain categories of DACA recipients
And the above people are probably registered for medicare with full name and address.
OOC do you have any sources for what the current administration considers illegal aliens?
Genuinely curious if they've published this information.
bear in mind that ICE are forcibly deporting people in the process of applying for green cards whose lawyers have assured them that a lapsed VISA isn't an issue (it never used to be) as they have married an American citizen and maybe even have children with them.
A robotics engineer from Germany was forcibly deported a few months back because ICE were waiting for him at the immigration office when he went to visit to further the application.
[flagged]
Literally would not matter if he were violent prior to being shot. By the time that they shot him, he was face down on the floor and disarmed. That’s illegal in basically any context. It’s an execution.
ITT: we kiss boots
2 replies →
Except neither of the two most prominent people shot were fighting LEA. They were opposing illegal actions of ICE but they were not fighting
3 replies →
[flagged]
[flagged]
[dead]
[flagged]
They're also not eligible to be living in the US, yet here we are.
And yet we do nothing to punish the actual criminals, the employees who knowingly higher then abuse them. Why don't we deport Trump, Trump tower wouldn't even be around without polish workers who were here illegally
The key issue wilfully ignored by the mob.
Why would Medicaid have the data of anyone who is at risk of immigration enforcement? The reported connection seems tenuous:
> The tool – dubbed Enhanced Leads Identification & Targeting for Enforcement (ELITE) – receives peoples’ addresses from the Department of Health and Human Services (which includes Medicaid) and other sources, 404 Media reports based on court testimony in Oregon by law enforcement agents, among other sources.
So, they have a tool that sucks up data from a bunch of different sources, including Medicaid. But there's no actual nexus between Medicaid and illegal immigrants in this reporting.
Edit: In the link to their earlier filings, EFF claims that some states enroll illegal immigrants in Medicaid: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/07/eff-court-protect-our-...
My wife works in autism services in a predominantly Latino city. Those kids all have Medicaid, which includes info about their parents. It would be pretty trivial to cross reference with other data points to identify kids with undocumented parents and then you have their home address. Many of these kids go to a clinic everyday, so now you know when someone (likely a parent) is dropping them off too. She’s had patients with parents who have been picked up by ICE. I wouldn’t be surprised if that data came from Medicaid. It’s basically the same as the IRS data they’ve been using.
And it is next to impossible for average people to get adequate care for their kids with autism without Medicaid and early intervention can make the difference between someone who can live relatively independently with supports and someone who will spend their adult life chemically restrained in an institution. So they are in between a rock and a hard place.
Using the medical need of someone's child in order to track them down and deport them, separating them from their family ?
I wish I believed in god, because this shit is beyond evil.
5 replies →
Pam Bondi is now demanding voter rolls. It's clearly about suppressing liberal voters in liberal areas through a show of force. They're using this data to optimize who to harass.
If citizenship is required to vote then how would accessing voter rolls suppress liberal voters? Honest question; I'm not concern trolling. I had to Google who's allowed to vote.
I found this article[1] by the Brennan Center. It alleges this is an attempted federal takeover of elections but it doesn't suggest or allude to voter suppression. I'm not convinced by the article that having access to voter rolls can be considered a federal takeover of election administration (but I'm not in the know and would need things explained more verbosely).
If you have more information about the attempted centralization of election administration and its impacts on voter suppression I would be interested to know more.
1. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/trum...
10 replies →
How does that work? As a US citizen, no amount of "harassment" is going to stop me from voting.
17 replies →
If you think making sure only citizens can vote equals "suppressing liberal voters", that sound like a big self report. The voter lists don't tell you how people voted, it only tells you who did.
Medicaid-receiving immigrants could have their immigration status change, legal violations, emergency medicaid use, sometimes there's state funded coverage that immigrants are offered, etc. There's lots of reasons where Medicaid will have information on immigrants.
That doesnt mean they are illegal right off the bat - there is no reasonable way to filter out the "illegal" members of the roles and essentially making it so the DOJ has a list of people who they can cross reference with expiring status and the moment the clock strikes midnight and their status changes they can get picked up. They should not have all those records for fishing expedititions.
Medicaid holds previous addresses, household details, previous diagnoses, ethnicity, etc.
It is quite trivial to infer if someone is likely to have emigrated to the US due to obvious gaps in records or in their relatives' ones.
This is what Palantir does, essentially. Simple inference and information fusion from different sources.
They hold both that people whose citizenship depends on birthright citizenship are not in fact citizens and that naturalized citizens can be denaturalized either for disloyalty or based on some sham pretext. They also see people getting benefits as leaches worthy of targeting.
Also naturalized and birthright citizens are far more likely than others to associate or live with others of less legal status.
