491–500 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, well if you saw like four videos on YouTube or TikTok I guess that's sufficient evidence for me.
Please go ahead and present your evidence, show where is the police interacting with the "protesters" in Minneapolis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Privacy itself can become illegal just as easily as religion, etc. if we follow your argument.
EU is literally debating about "Chat Control". Its purpose is to scan for child sexual abuse material in internet traffic. But its at the cost of breaking end to end encryption.
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 is really disheartening and sad to see this community burying its head in the sand and ignoring what’s happening to our country
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Every single one of the tens of millions of people who have illegally immigrated to the United States over the past few decades is a criminal who can be legally deported. I 100% agree with this sentiment and that is why I strongly support speeding the asylum application process through redirecting immigration enforcement funding to bolstering the courts. Our backlog should be 0 before we start knocking door to door…
From a systems perspective, we're heavily funding the most expensive and disruptive part of the pipeline (identification and removal) while starving the part that actually resolves legal status (adjudication, asylum review, work authorization). Though maybe that's a feature of this administration, not a bug.
If the goal is public safety, prioritizing people who commit violent crimes makes sense. If the goal is restoring legal order, then yeah, the obvious first step is to drive the backlog toward zero. I don't think that's the administration's goal though.
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.congres…
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?
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 agen…
> 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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> obviously can lead to unmanageable waves of immigration that strain a country’s housing, healthcare, schools, welfare, and other resources, among other effects. I don't agree that this is "obvious". Immigrants bring important social and cultural capital. Who do you think is building a lot of the infrastructure in the US? The people putting a strain on the system are actually the aging baby boomer generation. I have…
I’m hoping the world grants everyone citizenship to the state of Israel. Most of us are children of Abraham statistically anyway. And, think of all the benefits and economic development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Aside from the confusing conflation of sums and rates mentioned in other replies, your argument assumes that correlations are transitive and exhaustive—i.e., that because socioeconomic status correlates with crime, any group with lower crime must have higher socioeconomic status. Which of course is invalid because correlations do not compose across variables, and crime is multi-causal
A missing aspect with immigration when it comes to statistics is time spent in the country. The likelihood that a person has ever committed a crime in a specific country is generally lower the less time they spend in that country, especially as that number reach zero. The apple to apple comparison would be to look at the average person of average age, in any specific demographic, and ask if they have ever committed a crime, which is not the same as committed a crime in a specific country. That would be the crime rate. An other way would be to ask the question regarding a given year, what is the probability of an individual to commit a crime. The rate of the average person lifetime will not align with the rate of any given year.
The relation between crime and socioeconomic has been thoroughly debated and research when it comes to race, with the finding that race is not related to violent crime, but only once socioeconomic factors (and other related aspects) has been controlled for. If you disregard socioeconomic factors, then race has a distinct relation with violent crime. It is only because researchers control for related factors that we get the findings that we get.
People can disagree with studies should be valid and which doesn't, or look at different meta studies and say which ones is more valid than the others, but I would recommend that one engage with the discussion rather than throw around assumptions about assumptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Or rather, most people aren’t here to have their preconceived notions challenged by reality.
Politics is a nebulous term for topics that affect a large number of the population. Tech intersects with politics all the time and deserves good faith discussion.
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 agen…
> 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 Medi…