Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 326 posts

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#191

Post by WildUtah »

edblarney wrote: post #161
zouhair wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tunisia is not in the Middle-East.

It's de-facto a M/E country. The North African countries are Arabic, Muslim, and are geopolitically part of the Arabic sphere of influence which is de-facto the same thing as middle east. 'North Africa' I find to be not descriptive. The best term would be 'Maghreb' - but nobody knows what that means. M/E is an appropriate geopolitical designation.

If you don't say Maghreb when you mean Maghreb, how are people ever going to learn what Maghreb means?

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#192

Post by gopalv »

Raed667 wrote: post #110
edblarney wrote: post #48

What about a database of people from countries with high propensity for radicalization, for example Tunisia, or Somalia? Paradox: Tunisia is perhaps the most progressive of all the M/E Muslim countries, and yet they are the #1 M/E country in terms of Jihadis. They are overwhelmingly the greatest per/capita Jihadi producers in the world. By far. Tunisia is very small. Networks are very small. 95% chance that a young m…

As a Tunisian I would like to add a comment: 1- Yes, there is a number of Tunisians that went to Syria. As you have said per/capita it is a large number. There are around 10 Million Tunisians and from 3000 to 8000 fighting in Syria (depending on the source). 2- This is due to several factors: Post-revolution politics, poverty, mistrust in the state institutions and the police, and -most importantly- a previous govern…

> 4- If this "database" checks for first and second degree connections, then the entire country would be flagged.

And some people would like that - which is sort of the problem with Xenophobia-with-added-statistics.

The trouble with using statistics to discriminate is that it gives people some sort of plausible deniability which they can offload into opaque computer programs ("Did my race give me a higher interest rate? Did my zipcode raise the rates for an educational loan?" ... and we can't know easily).

I'm pondering over how much of "Extreme Vetting" is black boxes like those - whether I'll even know if my code gets used in one.

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#194

Post by threatofrain »

edblarney wrote: post #48

What about a database of people from countries with high propensity for radicalization, for example Tunisia, or Somalia? Paradox: Tunisia is perhaps the most progressive of all the M/E Muslim countries, and yet they are the #1 M/E country in terms of Jihadis. They are overwhelmingly the greatest per/capita Jihadi producers in the world. By far. Tunisia is very small. Networks are very small. 95% chance that a young m…

Why wouldn't there be a database of Muslims? It's so rational for any powerful group to have a massive database. It's just that instead of having a DB of Muslims, you'd have a DB of citizens, of which Islam would be one of many fields. Perhaps this is what you meant by the FBI database.

Also, having a database of many kinds of information is rational because it doesn't have the same fear factor as a database of Jews, and yet it has that same power -- if the political winds should ever blow in that direction.

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#195

Post by yclept »

wjossey wrote: post #2

It's a lovely gesture, and an important sign of solidarity; however, it'a merely that, just a gesture. I hope that SV and the tech industry leverages its wealth and technical legal capabilities to fight these sorts of actions in court, unlike their responses to privacy intrusions by the federal government, British intelligence, and other foreign groups.

I solemnly pledge to do nothing 8)

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#196

Post by gohrt »

kevinburke wrote: post #124
Raed667 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to a FISA court.

FISA courts asking for the same data are also bad. The data asked for by a FISA court must be gathered and shipped by employees and lawyers who have agency. Those employees and lawyers can choose to fight, or not. This is a public pledge that says "we will choose to fight." Leaking FISA requests to the press, choosing to face jail time, or trying a public battle over a FISA request are other options available to peop…

If something is harmful, ineffective grandstanding (and then losing a FISA fight) are worthless.

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#197

Post by cookiecaper »

eropple wrote: post #108
cookiecaper wrote: post #68

Post flagged as fake news. The only people talking about a database of Muslims are the ones trying to be outraged over something they fabricated out of whole cloth.