Naturalized and birthright citizens quality for benefits and they and their families are at risk.
If they are allowed to detain and deport without any due process as they have asserted anyone not white is at risk.
The DHS official social media presence shared a picture of an island paradise with the caption America after 100 million deportations.
This is the number of non-whites not the number of immigrants in even the most ridiculous estimates.
ICE has been harassing and following legal observers to their houses. They've shot and executed at least two people who were exercising their legal right to record their activity.
The FBI has been showing up at the door of some people who dare to organize protests against ICE.
Stingrays have been deployed to protests, ICE is collecting photos of protestors for their database, and has been querying YCombinator funded Flock to pull automated license plate camera data from around the country. Trump, Vance, Noem and Miller are calling anyone who protests them domestic terrorists.
It's pretty clear this isn't just about immigration, that this is about pooling data for a surveillance state that can quash the constitutional rights of anyone who dares to oppose the current regime. We've seen this story before.
When your whole system works by giving absolutely ridiculous amount of power to a single individual who has nobody above or at least on the side capable of interfering and changing things, this is what you eventually get. Crossing fingers and praying given person isn't a complete psycho or worse is not going to cut it forever, is it. Especially when >50% of population welcomes such person with open arms, knowing well who is coming.
Given what kind of garbage from human gene pool gets and thrives in high politics its more surprising the show lasted as long as it did.
Now the question shouldn't be 'how much outraged we should be' since we get this situation for a year at this point, but rather what to do next, how we can shape future to avoid this. If there will be the time for such correction, which is a huge IF.
23 replies →
Excuse me discussing the fact that Jack booted fascist brown shirt thugs murdering people is a political statement and needs to be censored here
[flagged]
7 replies →
> EFF claims that some states enroll illegal immigrants in Medicaid
Actually they don't. They say "Some states, using their own funds, allow enrollment by non-citizens" - but they never say if it's legal residents or illegal immigrants. I am not sure whether it's part of the ongoing attempt to blur the line between legal and illegal immigrants, or all the states that allow that genuinely do not distinguish between legal residents and illegal immigrants, but we can not assume it by default.
But I am not sure if the states use their own money for this - why would they send this information to HHS?
> Actually they don't. They say "Some states, using their own funds, allow enrollment by non-citizens" - but they never say if it's legal residents or illegal immigrants. I am not sure whether it's part of the ongoing attempt to blur the line between legal and illegal immigrants, or all the states that allow that genuinely do not distinguish between legal residents and illegal immigrants, but we can not assume it by default.
If a state bureaucracy doesn't explicitly check for legal immigration status then yes the policymakers in that state are trying to blur the line between legal and illegal immigration.
3 replies →
> But I am not sure if the states use their own money for this - why would they send this information to HHS?
Pretty sure it's because EFF is being a bit vague with the truth and they were using Fed funds for this, at least until quite recently.
https://paragoninstitute.org/medicaid/californias-insurance-...
Do you actually think ICE cares about your legal citizenship status?
Yes. That's very relevant to their aims.
3 replies →
[flagged]
Do explain
7 replies →
[flagged]
Palantir is interesting. Founded by a closeted German, run by an Israeli operative, and a 3rd arm of the federal gov. I wish we could prosecute it in my lifetime for the numerous violations of privacy it undertakes, but the world does not work that way. The rich enjoy private jets subsidized by our hard-earned taxes, while violating ideals held by our Founding fathers (for what would Thiel or the current CEO know about our morals, when they have none and are American by name only.. their loyalties lie elsewhere)
Palantir will never be prosecuted because they don't actually engage in any violations of privacy themselves or take possession of any data. They just sell software that enables it. And their main customer is the people who do the prosecuting. For the government prosecuting Palantir would be an admission of guilt, so it will never happen.
They most likely do engage. And they are not going to be prosecuted just because they are useful for government - and until this status quo persists, palantir can do whatever they like.
For the same reasons banks rarely get any sensible fines/lawsuits.
maybe this will end up depending on case law determined by pending suits against RealPage for assisting in rental pricing manipulation. [0]
given the current administration, i'm not holding my breath.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealPage#Lawsuits
1 reply →
"violating ideals held by our Founding fathers"
There are a whole raft of "ideals" the Founding fathers held that we've obviated, beginning with who got the franchise. I can confidently say that government being the payor for ~50% of all healthcare, and operating the databases necessary to monitor all the money and behavior, was certainly not among their "ideals" either.
This was predicted by many, long ago. The predictions were ignored because they were inconvenient to desires and ambitions. Yet here we are. One wonders if it were known at the time, before we constructed these schemes, that one day there would be fabulous machines that would wade through all the (predicted) streams of data, hunting people, if perhaps those predictions might have been heard.
