The government told Motel 6 to comply with a request and then the government sues Motel 6 for complying with the request. Sounds like par for the course to me!
[deleted]
Motel 6 to Pay $12M after Improperly Giving Guest Lists to ICE
101–110 of 224 posts
Re: Motel 6 to Pay $12M after Improperly Giving Guest Lists to ICE
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
This could just mean that it was the management that was pressured and not the receptionists. I just don't see any other reason why they might willingly endanger their business and customers for absolutely no benefit to themselves, besides governmental pressure.
Please do some more research before you keep throwing out hypothetical complaints about something that didn't happen. Motel 6 didn't just go along with ICE's request, per the complaint, Motel6 actually trained their employees to turn over such information even before ICE came calling. The reason? Motel 6 is owned by the Blackstone Group. Most of the directors and executives of the Blackstone Group are die-hard Trump…
> The benefit to themselves was supporting their president's policies.
Interesting, well if that was the motive then I certainly can't have any sympathy for Motel 6 here. But I still believe that it is unfair for ICE to go without penalty, whether or not the law addresses this situation.
> per the complaint, Motel6 actually trained their employees to turn over such information even before ICE came calling.
It's not clear to me from the complaint that Motel 6 trained their employees as such prior to any communication from ICE. Your explanation regarding their republican alignment does make sense, but I'm not sure this specific point is accurate.
> Please do some more research before you keep throwing out hypothetical complaints about something that didn't happen.
This is a forum for discussion. It's not Snopes. I just want to share my layperson's opinions and also hear your (and others) expert feedback about them. By the way, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comments.
Re: Motel 6 to Pay $12M after Improperly Giving Guest Lists to ICE
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because it's not 1 million Swedes entering the country illegally every year.
The only known terrorists to be apprehended coming overland into America came from the North.
At legal crossings, no different than flying into the US. Which, for that matter, is how the vast majority of known terrorists have gotten into the United States -- 100% of the 9/11 terrorists flew into the US.
When there is some sort of equivalency drawn between the Southern and Northern border it is usually founded on absolute nonsense. The Northern border likely sees more smuggling of both people and contraband (e.g. guns) North than the reverse.
Re: Motel 6 to Pay $12M after Improperly Giving Guest Lists to ICE
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
How was it illegal for ICE to request the data? It certainly wasn't ethical, but what is right and what is legal are not the same thing. Hell it sounds like the only law broken according to the article was a Washington State consumer protection law. Hence the settlement is against Motel 6 and not against ICE.
Part of the trouble is ICE's "requests" are not always purported as requests. See recent attempt in New York by ICE agent that he had a legally enforceable warrant and that his goal of detaining a vehicle occupant was not simply a request. [1] The ICE officer in this case even quotes a statute that implied the driver might face penalties for not complying with the officer's demands. Given this behavior, I wonder what…
Which is why when someone claims a law compels you to do something, your default position should be to demand to speak to an attorney, invoke your right to remain silent, and refuse to interact further.
(This means complying if they try to arrest you)
As defense attorneys say: you can't beat the ride, but you can beat the rap.
Re: Motel 6 to Pay $12M after Improperly Giving Guest Lists to ICE
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
ICE didn't commit a crime...It is not illegal for government agencies to request information from individuals or companies. Nor did Motel 6 for that matter. It was hit with a civil lawsuit...
Not illegal, sure, but the lack of warrant may (should) mean the information is inadmissible in court. It's no different than if they stole it.
Why does the fact that someone is staying in Motel 6 need to be admitted as evidence in court? People aren't being deported for the crime of booking a room at Motel 6.
Re: Motel 6 to Pay $12M after Improperly Giving Guest Lists to ICE
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enumerate those other purposes? Is one of them to privilege a white majority? Perhaps there's a reason so many call to abolish the institution.
It's in the damn name. Immigration enforcement. We have a legal immigration process in this country, many try to come here illegally. Without a border, you have no country.
