I want to reunite with my 'principled nerds' so badly. Things weren't perfect, not by a long shot, back then, but there was a sense of hope and excitement about using technology to make the world a better place.

Both of these are serious, but decades-old problems.

That was before doing so would almost certainly result in immediate retaliation from the executive branch.

Are you talking about the individuals or the companies? Companies can lie a lot of the time and just say they don't have the requested information, and the government has no way to know, unless they usually comply with similar requests. The government can seize servers, but can't compel disk encryption keys yet.

There's a shorter phrase for corporations and other large organizations colluding with or controlling an authoritarian government for the organizations' own ends at the expense of at least some subset of the people. It's actually only one word, and there are three options. Mussolini had corporatism on the mind. You probably know the other two, and one is a proper noun.

Your own property/server has 4th amendment protections, especially if it's in your house. Your use of someone else's machine doesn't, especially when they voluntarily give up your info.

You can also use proxys and/or tor to create external accounts/upload stuff.

>Well, and what are you concretely suggesting here?

Having your own server and infra, at least in part.

>Having my own door kicked down and my dog shot so they can get at my personal home server?

The government doesn't have infinite resources, nor is it immune to political considerations (obviously, that's the problem here!). There is an enormous, qualitative and quantitative difference between:

  1) we must get an actual warrant in a lot of different physical jurisdictions across the country all with different judges and then spend the money and availability to send physical meat agents to said locations, often rural and remote, across the country to an unknown physical situation with at least some areas where people might shoot at us, and all equipment needed for that, and will by definition have to disclose everything to our targets

  2) an agent can comfortably from their central office chair use a preexisting automated system to a central cloud portal to demand info secretly from companies that will just comply without any question

And again, even if absolutely nothing else, it means something to know they're after you. Nothing stops you from immediately surrendering your server when asked, but you can then also instantly get a lawyer/support and push back right then and there. You can't adapt to what you either never even realize happened or only realized too late.

Fix your country.

This happens sometimes, but rarely, and if it does happen, chances are you'll be fine, apart from downtime and having to buy a new server, as long as your disks are encrypted.

You're treating this as if the worst thing that can happen will happen, when it's more of a numbers game. They do these raids occasionally on one or two people in order to scare tens of thousands of other people away from participating.

DCs also get bullshit raids sometimes and have processes that don't involve an immediate permanent blacklist.

You have to realise it's a move of desperation by the attackers. If they are seizing a server, it means they don't have anything and they're hoping beyond hope they can get something, anything, from that server.

probably use tor and nothing tied to your identity

I'm not saying it's easy, but the straightforward solution is to move

On the other hand if it's on a hosted server that you have control over, they know whose server it is but they don't know what it's doing, and without a wiretap they don't even know who's connecting, and they can't see any encryption keys or content if encryption is used well.

Imagine a world where we all use Gmail, and one where we all host email on our own servers the host can't get into. In the latter world, a wiretap can identify who's sending mail to who, but not read the email, nor identify the IP address that downloaded any individual email. That's a severe handicap for them over just being able to read your mail. If you have 10 people on each server, they get even less info (but the server owner gets more).

And that they'll let you register even when connected to tor.

All of your comments are coming up as [dead]. I vouched and upvoted your first one shortly after you posted it, I think that's probably why you couldn't edit it anymore.

Fly.io really needs to explain what happened here.

And the Supreme Court did this because the Republican Justices were caught accepting bribes. It's become just another corrupt Republican institution, the same as the Presidency and Congress.

I mean the Chief Justice was asked by Congress - "It seems that every other part of the federal court system has ethics guidelines and processes, but not the Supreme Court. It seems reasonable that the highest Court in our land should have those." And he replied, almost verbatim, "We're not going to do that and we're offended that you feel the need to ask."

If it truly went to everybody to me it is just government paying dividends to the people. Which I think is far preferable and useful compared to corporate bailouts and tax cuts and most other allocations. We gave money to people during covid and it wasn't catastrophic.

How is that different than democrat socialists offering free healthcare and universal income?

Except for the flock cameras, we opted into this system with open arms. If you're coming of age right now it must suck, but there has been a steady march towards a demolition of privacy for more than 20 years.

I’m getting unsolicited texts all the time about how the “billionaire tax” in California is the worst thing ever. No matter if you think the tax is misguided, it’ll probably work at preventing the billionaire tax from passing, but it’s a good firsthand demonstration at how power accumulating to billionaires tends to accumulate even further. Only billionaires have the resources to fight back so aggressively against any encroachment on their power.