The cynic in me says "no." At some point, as the streams of politics oscillate, they occasionally converge very strongly, and all doubts are overcome, and the ratchet makes another click.
But it's not all bad news. In the natural course of events there is a high probability that one day, you'll have such folk as you prefer back at the helm, and they'll have these tools at the ready. If you make the most of it, you'll never have to suffer the current crowd ever again!
Take note of every 4th amendment violation. Rule of law will return.
Most of the founding fathers were slavers that wanted to keep their slaves while hating the vast majority of people. When they wrote the constitution they were only thinking of rich white landowners, 80% of the people posting in this thread would not have suffrage and couldn't legally participate in the government. Remember this next time you read words about the "rights of man" because it's not me or you.
The founding fathers would absolutely love the idea of Palantir and if you don't think so go look at who wrote the Fugitive Slave Act, who agreed with it, and who enforced it.
I mean the "tyranny of the majority?" What a crock of shit, they were the tyranny that enforced slavery for 80 years.
George Washington would have absolutely used this tech to try to steal back his "property" from free states (something he tried to do but regularly failed or didn't want to argue in the courts):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhxivf0gmj8
Where do their loyalties lie? In Germany and Israel?
You think that people who were not born in America cannot be trusted / are not moral?
4 replies →
At least the billionaires also act indignant when you suggest that they weren't singularly responsible for literally every good thing that has ever happened.
The irony of a post about Palantir working with ICE devolving into xenophobia about the founders of Palantir.
They will never experience xenophobia in any meaningful way, unlike the millions surveilled by the technology they're developing.
tbh it's hard not to dunk on a gay christian fundamentalist and a coked up israeli boot licker POC teaming up together to deport people, so many layers of meta and jokes to be made
[flagged]
It is ironic that so many of the American billionaires decrying the erosion of American culture were not even born in America.
2 replies →
The US Attorney General also just said they’ll withdraw ICE from Minnesota if they hand over voter registration files.
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/pam-bondi-ice-minnesota-shooting-ti...
They’re not even hiding the fact this has nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with compiling lists of people to target later.
How would they target people using voter rolls? Is the concern that it includes party affiliation? Couldn't they just provide the rolls without party affiliation?
Honestly it seems crazy even state governments know party affiliation. I know it's so they know who can vote in primaries etc, but it seems like you should just be able to register to vote with your party directly.
Yes, they’re going to go after anyone that voted for the other party. Trump already said they would, I guess this is how
Not just Minnesota, they've asked all states for voter registration lists and ballots from previous elections. 11 states have complied so far.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/trac...
Wishful thinking but it would be real great if a future leader destroyed this infrastructure.
I'm sure they'll run on not using it but when systems like this exist they tend to find applications
Wishful thinking but it would be real great if an engineer poisoned these datasets with bait entries
It’s not gonna happen. The people who work at Palantir, if they’re not just there for the money, think they’re doing the right thing, they see themselves as keeping the country safe and improving government efficiency (and who could be against that?)
11 replies →
We need more René Carmilles and less of the typical HN techbro that champions the technology, and charitably, doesn't care what its used for.
The “opposition” has never not funded ICE. Throwing out national level republicans is not enough, almost all national level democrats have to be thrown out too.
> The “opposition” has never not funded ICE.
The current administration’s ICE chaos theater is clearly something very different than the past few administrations. Let’s not try to pretend this is normal, because it’s not. They’re doing a shock and awe campaign and maximum fear and news coverage are part of the new agenda.
These tools are there to make sure no such leader ever gets to power, and to ensure the death of the free state. Luckily there's a constitutional amendment (and therefore a constitutional duty upon true Patriots) that has a patch for such regressions.
Reality is that once the next group is in power they keep all the same infra in place so they themselves can use it oft expanding it further. Then when they are kicked out, the next one comes in and does the same.
I dont like any of it but patriot act, covid vaccine tracking, flock, etc are all arms of the same hydra. This is just one more expanding arm of power and control in a long history of gov attempts to control populations.
Destroying Medicaid would in fact solve the problem, that's true.
I'm afraid of the day strongmen come into power in my country and start targeting people on their social media history. I'm sure to end on _some sort_ of naughty list. You kind of get how people become depoliticized and apathetic when resistance has no apparent effect and speaking up only gets you in trouble. That's how civic societies atrophy and die.
This current administration and their policies have definitely influenced my opinion on the 2018 debate around citizenship questions on the US census.
(For more context: https://www.tbf.org/blog/2018/march/understanding-the-census...)
