ICE is using facial-recognition technology to quickly arrest people

Post by greenavocado » Mon, Jan 05, 2026, 12:44 PM UTC

mirzap wrote: post #45

We like to think surveillance is something you can turn on for one problem and turn off afterward. In practice, that never happens. Once the machinery is in place, it stays and looks for new work. Tools justified today by "illegal immigration" won’t stop there. They drift into credit scoring, health insurance pricing, hiring and firing decisions, school admissions, housing access, travel permissions, banking, welfare…

Post by idiotsecant » Mon, Jan 05, 2026, 1:03 PM UTC

greenavocado wrote: post #91

mirzap wrote: post #45

We like to think surveillance is something you can turn on for one problem and turn off afterward. In practice, that never happens. Once the machinery is in place, it stays and looks for new work. Tools justified today by "illegal immigration" won’t stop there. They drift into credit scoring, health insurance pricing, hiring and firing decisions, school admissions, housing access, travel permissions, banking, welfare…

This specific point is addressed in a famous 1995 anti-technology essay by Ted Kaczynski. Specifically paragraphs: 127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. ... 128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. ... 129. Another r…

Post by frogperson » Mon, Jan 05, 2026, 1:30 PM UTC

15155 wrote: post #86

expedition32 wrote: post #79

It's not the technology. The American people voted for this. That is the real discussion you should have. Why do Americans want fascism?

> Why do Americans want fascism? Americans don't want to expend their tax dollars on folks willing to break the law for financial gain.

Post by R_D_Olivaw » Mon, Jan 05, 2026, 2:08 PM UTC

15155 wrote: post #85

throwfaraway135 wrote: post #34

Depending on the crime, most people would agree that face/gait recognition is warranted, for example in case of murder or rape. The difference here is that some people consider "illegal immigration" to be more like a misdemeanor, others consider it to be something much more serious.

> others consider it to be something much more serious. We have limited funds for social safety nets for our own citizens: how is it not "serious" that we would deplete them on folks who are willfully and intentionally breaking our rules for financial benefit?

Post by 15155 » Mon, Jan 05, 2026, 2:11 PM UTC

R_D_Olivaw wrote: post #98

frogperson wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very shortsighted and frankly dumb argument. You would give up constitutional rights, to allow an unchecked police force, to arrest anyone they want, to save a few tax dollars? So stupid.

All his replies in this thread are this false kneejerk boomerism. Sad, sick people. No empathy. No heart.