This is incorrect. And given your history, you know better. Quoth: > "But that's something your White House would like to implement?" the reporter presses. > "Oh I would certainly implement that. Absolutely." Trump answers. > But Trump continues to talk about the logistics of implementing such a database at length. > "But for Muslims specifically, how do you actually get them registered in a database?" the reporter a…

You're quoting the dialogue without the preceding context. ABC News openly admits that Trump misunderstood their question, which was yelled to him as he was departing a loud rally.

They quote the explanation offered by the Trump campaign spokesman that clarifies the matter:

>"The national registry of foreign visitors from countries with high terrorism activity that was in place during the Bush and Obama Administrations gave intelligence and law enforcement communities additional tools to keep our country safe the President-elect will release his own vetting policies after he is sworn in."

(This is all from the source you linked.)

Trump assumed this was the subject of the discussion, since, as ABC News itself notes, he was unable to hear the reporter's full question. It's a program that existed under Bush and Obama until 2011, when Obama presumably terminated it so he could use it as a talking point in the re-election campaign (setting up another "Republicans are racist [because they want to be careful before admitting people from countries that are terrorism hotspots]" dig). Trump's advisors feel the security benefits of this program, which has nothing to do with religion, justify its reinstatement. There is no constitutional issue presented by cataloging aliens that are present in the country by their country of origin; in fact, it's a necessary thing to enforce any immigration policy at all.

Trump said nothing about going to mosques to sign people up. When the reporter suggested this, Trump said "you sign them up at different [places]"; one who wanted to give Trump the benefit of the doubt could even interpret this comment as explicitly disavowing the concept that mosques should be canvassed (as in "Should we go to mosques to make sure the Muslims [who should be signed up but aren't, not because they're Muslim, but because they're aliens from a high terror risk country] get signed up?" / "No, different places.").

Trump is certainly a master at the authentic-sounding subtly ambiguous statement. I'm sure that skill is very useful in both sales and politics.

Finally, I would suggest that you refrain from spuriously accusing others of lying, thereby generating unnecessary hostility.

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#198

Post by gohrt »

woofyman wrote: post #90
exabrial wrote: post #21

Unfortunately, with firearms registration and no-fly lists, Muslim registries are part of the slope we've set precedent for. A citizen should _never_ have to register with the government to exercise a freedom explicitly granted in the constitution.

Flying isn't a constitutionally protected right. Voting is though. Should you be able to vote without registering?

> Should you be able to vote without registering?

Maybe. Maybe voter rolls should be some sort of bio-token that proofs your uniqueness and existence, and your approximate location (to determine local eligibility) but uses a pseudonym and is not connected to anything like your taxes, drivers license, etc.

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#199

Post by gohrt »

specialist wrote: post #171
woofyman wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying isn't a constitutionally protected right. Voting is though. Should you be able to vote without registering?

Should you be able to vote without registering? Correct. The US Govt and many others already maintain a complete list of all persons, living and dead, including useful attributes like citizenship, current address, age (aka eligibility to vote), in real-time. Maintaining separate, duplicate, opt-in, haphazardly maintained, patchwork voter registration databases is wasteful, error-prone, and only serves the purpose of…

Maintain a single-unified opt-out, meticulously maintained, centralized voter registration database, is at risk for authoritarian abuse for cataloging and targeting people.

Why should Federal government care who lives in Florida, aside from a population estimate for the Electoral College? That's Florida's business.

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#200

Post by threatofrain »

kevinburke wrote: post #88
Raed667 wrote: post #35

I just went on Facebook and created an Ad [0] that targets only people "interested in Islam" and living the US, it took 30 seconds. [0] http://i.imgur.com/NOrGA2N.png --- Edit: Direct link

There is a big difference between advertising to users interested in Islam and shipping that dataset (or clicks, or people who use certain keywords in messages) to the government.

Drawing a line between intent and danger is a weak barrier, because you cannot dictate the intent of future political groups. There is no reliable test of intentionality.

Also, the nature of information is that once known you can never rely on unknowing it again. If the United States breaks out into a war with China, you cannot unknow a database of asians innocuously collected for alternative reasons. The information itself is dangerous because the information itself is powerful.

Post reply on HN