Medicaide data is pretty much covered by HIPPA. So Evil. Also it seems like it is too late, even if a court says do not do it, they will anyway and get away with it since the supreme court rules the president is allowed to break the law.
HELP I AM SOOOO F**NG ANGRY. Sorry I just don't have anywhere to safely put this rage.
HIPAA has mechanisms that allow government access (even if it were not Medicaid).
Build yourself and your community up. We're all mad. We all want to see justice. Don't despair.
> HELP I AM SOOOO F*NG ANGRY. Sorry I just don't have anywhere to safely put this rage.
I think you would benefit from someone to talk to about this.
pretty awesome that the new yc website touts gary tan's work at palantir as a positive
"he was an early designer and engineering manager at Palantir (NYSE:PLTR), where he designed the company logo"
We’re talking inside the death star
Bro idk about you I'm on Endor
"ICE Budget Now Bigger Than Most of the World’s Militaries" - https://www.newsweek.com/immigration-ice-bill-trump-2093456
The fourth amendment is basically gone at this point. Private companies can harvest location data from phones or facial recognition cameras/license plate readers in public spaces and sell that to entities like Palantir that aggregate it for government use (or for other commercial use). No warrants required, very little oversight (especially in this admin).
One favorable ruling could cause all of that corporate fuckery to come crashing down, but it doesn't seem imminent.
Right now, in Belarus, amateur radio operators are being considered "enemies of the state".
Naturally they all are registered with the govt, and thus easy to pick up, jail, or murder.
This is the type of danger where last year amateur radio was legal, and now it gets you jailed. Thats the danger of this sort of data.
If you have, you should post articles in English about that. People would be interested.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46708996 (4 days ago, 1 comment) HAM Radio Operators in Belarus Arrested, Face the Death Penalty
Undocumented immigrants/illegal immigrants are not generally eligible for federally funded Medicaid coverage in the United States, as federal law restricts such benefits to U.S. citizens and certain qualified immigrants with lawful status.
They are eligible for Emergency Medicaid, which covers emergency medical needs like labor and delivery or life-threatening conditions; hospitals that accept federal dollars for medicare/medicaid are required under federal law (EMTALA) to provide stabilizing emergency care regardless of immigration status or ability to pay.
Federal law also restricts illegal aliens from entering the US without authorization.
Don't you at least need to legally migrate to be in medicaid? I thought I had to be a citizen? Are they full in a full on SS mode now?
People keep forgetting that it's possible to legally migrate, work for awhile, and so on, and then "become illegal" due to deadlines or administration issues.
An example every tech worker should understand is H1-B, where as an added bonus your employer can make you illegal.
Why did you put a quote around become illegal? It's illegal indeed, not illegal.
You may like immigration laws or not, there is a very clear definition on legal aliens.
5 replies →
They're not just going after the so-called "illegal aliens", something made clear after the numerous extrajudicial killings by ICE officers recently, such as the one that occured yesterday.
Someone bought a Sig Sauer gun that’s known to go off when moved suddenly (you can find as many videos as you want on the issue) - grabbed an agent and resisted arrest. The gun went off during the arrest, officers thought the man was firing at them.
It’s tragic - the way to prevent this is to increase calm, give the federal officers some support, stop conspiracy theories (eg like the boy that abandoned by his father that people say was ‘arrested’ or your comment pretending it was a murder) and stop vigilante groups from causing chaos.
33 replies →
They are targeting undocumented parents of children who are on medicaid, using the medicaid data to build that list.
No, many states deliberately offer Medicare benefits to non-citizens and deliberately don't check for legal residency in the US.
Tangent: Palentir should absolutely not be granted NHS contracts.
There's no reason to believe that ICE, DHS or any other agencies will use this data carefully, judiciously or in good faith. Instead, it's quite clear at this point that all they will do is abuse the power they do have, execute and antagonize anyone they disagree with and then lie despite ample evidence to the contrary.
I'd say Palantir should be ashamed for facilitating this, but their entire business model is built around helping the government build an ever more invasive police state.
One way to use this data is to increase the success rate of random stops.
1) Take the medicaid data.
2) Join that with rental/income data.
3) Look for neighborhoods with cheap rents/low income and low medicaid rates.
Dragnet those neighborhoods.
Much easier just to ask a local cop "what neighborhoods do the illegals mostly live in?"
Wake up Americans, your country is becoming a shitshow.
The problem seems to be that half of America voted for this, twice, and will continue cheering this kind of outcome on, despite any amount of evidence it is harmful.
Something, something, even dumber than that.
I didn’t get the article completely. Is ICE using Medicaid data to identify citizens or is it using it to identify people not legally in the country?
Medicaid is meant to be used only by citizens and green card holders who are eligible to be citizens.