This isn’t “both sides” stuff. We, the constituents, seem to have very little input on what values our parties represent anymore. We just get to pick the one we like best. This has gotten worse in my lifetime, esp after Citizen’s United.

I’m voting against the face eating leopard party every time. I’m not voting for someone. I would like very much to be voting for someone instead of against someone.

It’s pretty pervasive and there’s plenty of tacit and overt support for Republicans here.

Sure, there are third parties. It just that people associate that with wasted votes.

Are both parties not driven by their largest donors?

As always Trump is worse but the Democrats hands are by no means clean.

Labor organizing?

I’m not saying that there aren’t people who care in our government, it’s just that the political machines themselves — the political parties — are beholden to big corporate donors until such time that Citizen’s United is struck down.

You have to string more than 1 of them together to get any results besides “they voted for it and it still lost”.

Liz Warren is a fascist who would use every police state tactic you hate on her opposition.

Warren? Come on. She is a TEXTBOOK example of someone who was a real person who arguably had morals who sold her soul to the party for a fancy title. Obama should have made her head of the CFPB since that was her pet project and career specialty. But no, everything "worked out better" for the machine if she just became an unremarkable senator.

Annnnnnnnd the FUD has begun.

> Homeland Security finally got one in 2003.

This was heavily affected by them being founded in 2002.

"finally"? The Department of Homeland Security was formed in 2003.

Man, you Americans are really playing with fire

UPS could do this, yes, but ICE isn’t allowed to. All of what you described is, by itself, perfectly legal for US citizens, and ICE has even more restrictions about targeting US citizens than the government as a whole. So why is it okay for ICE to do this?

> The article is talking about a license plate scanner website that was being used to track the movements of ICE vehicles, follow them and harass agents.

I fail to understand why this is a problem when they do the exact same thing to civilians? On top of that there are companies like Flock who monitor civilians when ICE isn’t there.

I don’t get why you love ICE so much and want to protect them like they’re doing you some big service and not going around instilling fear in others. Have you been living under a rock?

Well it's fully legal to use widespread AI cameras for mass surveillance, as exemplified by Flock. That has nothing to do with the government - it's just plain legal to do. If the government wants it to be illegal it should make a law that says it's illegal, and then both Flock and other groups will have to shut down their camera networks.

ICE agents are undeserving of peace so your argument kind of falls apart a bit.

As others have pointed out in the thread, those who slurp up the surplus value of the labor of these undocumented workers would hate to lose this leverage of "Oh you want the same rights American workers get? Don't want me making a phone call to my buddy over at the police department!"

The purpose of a system is what it does.

You have to prove you are actually verifying these things and our government has done a pretty bad job at it. We have at this point hundreds of incidents of legal residents and citizens caught in this fascist net.

The issue is that past administrations of given them quasi-legal status. You hop the border, claim 'asylum', then you get a court date years away.

So the first step is revoking the fraudulent claims, and processing the cases so they can be deported legally.

There exists a subset of business owners who would prefer hiring workers without standard protections or rights.

yes yes as everyone knows there are exactly 112,530,874 jobs in the US, and will never be any more or less, so the labor market is exactly zero-sum

They can pay them less, treat them worse, then if there are any issues, deport them. It's very gross.

It's actually better in many cases for businesses to hire undocumented workers, since it makes the workers position much more tenuous. They are much less like to unionize, demand higher pay, etc. if the threat of deportation is hanging over their head

Friction of paperwork. Not saying it's right, but it's a reason.

Also, you are shifting the blame for immigrants getting arrested to the owners. That means the employees are actually blameless: they are caught between seldom-enforced laws and a need to thrive and feed their families.

That's a definition you just made up, which has no precedent and is clearly untrue.

I can cross a dozen borders in the EU without so much as slowing down. I can sell my house in one US State and move to another without asking for permission.

It wasn't until World War 1 that passports for international travel became common in Europe.

Don't let the xenophobic posts on social media trick you. Immigrants in the US are factually less likely to commit crimes than born Americans, look it up. They've just repeated the lie so many times that people have accepted it.

>A nation is literally defined as an entity that has control over its borders.

A state*

A nation is a people with common identity, culture, language, history, etc (see first nations, stateless nations, etc)

> That’s an extreme take.

Big words considering the rest of your comment.

> If it permits just anyone to enter or exit, it is technically not a nation anymore.

