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

ICE using Palantir tool that feeds on Medicaid data

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 1001 posts

Re: ICE using Palantir tool that feeds on Medicaid data

#361

Post by JoshTriplett »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #137
thangalin wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

Generally speaking, I think the point of statements like this is to shoot down the trite and thought-free cliche "if you have nothing to hide". And the point is rarely to convince the person you're speaking to, it's usually to get people who might otherwise be swayed by hearing the trite and thought-free cliche to think for a moment.

If you're talking directly to one person and trying to convince them, without an audience, there are likely different tactics that might work, but even then, some of the same approach might help, just couched more politely. "You don't actually mean that; do you want a camera in your bedroom with a direct feed to the police? What do you actually mean, here? What are you trying to solve?"

Option A: "Yes!", which tells you you're probably talking to someone who cares more about not admitting they're wrong than thinking about what they're saying.

Option B: "Well, no, but...", and now you're having a discussion.

Generally speaking, people who say things like "if you have nothing to hide" either (charitably) haven't thought about it very much and are vaguely wanting to be "strict on crime" without thought for the consequences because they can't imagine it affecting them, or (uncharitably) have attitudes about what they consider "shameful" and they really mean "you shouldn't do things that I think you should feel shame about".

Re: ICE using Palantir tool that feeds on Medicaid data

#362

Post by charcircuit »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #351
charcircuit wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel "people should not have have consequences for what they say", and "people should be able to avoid consequences for what they have done", are separate concepts. One does not require believing in the other. For example I believe the former, but for the latter I believe everyone should be punished when they break the law.

People should have consequences for what they say, but not from the government. You should never be prosecuted for what you say, no matter how vile. But other people are free to exercise their rights in response, including freedom of association.

That was a typo in my post. Fixed.

Re: ICE using Palantir tool that feeds on Medicaid data

#364

Post by abustamam »

tombert wrote: post #326
JuniperMesos wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Without going into a long tangent talking about each point, I would like to point out that ICE doesn't actually seem terribly concerned with whether or not the people are illegal aliens or criminals. The last two people they murdered were US citizens, there are many US citizens, some natural born, that have been detained. If they have access to all this information that was volunteered, then why are they so utterly i…

To add onto that, Palantir is a private company. They have no business having that much of my data without my consent, with no way to opt out.

Re: ICE using Palantir tool that feeds on Medicaid data

#365

Post by NCFZ »

belorn wrote: post #263
asveikau wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 invo…

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

Re: ICE using Palantir tool that feeds on Medicaid data

#366

Post by billy99k »

yks wrote: post #80
billy99k wrote: post #23

[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.

[flagged]

Re: ICE using Palantir tool that feeds on Medicaid data

#367

Post by anigbrowl »

p1esk wrote: post #98
steve1977 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Privacy itself can become illegal just as easily as religion, etc. if we follow your argument.

Yes, that is indeed the point.

Re: ICE using Palantir tool that feeds on Medicaid data

#368

Post by abernard1 »

simonw wrote: post #2

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 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.

Re: ICE using Palantir tool that feeds on Medicaid data

#369

Post by tinyhouse »

DrSAR wrote: post #129
tinyhouse wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No horse either but here is an attempt (ignoring criminal record as you say): Opening the border and letting her rip is clearly not sustainable in the medium term. So you try to make it (reasonably) hard to get in incl. turning people away at the border. Once they are in (incl illegally so) you concede you have lost on this instance. Now you admit that forcefully removing immigrants carries too high a cost (literally…

I'm not a big fan of this solution since it rewards people who knowingly did something that is illegal. It also allows businesses to take advantage of these people, unless you decide to give them legal status immediately. However, I agree with you that getting the balance right is really hard and that deporting people, esp families with kids who grew up here and did nothing wrong, is very problematic.

Re: ICE using Palantir tool that feeds on Medicaid data

#370

Post by bigyabai »

billy99k wrote: post #366
yks wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

With all due respect, actually look at the replies to your comment here. You are arguing in bad faith.

> How about local law enforcement just comply with ICE? Sanctuary cities and non-compliance brought this on these blue cities.

No, they "brought this on" by ignoring due process. There is no world in which your stance justifies the extrajudicial execution of a detained US citizen.

Post reply on HN