I’m also confused. I think the Medicaid data might just be one additional source they’ve added to a data lake style system, which they pull from for some reporting based on address?
So if ICE puts your address into their computer, they get to see something about the people inside. How much do they see? Do they get to see your medical conditions too? Could a creatively inclined person get an LLM to read medical data out of it? Who knows, there’s no transparency for this sharing.
How could a non citizen who came illegally be on Medicaid?
They cannot receive from federally funded Medicaid but some states have programs or state-funded Medicaid programs that allow non-citizens to benefit. CA and NY do for some categories. See this example for WI: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/medicaid/noncitizens.htm
These programs really support illegal immigrants? They support legal immigrants, for sure, but the question was about illegal immigrants?
1 reply →
It’s likely citizen children on Medicaid with potentially undocumented parents that they are targeting, which is pretty sad to think about.
Dang was this article manually unflagged ? The comments are just angry insults and a good reason the flags should have been left on.
Hopefully.
Yes, all you had to do is find transport companies that dont hand in gas bills in the tax season and they just pop up aus fraudulent.
Wait, I thought illegal immigrants don't have medicaid? Weird.
The people working for Palantir are collaborators.
... but I'm sure they'd never target "undesirably unhealthy" citizens with this data to harass.....
If you work on this kind of tech, please, quit your job.
Soft quit so they can continue to bleed money and delay further talent acquisition.
And blow up all backups.
Anyone working at FAA(N)G is complicit at this point.
Imagine what they could do with mental health data if they ever decide to start deporting people with mental "problems", just like the Nazis did in their time. The same goes for people with physical disabilities.
Or religious affiliation oops wait that one already happened.
It's time for Americans to overthrow the Trump regime.
It's time Iran Blitzkrieged D.C in order to free the American people from the MegaPedoEpsteinEllison Regime
Glad to see this post didn't get flagged like the one that was posted yesterday on a similar topic about ICE data mining and user tracking.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46748336
It likely will. There’s major impact on literally everyone in tech, there’s huge data privacy concerns, and it has less coverage or discussion than a new version of jQuery. The US gov could fall but that would count as politics here so clearly irrelevant.
> less coverage or discussion than a new version of jQuery
Pretty sure this is a feature not a bug. Most people aren’t here for political topics.
51 replies →
Tons of political posts are on the front page of Hacker News all the time. The ones I actually see get flagged are generally bad articles. Sure, there's real stuff that gets flagged down too, but Hacker News is far from a place where politics is always flagged.
Yes. I think the problem is people that drive into police officers, abandon their children or bring a gun to a law enforcement event then resist arrest. HN is full of activism these days and I’m tired of the support for vigilantism.
2 replies →
It is really disheartening and sad to see this community burying its head in the sand and ignoring what’s happening to our country
What I see today on HN mirrors the processes I've witnessed in Russian speaking parts of the net during the 2010s. Despite the escalation of totalitarianism in Russia, the growing internet censorship and military operations in nearby countries, which left the posters on the same websites on the different sides of military conflicts, some sites have stuck to their "no politics" rule. Both to avoid upsetting people in power and out of their owners' naïve beliefs.
Reading them was like living in an alternate reality where nothing more notable happens than a release of new version X of a framework Y. Large portions of the tech community had exactly the same attitude that could be seen here and now - refusal to consider the societal implications of their daily work, adherence to technical solutions over the real world ones ("I'll just work remotely and use a VPN, who cares") and just simple willful ignorance.
It was around that time that I started to frequent English speaking discussions, which were much more vibrant and open. It saddens me to see the same kind of process repeat itself here.
As a non-American, I like the way HN is moderated. This isn’t an American politics and domestic issues forum.
2 replies →
If it was only that... What I really take issue with are all the mentally ill trolls jumping in to defend ICE, lying through their teeth about the content of videos we all saw. But actually supporting murder isn't enough to get you banned in here.
There’s probably a lot of people that have say mainstream left (eg Obama and Sanders statements around 2010), centrist and conservative views on illegal immigration and support enforcing the law. What you see as something bad happening is something very normal made more difficult by unhelpful state governments and vigilante groups.
23 replies →
Give it a few minutes
Yes just wait until the topic changes from databases to the political side where the root of the problem lies.
1 reply →
Aaaand… it’s gone
Damn near everything on HN gets flagged eventually. Either get everyone to drop their biases as Silicon Valley tech VCs or make it so that flags can ONLY be used to remove clear abuse. Sick of it
I actually think it’s best that HN flags and removes them because we are quickly entering a stage in this country where you will be flagged by the government monitoring the internet. I would caution people to start using VPN and continuously flush your IPs. I would even go as far as to recommend removing face ID from your devices which basically offers zero protection once you’re detained (or have a quick way to disable it).
