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

Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 830 posts

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#591

Post by zwaps »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #499
oceanplexian wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically incorrect, Supreme Court precedent has held that aliens are entitled to lesser First Amendment protections while seeking to enter the United States. You could be on US Soil (i.e. entering customs at an airport) and those protections don't apply. The person in question said he was in Geneva when he received the email from Google. Therefore is a non-US citizen residing outside the country entitled to 1A pro…

Yes, someone in customs at an airport can be treated as functionally “at the border” with reduced protections. But you are conflating seeking entry with being present inside the country. That’s the legal line, and the Supreme Court has stated it clearly. “once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, wh…

If only the US would follow its laws or constitution

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#592

Post by wredcoll »

vel0city wrote: post #262
jlarocco wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Its not US servicemembers pulling the trigger, its not US commanders deciding on targets, its not the POTUS starting the war. Pretty radically different things in my book. How many US servicemembers were injured or killed in the US's apparent major war with Gaza? We've spent ~$20B in grants for weapons procurement on Israel's behalf over several years, with a lot of that being defensive missile systems. I'm not a fan…

I don't know if this is a failure of the bandwidth level of an internet forum message or a nuance thing, but like, you can both wish democrats sent less money to israel (for a whole bunch of reasons) while also acknowledging that this behaviour is preferable to the demonstrated alternative of republican presidents constantly trying to invade middle eastern countries.

Like, if you want less american money (and lives) being spent bombing the middle east, the most rational approach is to vote for a democrat majority/president and then primary anyone who still tries to buy bombs or whatever.

The alternative approach of letting a republican get elected is demonstrably worse.

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#593

Post by wredcoll »

traderj0e wrote: post #464
wredcoll wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty pathetic when the best argument you can make is a whataboutism that isn't even equivalent.

Parent comment isn't a whataboutism, if anything my comment could be seen as that. My point isn't to defend Trump's actions, only to call out that this is a scarier problem than it gets credit for when someone just blames MAGA. We're dealing with a two-front assault here, and they want you to think it's just the other party you don't like.

My comment was trying to emphasize the parent's point, I was referring to the grandparent as whataboutism. It was a tad unclear.

I wish america would stop sending money to israel, for a bunch of reasons. That desire is most likely to be realized by a strong democrat majority.

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#594

Post by wredcoll »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #272
metrix wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being trans, I feel this so much. On a side note, it was interesting after Trump was elected where some of my co-workers wanted to use old pronouns after some laws changed _in meetings_ and I realized the only thing stopping them was the awkwardness it would have been for _them_ in that situation

In the Before Times, I thought that asking Americans to mind pronouns would never work -- not because they were mean, but because it would require the average American to learn what a "pronoun" was. Of course, it turned out that the average American had no problem learning what a pronoun was if it gave them the opportunity to be mean. Sigh.

There was a certain dark humor from all the people proudly proclaiming to be "against pronouns".

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#595

Post by notrealyme123 »

ExpertAdvisor01 wrote: post #227
notrealyme123 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't sack you from the street and put you in a Camp. At least not anymore. Say what you want about especially Germany, but there you don't get sued by the president for billions if he doesn't like your opinion.

It's worse in Germany. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwachkopf-Aff%C3%A4re

Everything about his Robert habeck comment was dropped by the courts.

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#596

Post by ajkjk »

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #503
lukeschlather wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were a uniform stance, maybe, but when it's used for partisan reasons by the party in power it's a different story. That's also not the law, the law is that anyone in the country has the right to free speech. If rights only apply to citizens it is a mockery of the freedoms this country is built on.

[flagged]

you expect them to recall some analogous example of politic deportations years ago?

and anyway, almost certainly the answer is yes; it is not hard to believe that a person's stance is that systematically deporting people for disagreeing with the government is wrong. "Trump bad" is very often on the basis of principles which trump is violating, not just because it's Trump. Surely you realize that people are mad at him a lot because of the thing he does?

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#597

Post by wredcoll »

pessimizer wrote: post #279
sam345 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really what you're concerned about that somebody would ask a soft ball question about proposed solutions? Why is questioning the buildup of brush a crazy idea? It's been a mainstream concern for years. I really don't think it's healthy for any inquiry to propose a particular mindset and shut down alternative thinking. It doesn't seem very scientific or intelligent to me.

Notice how pro-free speech = pro-clearing brush buildup? It's so weird how people join these partisan factions that have a full package of beliefs that you have to be evil not to share. Woe to your job if you say that you think brush buildup should be cleared; you're obviously racist.

California, and every other agency that attempts to manage forests, does clear brush, in a variety of different methods and approaches.

It turns out the actual problem is more complicated than "duh just light some fires!"

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#598

Post by scarecrowbob »

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #503
lukeschlather wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were a uniform stance, maybe, but when it's used for partisan reasons by the party in power it's a different story. That's also not the law, the law is that anyone in the country has the right to free speech. If rights only apply to citizens it is a mockery of the freedoms this country is built on.

[flagged]

I was. We were doing things, yall just didn't pay attention/

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#599

Post by scarecrowbob »

xethos wrote: post #538
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per the numbers, Obama is listed as deporting 5 million, and even gave Tom Homan a medal for his work.

I'd say the difference with the deportations under Obama (aside from deporting more people while spending less money doing it) is that he followed the law when doing so

As a person who spent a couple of hours watching our local ICE facility today, I'd say the differences are purely aesthetic.

I've gotten to where I don't really care -what- the law is and believe that from an ethical standpoint if a person can have a house and a job and not cause trouble I don't care if they are from Honduras or Houston- any position other than that is just racism with extra steps.

And I am aware that probably sounds crazy to most folks here but at this point I don't care. The folks I organize with have been working since before Trump and will likely be working still when the Democrats put whatever stuff suit their leadership selects.

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#600

Post by lmm »

keithnz wrote: post #574
lmm wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IDK, I think "foreigners shouldn't be coming over here as guests and then trying to influence our politics" is a reasonable stance, and doesn't say anything about targeting citizens.

weird, don't you think that stance is just fear of free speech? I see it as completely unreasonable. America (of the past now?) has a history of inviting all kinds of people to discuss politics, philosophy, religion from all over the world.... but now you are scared of what people have to say? Also if you don't recognize that it is political targeting (not of citizens, but anyone by any means the government has its d…

> weird, don't you think that stance is just fear of free speech? I see it as completely unreasonable. America (of the past now?) has a history of inviting all kinds of people to discuss politics, philosophy, religion from all over the world.... but now you are scared of what people have to say?

I think active political campaigning is a bit different from discussing political philosophy, and it's a major mistake to treat the former as "just free speech". (I think Citizens United was a massive misjudgement that has lead directly to many of our present-day problems). I think we're all agreed that foreigners should not be standing for office or voting in elections, and foreigners other than permanent residents are already barred from making campaign contributions; to my mind this kind of protest aimed at changing government policy falls into the same category. A protest like that isn't an effort to convey some insight or argument; it's an effort to demonstrate viscerally that the citizenry have a strong view on an issue. I don't think allowing foreign participation helps with that; quite the opposite.

There have been a lot of claims in recent years - from both sides of the aisle - that enemy countries have been deliberately disrupting US politics in order to harm the country. I think it's vital that our political process not only has integrity but is seen to have integrity, and part of that is ensuring that adversaries cannot unduly influence it.

Post reply on HN