You cannot "permit" something you do not control, so this is a contradiction in terms. If you mean that the constraints put on the US by itself to not police immigration in overly violent or cruel ways mean that it does not control immigration, then by the same logic the 4th amendment implies that there is no rule of law in the US (since certain criminals can't be convicted due to bad actions by the state).

> But being choosy about who gets in and who does not.

Nobody really denies this. The question is how violent or cruel you can be in the exercise of this choosiness.

> Look at the riots in Europe right now

The riots in Europe are not primarily about immigration. Get off twitter.

It's actually not a crime to overstay a visa or to be here without one. It's nothing.

It only becomes a crime once you're formally deported

Laws aren't moral. These laws are bad, and shouldn't be enforced. They should be changed, but we don't have the political will to do so, so "rounding up all the brown people and shipping them to Mexico" is not the second-best option.

> Funny how democrats always care so much about "the law" and "due process" until it relates to immigration.

Funny how often the very problems republicans are so adamant about are caused by their own policies. Before the change the population flowed seasonally and had little reason to stay long term. Suddenly it's an issue but by shutting off the flow without a way to do it legally it screwed both parties. Farms still need the crops picked and the work is difficult and the pay is only good relative to the opportunities in other countries so there's no replacement domestic workforce.

It's almost as if the entire southwest used to be Mexico.

> When it was irish, they were white

You are mistaken: the Irish may be white now, but they weren't then! Whiteness evolved over time, it used to be exclusive for WASPs, and excludes the Irish, Italians, Jews, slavs, and other groups widely accepted as white today. Race is a sociological construct.

> When it was irish, they were white.

Which is why sadly the city of Boston is a hellhole and not one of the best cities to live in the USA.

> And when it was poles in the UK, likewise.

Funnily enough reform voters now want the poles back, because industries like construction have slowed down and the lack of EU priority means that the global south now dominates the entry visas into the country. Kurwa we didnt know how well we had it, they say on their way to get a Chinese takeaway on their german car while they check their south korean phone

> Perhaps resistance to mass immigration, which correlates with race, isn't based in race.

Well America has a pretty significant history with racial discrimination. I am even going to ignore history, you know little details like the first cops being slave catchers, and just focus on the present. Where brown neighbourhoods have way more police and despite no racial difference in use of drugs, the percentage of arrests for drug use is disproportionately brown. Something that isn't that weird considering chemically crack and coke are the same thing but crack cocaine originally had a 100 year sentence versus the 1 year in jail for coke, or the FBI starting the war on drugs by going after opium and mass rounding of asian workers and renaming weed as Marihuana to make it sound more Mexican and allow another round of mass arrests.

Those kind of things make ignoring the racial issue a bit more difficult. The constant references to eugenics, and "cleanliness" by the admin are also not particularly quiet dog whistles.

But lets pretend for a second that it has to do with mass immigration. Would the populations that "suffer" that immigration not be the ones up in arms because of the problems they cause? How come its rural villages with 0 immigrants that vote for Brexit and red states that are negative tax contributors and no one wants to live in the source of most of the complaints and not the multicultural cities that are the entire GDP of either country and are chalk full of those newly arrived immigrants?

Does it not make anyone think that the statue of liberty saying that immigrants are welcome and NYC being one of the richest cities in the world might be inextricably linked? While Alabama being the world incest capital and not making money once in 50 years might also have something to do with each other?

> Deporting everyone who isn't in the country legally is their mission

This is not in fact the stated mission of the agency.

Things aren't that simple. Some illegal immigrants were brought here long before they were old enough to have a say. Some were here legally but then Trump canceled their asylum.

That would put them in the criminal record column, unless you mean "without legal review", ie anyone they feel like?

It is extremely important to distinguish between people who are here illegally and people who are subject to a deportation order. ICE's mission is to deport people with deportation orders, and get people suspected of breaking the law in front of a court. The way you've worded it makes it sound like their mission is to go straight from "here illegally" to "deport" which it very much is not.

I outright think deporting every person here undocumented now is not ethical, or beneficial to society, given the history of immigration and enforcement in this country.

https://wannabewonk.com/how-are-they-different/

>Many of the discussions above are based on a central fact: Undocumented immigrants are here, now, in large numbers. In a world where America had zero undocumented residents, arguments could be made to be less tolerant of their presence, to discourage them from being here. It wouldn't be patently inhumane to deport someone if they have been here weeks, rather than years or decades.