You want us to hide in our own country?
4 replies →
And still there are people here using Twittler for communication. Who drive Swasticars. Who applaud AntichrisThiel. RapisTrump from the parts of Germany known to grow Potatoes in the soil and in the minds.
It's a pity our American friends haven't noticed that while yes, indeed, the worst of the worst scum got sent to the US. It is just that you had set your brain UI theme to dark mode, and did not notice that the threat isn't that kid with brown skin getting sent to concentration camp by your Gestapo, but those "we want immigrants that look like they are from Norway" folks. 1)
In the distant past, you US Americans still had libraries. You could have used them to find out what there is a reason we over here in Europe and Africa did not want the Trunps and Thiels and Musks and Karps. 2)
For those who are reading this from inside the US: At what point if EVER are you going to get out of your chair, use your second amendment rights, and get rid of your crazy fascist brainworm Nazi scum that you had been praying to?
I know. It is too much to ask for. OK OK. Outside of your comfort zone to fight back. Then go watch MELANIA, a documentation on how about rape and abuse and illegal immigration is totally fine as long as your skin has the right color and the boob job was done well.
1) I myself am German, male, straight, blonde hair. I am allowed to say that our type is the cancer of the human race. After all these hundreds of years, you STILL haven't understood you can not trust us?
2) I know Karp is not from Germany. But he wrote his doctoral thesis in Germany, and it can be summarized as "I am a totally crazy asshole and want to cause as much pain and suffering as possible onto humanity, can I please do that kthxbye?"
[dead]
Something seems to have gone wrong with the timestamps on comments on this thread. At present nearly all comments have been posted < 4 min ago. I know I'm slowing down as I get older, but I don't think the internet is jabbering that fast, is it?
Yes, sorry, that was a keyboard error on my part as I'm working very late at night to deal with a follow-up/duplicate thread about this topic that hit the front page. We'll restore all the correct timestamps in due course. I'm manually doing the top level ones now.
Thanks!
[dead]
I summarized all comments using LLM for better reading: https://hn-discussions.top/palantir-ice-medicaid-surveillanc...
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
How about this: no masks, no weapons (if they feel they are in danger they can call the cops who already have more weapons than they possibly need). Every time a citizen is detained in jail, detaining agent and their manager lose their paycheck for that period. Family with kids jailed and separated? No paycheck. You know, do it in the Christian compassionate way, not in the shooting single moms way.
We would have to pass a more general law that said children cannot be separated from their parents based on any crime the parents have committed, as there's no reason to special-case illegal immigration.
[flagged]
4 replies →
They sold us on a lie about the extent of the illegal immigrant "problem". It's numerically impossible to make the promises they made and not deport people who it's hard to argue should be deported.
Immigrants also commit crimes at fewer rates than US born people and crime is at all time lows. Yet they sold us for years on a crime moral panic and phantom "migrant crime".
So you said, propose a solution that also involves deporting people, and I will say NO. You are wanting to target a mostly fake problem.
It is fairly well established that social economic status is the largest predictor for crime than any other predictor. In order for immigrants to commit crimes at a lower rate than US born people we would have to make the claim that immigrants has an average higher social economical status than US born people.
The statistics you are looking for is that the sum of all crimes is lower for immigrants than US born people. 13.8% of the US population are immigrant residents, so in order for the sum of immigration crime to be higher than US born people the rate would need to be close to 1000% larger, which it is not.
3 replies →
[flagged]
3 replies →
The US cannot afford, demographically, to curtail immigration, illegal or otherwise. Simple fact is the US needs more people because we’re under the replacement rate.
But why are we under the replacement rate? Seems relevant
15 replies →
Cat-brained response
1 reply →
For the line must always go up crowd, they feel a need. Not everyone is in the line must always go up crowd.
4 replies →
That logic doesn't hold up.
Legal immigration - as is today - is about 1% of the US population. That's pretty standard, and would result in an slowly increasing population.
But regardless, saying "we need immigrants" then jumping to "illegal or not" is not a logical argument. We absolutely can have a system that prevent illegal immigration, while carefully screening legal immigrants. Heck, every country in the world does this except the US.
8 replies →
Most of these people didn't protest ICE under Biden and Obama, who both deported more than Trump 1. That's because we see a difference in how illegal migrants were prioritized (violent offenders first) and treated (more humanely) then compared to now. And how citizen protests were handled then and now.
Yeah, deportations are clearly beside the point, now.
Yeah I'm against ICE and I don't want any immigrants deported.
Why? Deportation is a reasonable response when a person violates a country’s immigration laws. That is the standard around the world.