The legal immigration process has been slowed to a crawl by the current administration[1]. Any claims that they simply wish for people to follow the legal process are entirely misleading, to the point of being reality-muddling propaganda. The administration is making the legal process harder, impossible in some cases[2], and is advocating for the shutdown of many legal avenues, even those that the president's family themselves have used to attain status here[3].
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19547565
2. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/trumps-...
3. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/nyregion/melania-trumps-p...
Re: Motel 6 to Pay $12M after Improperly Giving Guest Lists to ICE
#107This is... strange. When the federal government comes asking for your help, I think it's pretty normal for people to provide that help. In a just world, if the government asks for something inappropriately, then the party at fault is the government. (In other words, Washington should sue ICE, not Motel 6.) If we want companies to require a subpoena to share information with the federal government (and personally I do…
> When the federal government comes asking for your help, I think it's pretty normal for people to provide that help.
There's all kinds of times when turning over information to the government, or certain agents of government, without a compulsory order is illegal, either under civil or criminal law or both. Sometimes it goes beyond that, and even prohibits such disclosure under otherwise compulsory orders.
I've worked with personal data of federally-funded substance abuse treatment program clients. Beyond (and actually, IIRC, predating) HIPAA protections that also apply, I could not, legally, disclose such information even to an law enforcement agent with a subpoena for the information, without a separate, accompanying federal court order authorizing disclosure of the protected client information. The implementing regulations (42 CFR Part 2) even take the unusual step of specifically calling out a number of nonexceptions to the general rule against disclosure outside of the specific parameters permitted: [42 CFR § 2.13(b)] ”The restrictions on disclosure and use in the regulations in this part apply whether or not the part 2 program or other lawful holder of the patient identifying information believes that the person seeking the information already has it, has other means of obtaining it, is a law enforcement agency or official or other government official, has obtained a subpoena, or asserts any other justification for a disclosure or use which is not permitted by the regulations in this part.”
If you work in an industry to which the law—state, federal, local, whatever—applies such protection to the data you hold, you are responsible to know that, abide by it, and not just roll over when someone vaguely waves a badge in your direction.
> If we want companies to require a subpoena to share information with the federal government (and personally I do want that) then we should set that standard in law.
The State of Washington did that. That's exactly what the case is about.
> (How much information does the CIA and FBI vacuum up from Washington telcos in a day in violation of this law, and why isn't anyone held to task?
Probably none, mostly because the law at issue doesn't apply to telcos.
Re: Motel 6 to Pay $12M after Improperly Giving Guest Lists to ICE
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are fined for improperly handing over data. It seems we have already set that standard in law.
So who from the federal government is charged for their part of the crime?
> So who from the federal government is charged for their part of the crime?
What crime? The charges were for a civil violation of state consumer protection law, which restricted the behavior of the motel, not ICE.
Even if ICE officials, in the federally-lawful conduct of their duties could be subject to state law, I don't see any indication that they did anything that would have broken the law at issue, which prohibits the disclosure, not the request.
Re: Motel 6 to Pay $12M after Improperly Giving Guest Lists to ICE
#109This is... strange. When the federal government comes asking for your help, I think it's pretty normal for people to provide that help. In a just world, if the government asks for something inappropriately, then the party at fault is the government. (In other words, Washington should sue ICE, not Motel 6.) If we want companies to require a subpoena to share information with the federal government (and personally I do…
I would much rather educate the population on their rights and teach people to be skeptical of all requests from strangers, even when those strangers have a badge or a uniform. A world where “a government agent requested it so I complied” is a sufficient excuse for misbehaving seems ripe for abuse.
Re: Motel 6 to Pay $12M after Improperly Giving Guest Lists to ICE
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person who should ultimately be blamed is the person who is illegally in the US. Why blame the cops for the arrest of a criminal?
So I assume you blame Rosa Parks for not sitting at the back of the bus? It was illegal to do what she did, so therefore she was a criminal. Not saying that has to be the case here, but just because something is against the law doesn't mean breaking it is morally bad.
Your comment seems to be saying that this is the case here. Otherwise, why invoke Rosa Parks if there is no connection.
I am sure I can find a long list of murderers and rapists that ICE has deported from the country, does opposing ICE mean supporting murderers and rapists?