A serious, ethical attempt to reduce illegal immigration would be to set a path to legal, documented residence for all current non-felon aliens, and begin "undocumented" enforcement with a clean slate.

---

edit to reply to Izikiel43 since my participation in the thread has been throttled:

Is it incomprehensible that we could have a compromise solution not involving deportation of tens of millions of people, while at the same time implementing employment validation and other checks that begin actually doing immigration enforcement before families settle?

You assume that a path to legal citizenship for long-time residents here would 100% mean the situation would repeat itself, and I disagree.

It’s also the federal government’s job to go around arresting everybody carrying or smoking weed, as it is still illegal no matter what any state says and every single person consuming it is a lawbreaker.

Should they go around and do that too?

"Protect America through criminal investigations and enforcing immigration laws to preserve national security and public safety."

The law dictates who can be deported, generally not who must be deported.

Who must be deported is mostly left up to discretion.

And since deportation is very expensive and drastic - an option of last resort - it's usually better for all involved to come up with other arrangements.

Most prior presidents had good sense enough to understand that mass deportation is a major foot-gun, politically and economically. And kind of morally monstrous.

For better or worse, the arrangement that's been informally agreed upon is to let most of the undocumented who have been here a long time, remain (dreamers, etc).

Sadly, that left them all vulnerable to the discretion of a capricious criminal wanna-be dictator like Trump.

That wasn't the campaign promise and isn't worth spending money on. Also they are deporting and detaining people who are here legally and even killing American citizens. Even if it isn't a official mission it's the inevitable side effect of funding a domestic law enforcement agency like a military and making them explicitly beholden to a political agenda.

The Republican way:

There are those the law protects but does not bind.

And then there's us.

I think we're deep into a post-law environment at this point, though. People who weren't bound by the law will not be protected by it either.

Ice is under the executive branch. They are one and the same thing

The point of bring all this up isn't to expect the trump admin to do anything, it's an expectation of a (hopefully) future democrat admin to change forces and stop framing the ICE problem as a training or lack of body cams issue.

With respect, I think you might not spend much time in leftist spaces. Leftists are notoriously vicious in attacking people for ideological impurity. Is it possible that you are conflating leftists and liberals/mainstream democrats?

I note that you do acknowledge the hypocrisy.

That's enough for me.

By repeatedly ignoring the laws of the nation, because of the edicts of its leader, i.e. literally the definition of tyranny, "a ruler who governs without restriction".

DHS has been dragged into court hundreds of times now and literally stood in front of federal judges and said "we're ignoring your court order, what are you going to do about it?"

This is an illegitimate argument in the context of Second Amendment. The "second amendment people" are pretty vocal proponents of strict adherence to the US constitution - hence the name of the group.

Whatever reasons Trump was voted in for, second amendment people should insist on him following the constitution. He's not. That's not even arguable on rhetorical grounds. Trump regularly defies court orders, spends money on things not authorized by Congress, and impounds money allocated by Congress. That behavior is the constitutional definition of tyranny. Therefore second amendment people should be at least metaphorically, if not literally, up in arms about him.

Again inarguably, they are not. Therefore their self proclaimed basis is a lie. They are just blowhards and we should disarm them ASAP. They have no sound reason for existing as an armed group.

Previously, they claimed they stand with nazi solely for free speech of everyone purposes, not because they would share the oppressive authoritarian ideology of nazi.

If that was true, that is why.

Now in reality, that was not true, they stood with nazi cause they themselves are nazi who want to bully others.

Idk about the paper but I know a lot of trans women and I don't think any of them haven't been stabbed/assaulted for being trans at least once.

Certainly some

But I don't bring up the second amendment when complaining about income taxes either. Again, what part of what ICE is doing infringes on the second ammendment?

That's not actually true, though. In some sense all governments are posessed of "weapons" like this, the cost of use being only the violation of some norm. Or even law. The "rule of law" is a gentelemen's agreement at its core. Yet the world is filled with basically good governments who broadly follow that code!

So the way you treat that is by calling out and resisting the attempts to weaponize the government in new ways, not just throwing up your hands because it was "eventually" going to be used anyway. No, it's bad. You should say that it's bad and take action to oppose it.

If you're not American, then you should consider before commenting that you may be missing important context. The allegiance of US federal law enforcement agencies does not switch on a moment's notice or even follow electoral control of the government; one example of this you can easily verify is that the director of the FBI is always a Republican.

How are the actions of the feds at Waco and Ruby Ridge "left"? Authoritarian, yes, but supporting collectivism, shared ownership, etc? Nothing at all left wing about their actions.