Alternatively, you have an essentially open border, which obviously can lead to unmanageable waves of immigration that strain a country’s housing, healthcare, schools, welfare, and other resources, among other effects.
Disruption to peoples’ lives happens when we have administrations who arbitrarily decide not to enforce the immigration law (e.g. the previous administration). It sends mixed signals to potential immigrants, and leads to the outcomes we have today when we decide to resume enforcing our laws.
9 replies →
/s?
Otherwise you're proving his point, which is that there's no middle ground, only "ICE raids terrorizing people" and "sanctuary cities/states where local governments refuse to do any sort of immigration enforcement and specifically turn a blind eye to immigration status".
28 replies →
[flagged]
7 replies →
The alternative is better trained officers with more accountability.
You can’t fix this by giving them more money for training. This is how they’re trained to act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Grossman_(author)
Bovino says "the officer [who killed Pretti] has extensive training as a range safety officer and less lethal officer,” and had served for eight years.
1 reply →
Deporting people is cringe
You're wrong, simple as that.
You’re right. We should throw away the constitution so we can deport.. (checks notes) 600,000 undocumented immigrants, only 5% of which have committed a violent crime.
I don't have a horse in this race, but I do have a question. If you don't deport illegal immigrants, why not just open the border to everyone to come in? (let's ignore criminal records, etc for this exercise). What's the point of not letting people in but then if they manage to come in illegally, assume it's all good and they can stay?
20 replies →
I mean, I don't like CCP tech or public executions of disarmed citizens but saying only 5% is a bit nuts.
4 replies →
For me, it's the summary execution of US citizens that gives me pause.
Who needs to care about the Constitution, Individual Liberty, or limited government when there are iMmIgrAnTs around?!
It's like these people never got past their childhood phase worrying about the monster in the closet. In fact I do have to wonder how much of the non-Boomer+ support for this regime is just from naive kids who have zero life experience.
3 replies →
Exactly.
[flagged]
[flagged]
You are proof that propaganda works because nobody is telling illegals to go to their cities.
1 reply →
Forced movement is cringe, actually
You're right, maybe calling people "illegal" is just shitty and we should be the welcoming county we were taught about on history class.
[flagged]
[flagged]
You're right. I guess that means we should deny them any due process, target them (and anyone who looks like them, even vaguely) indiscriminately, and murder anyone who deigns to get in our way.
Yes, your rewrite is known as propaganda.
Say it with the class:
Propa-
-ganda
Propaganda!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_propaganda
[flagged]
There is a lot of room between unfettered immigration and having a roving band of apparently unaccountable agents violating 1st, 4th, and 6th amendment rights while also gunning down unarmed citizens in the streets.
We could try mandating e-verify with increasing penalties before we start asking people for papers and kicking down doors.
[flagged]
4 replies →
I think people are forgetting that ICE has been around for decades at this point and some if not most of the stuff they do is routine(Not including some recent enforcement behaviors). I agree with you that is not necessarily bad that the government is using its own data fed in to a vendor tool to enforce immigration.
Wish the proponents of stricter immigration would push for a proper national ID first.
Right now you have all the cons anyway, with none of the pros. A stitched-up database that has no laws attached to prevent its misuse. Just like with gun control, law enforcement could've made their job easier decades ago.
The government already has every record ever generated, and no law has ever permitted or prevented it. Once it was revealed, the only thing that happened was they exiled the guy the told us. A codified national ID doesn't afford any benefit to anyone. On top of that, nobody, regardless of political persuasion, wants it. At least we can agree on that.
Don’t act like the current policy is the only possible alternative to open borders. In spring of ’24, a bipartisan bill negotiated with Republicans included the following:
* Personnel surge: 1,500+ new Border Patrol agents, 4,300 asylum officers, and 100 immigration judges with staff to address 5-7 year case backlogs
* Emergency shutdown authority: Presidential power to close the border and suspend asylum processing when daily encounters exceeded capacity thresholds
* Fentanyl enforcement: 100 cutting-edge inspection machines at Southwest ports of entry, plus sanctions authority against foreign nationals involved in transnational drug trafficking
* Detention and support: Funding to address overcrowded ICE facilities, $1.4B for cities/states providing migrant services, and expedited work permits for eligible applicants
* Asylum system overhaul: Faster and fairer asylum process with massively expanded officer capacity to reduce years-long delays in adjudication
This bill had flaws and reasonable people disagreed on details, but it represented serious bipartisan compromise. Republicans walked away from it after Trump opposed it and it was blocked in congress. If you think that specific bill was bad, show me the Republican legislation introduced to solve the immigration crisis. They don’t want to solve the problem because it fires up their base.