Are they British?

Sources for that kind of claim please.

If you live in North Korea or pre-unified East Germany, you know the difference. You don't protest, you don't express your opinion, even in private because who knows who the government spies are or who will snitch on you for slightly better living conditions in the system.

ICE has murdered protestors but each case is a headline. Start worrying when it's not a headline anymore. Either because the media are suppressed or because it becomes so common that it's not newsworthy anymore. Wait until the army indiscriminately opens fire on crowds of people and the government isn't even trying to justify it. And when you hear stories of people just disappearing. Then you will be scared to post comments like this.

For Dudley Dursley it's the worst getting only 36 presents for his birthday. It's good to maintain a sense of proportionality. If you call everything hell, the word hell looses meaning and it's also an insult to people actually living in hell.

Highlighting the hypocrisy? Even if we assumed both things are equally bad (an opinion I will never understand), it doesn't change the fact of the different treatment whatsoever.

> But instead a few of them had guns

One of them had a gun, which the US decided was ok for someone to carry in public.

> You are unequivocally fucked if you have any degree of association with those people

Guilt by association is it?

Small nitpick, but I believe this all happened on private, not federal, property. The ICE facility they were protesting at was a private company ICE was contracting with, not an actual federal building.

IIRC, people involved in this case made extremely telling comments about the political alignment of the protestors. They despise them either way, the guns are just used as pretext to elevate it to the next level, especially since the people among them who didn't have guns or do anything violent didn't escape the wrath. They almost certainly would not have gotten slaps on the wrist, those are reserved for 'our good boys'. They would have still gotten their lives ruined, just not in quite the same dramatic fashion with showy century-long sentences, but just the routine 'you're going away for a long time' treatment.

Exactly one of them had a gun on them.

No, the fact that people occasionally get hurt by accident with fireworks does not make the violent subtext in "attacking a government building with explosives" a correct description of the situation.

Yes and if you look those rates have been going down for years. This used to be a big talking point years ago, not so much anymore.

> In terms of absolute number of incarcerated persons, though

They weren't asking about absolute numbers, though

>which country has the highest incarceration rate in the world?

How many encounters are there now? DHS says it's a historical low with a 95% reduction. How many people are paroled or given NTA releases now? Sources suggest 0 in the first year. What's the asylum grant rate now? Sources suggest it's about 7% now as opposed to 65% or higher previously.

The bipartisan bill was full of loopholes and it only triggered when border crossings exceeded certain rather high thresholds. Do you realize that? It wasn't comprehensive at all. Here is an example of a loophole: "While the president’s parole authority would be narrowed, he or she would retain the power to parole entire classes of migrants and would have greater authority to do so at airports." (https://digital-release.thehill.com/?p=4447957). So this assumes Biden and Mayorkas were genuinely trying to fix the problem all of a sudden in 2024 as they were facing an election. Why would we want to codify allowing in a certain high number of people along with loopholes when we could just replace Mayorkas and Biden?

The thing is that Mayorkas WANTED the border to be open. This wasn't a mistake. It's an unofficial policy that you're dancing around. I am not interested in stupid Trump vs Democrats or GOP vs Democrats bullshit. There's a substantial nnumber of people who want large scale immigration and a substantial number who don't so all this legalistic bickering is just window dressing for this issue but don't try to pretend that it's universally the moral or democratic norm to have open borders.

> I have no idea whether the parent poster is guilty of the things you accuse him of

It takes 15 seconds to check. HN isn't an anonymous messageboard.

> when the 'ban' on political posts was seemingly lifted as long as those posts were aimed against the orange man and his ilk.

That "seemingly" is doing all your heavy lifting, there. Read my last comment again; users are the ones who enforce flags on those posts, in the vast majority of cases.

It can lead to scenarios where apolitical submissions are flagged, or where flamebait slips through. There is almost never a moderator with their finger on the button waiting to flag something on /new, much less in the comment section. The only exception is banned users and banned domains, both of which prevent repeat offenders and disingenuous content from reaching the front page.

Just about every social media site is privately-owned, and protected by Section 230 from most political blowback. If you want to discuss white supremacy and Holocaust denial, you'll have to do it on federal honeypot sites like /pol/, not here. The OP thread is on-topic, intellectually gratifying, high-quality and relevant to HN as it mentions a YC 2020 batch company (Fly.io).

"Calling people Nazis online" has resulted in countless murders, violent riots. Do not downplay it like that.