This is not accurate. The details were kept secret during negotiation which consisted of 2 Democrats (1 "Independent" who caucused D) and 1 Republican. When the text of the bill was released, it was widely disparaged by Republicans.
>Several Senate Republicans Issue Blunt Dismissal Of Bipartisan Border Security Bill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf4EzoWR944
It never had a chance of passing. It wasn't some amazing bill that everyone loved until Trump told them not to. That is a fantasy that fits the narrative.
1 reply →
And I used to roll my eyes at the homeless guy who ranted about the mark of the beast
Palantir missed out on JSON as ticker symbol.
Immigration laws, like any other laws, need to be enforced, right?
A lot of people who support the current US government do not want the laws to be enforced, they just want to see people who look brown or foreigners to be deported, regardless of if they are in the US legally or illegally.
The immigration laws are saying that we should stop illegal immigration, but respect the legal immigration. And because of that, it means that each case should be carefully treated to discover if the person is illegal or not.
But a majority of people supporting the crack-down on immigration are more than happy to see 10 innocents being deported if it means 1 illegal being deported, and they will wave around the illegal being deported to explain that before the crack-down, the law was not respected, forgetting that the current situation is breaking the law way more than the previous one (before: 1 illegal not deported, 1 error. after: 10 innocents being deported, 10 errors).
In other words: if you care about the law, you cannot "pick and choose" and say "the laws are not respected because 1 illegal is not deported" but also "10 innocents are being deported, this breaks the law, but this does not count".
Where are you getting the idea that 10 innocents are being deported for every 1 illegal? Or that the "majority" of people supporting the crackdown would support that?
The information I can find suggests only a handful of cases, maybe a dozen, out of 600,000 or so.
8 replies →
@cauch: let me ask you this: how do you weed out the illegals besides asking for proof or citizenship or proof of a passport visa that you are in the US legally?
18 replies →
Have you actually read immigration laws? They are not as Manichean or prescriptive as many commenters make them out to be. Enforcement-first proponents often seem unaware of or indifferent to the difference between civil and riminal violations and the lack of mandatory remedies. I've also noticed a distinct tendency to hyperbolize and outsize lie about past policy choices in order to justify their position.
I don't think most people on either side of this issue can speak to the nuances of immigration law.
There’s a lot more nuance than might be obvious at first thought. For example, many of the people being violently deported now came here legally, followed the rules, and are now being targeted because their protected status or asylum cases were cancelled under highly suspicious circumstances, with a lot of the rush being to get them out of the country before the shady revocations are reviewed.
We also have a lot of inconsistent enforcement because some employers love having workers who can be mistreated under the threat of calling ICE. If we really wanted to lower immigration, we’d require companies to verify status for everyone they hire. You can see how this works in Texas where they’ve had a ton of bills requiring that get killed by Republican leadership on behalf of major donors:
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/05/texas-e-verify-requi...
No, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it should be ruthlessly enforced with dangerous and deadly action or even enforced at all when the majority of the public doesn't support them. Do you believe the feds should go into marijuana legal states and start arresting everybody for breaking the law? Marijuana is illegal after all.
If the president campaigned on a promise to arrest everyone breaking marijuana laws, then maybe.
Like that law that says it's illegal to HIRE workers that cannot show work authorization? IIRC that carries pretty steep penalties. And if enforced, will have a huge chilling effect on the whole illegal immigration thing. But, as sibling commenters have pointed out, it's not about enforcing laws but punishing outgroups. This is only not obvious to the willfully ignorant.
This has nothing to do with immigration law. If it did, there would be no offer on the table to withdraw the ICE troops in exchange for the MN voter database.
Why do you have voter databases? I always thought it's a bad idea, who doesn't?
5 replies →
Yes, with humanity and with respect for due process. And laws should not be applied selectively against people you don't like while turning a blind eye to violations by people on 'your side'.
So it appears Medicaid recipients data is target rich for illegals, who would have guessed that?
I hope that we can agree that blowing off the 10A and allowing all of this federal bloat has not been a swift call.
Social services left at the State level would be subject to a smaller pool of votes for approval and are more likely to be funded by actual tax revenue instead of debt.
That is: sustainably.
Furthermore, the lack of One True Database is a safety feature in the face of the inevitable bad actors.
In naval architecture, this is called compartmentalization.
There are good arguments against this, sure, but the current disaster before you would seem a refutation.
Some states are too poor to effectively fund and maintain their own safety nets. It's common for folks laid off in these states to get a dubious mental health diagnosis to justify SSDI, because doctors know they have no prospects and could well become homeless without it.
Funny how often those are red states...
1 reply →
So we mug other States rather than address the problem?
3 replies →