[HN Gopher] Agenda Behind the Facial Recognition Tech Used by IC...
___________________________________________________________________
Agenda Behind the Facial Recognition Tech Used by ICE and the FBI
Revealed
Author : miles
Score : 120 points
Date : 2025-04-07 18:46 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.motherjones.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.motherjones.com)
| evanjrowley wrote:
| So a journalist at Mother Jones is shocked, but did anyone here
| on HN not predict this strategy long before Trump got his 2nd
| term?
| notfed wrote:
| Sadly this prediction could have been generalized to the US
| executive branch regardless of the most recent election. It's
| more of the same from what we've seen in the past, Democrat and
| Republican leader alike.
| mingus88 wrote:
| Far be it from me to interrupt your both-sides deflection but
| I'd like to ask you to cite any report in the recent past
| when democrats have called for the arrest or use of violence
| and/or the military against protesters
| just_steve_h wrote:
| Perhaps you slept through the year leading up to the 2024
| election, when Democrats sent riot police into student
| protests? They arrested thousands, and were plenty violent.
| Democratic president & governor & mayor (NYC and LA and
| Boston, for example).
|
| Or perhaps you missed the Occupy movement which was
| violently disrupted on a national scale with coordinated
| raids across the country, organized through the "Fusion
| Centers" (FBI + DHS + State & Local law enforcement)?
|
| Anyhow, my point here is that organized violence against
| leftist protestors is a fully bipartisan policy, and has
| been for more than 100 years.
| kelipso wrote:
| You just forgot the Palestine protests or what.
| malcolmgreaves wrote:
| They didn't call for mad violence against protestors.
| They didn't call for arresting protestors.
|
| I imagine you won't admit you have no evidence based in
| reality.
| generalizations wrote:
| The trick is to call them something else. The January 6
| protesters come to mind, but since they actually threatened
| the lawmakers - not just random proles - they aren't called
| "protesters". Conversely, make sure the BLM folks are
| definitely not called rioters, even if you have to call
| them "fiery but peaceful" protestors.
| malcolmgreaves wrote:
| Insurrectionists are not protestors.
| generalizations wrote:
| > The trick is to call them something else
|
| If it's politically expedient, that is. For one thing,
| they were far less violent than the BLM protesters. Yet
| one group is called 'protestors' and the other
| 'insurrectionists'.
| jokellum wrote:
| I'm sorry, like the other comment said you're still both-
| sides-ing.
|
| States / cities (democrat or republican) sent riot police,
| which is something they have always done. How they handled
| protests is worth criticism e.g. I don't like that they use
| curfews to suddenly make protesters breaking the law. I don't
| like the use of tear gas on otherwise peaceful protestors. As
| a note, these are state / city officials not federal guidance
| typically.
|
| However,
|
| The current administration, Donald Trump, the president of
| the united states, and the top most members of his cabinet,
| as a federal, top-down policy will:
|
| - Automatically identify protesters
|
| - Arrest them for simply saying things the admin doesn't
| like.
|
| - Bypass due-process.
|
| - Will ship them to a gulag outside of the united states.
|
| - Are on track to be found in contempt of court for refusing
| to bring back a lawful resident.
|
| Both sides are not the same here. Name me a democrat
| president who has done equal or worse what the trump admin
| has done.
| notjoemama wrote:
| The rules state you need to stay on topic. Your reply
| violates that requirement. If you want to discuss politics
| instead of the technology of the post, feel free to engage
| other social media networks, Reddit would be a much better
| fit for the kind of discussion you are directing people to
| engage in.
|
| In the interests of fostering better quality dialogue, I
| think you could have replied something like, "Democrats did
| (X in relation to technology) where Republicans have done
| (Y in relation to technology). It would have accomplished
| the same thing and at least stayed in relation to the
| topic.
| morkalork wrote:
| I'm going to need a shower after this but Gitmo,
| extraordinary rendition, and warrantless mass surveillance
| were still a thing under Obama, no? Still, not even
| comparable to what we're witnessing now.
| blix wrote:
| Obama also created ICE as we know it today. And
| normalized drone strikes.
| sightbroke wrote:
| How are drone strikes any different than a pilot, a
| warplane, and advanced precision bombs/missiles?
|
| Except they're cheaper to run and don't physically risk a
| pilot.
| t-3 wrote:
| Yep. Trump's taken it to a new level by targeting
| American citizens while they're physically in the USA,
| and while immigration courts were always a bad joke he's
| even skipping the kangaroo court and just shipping people
| off without even a pretense of due process or legal
| justification. Rather than an incremental step forward on
| the path of authoritarianism, this administration has
| taken a flying leap out the frog-boiling pot, straight
| into the inferno.
| sepositus wrote:
| > Both sides are not the same here. Name me a democrat
| president who has done equal or worse what the trump admin
| has done.
|
| I think you might have missed the point. The way I read the
| comment, and perhaps I'm wrong, is that this sort of power
| creep was inevitable. Which administration it happened
| under is likely an influencing factor, but to think it was
| never going to happen seems a bit far-fetched at this
| point.
| boothby wrote:
| Not really. Until recently, ClearView has been used by local
| police departments, which are not strongly aligned with both
| sides of the political spectrum. Likewise, DHS and TSA are
| not strongly aligned with both sides of the political
| spectrum. ClearView, which the article is about, is only
| strongly aligned with one side of the political spectrum and
| notably uses political misalignment as a warning sign.
|
| Whether or not this could have happened is completely
| irrelevant. This _is happening_. My comment here, linked to
| my real name, has the potential to get me put on a list of
| political agitators. My grandpa wore a red triangle in
| Soldau, and while I 'm not eager to do the same, nor will I
| be silent. American citizens are being deported on suspicion
| of being immigrants _today_. Both-siding this is
| exceptionally dishonest. The article is about the actual
| technology being employed by today 's actual government.
| stevenwoo wrote:
| Speculation is fun and one thing, but this article appears to
| be journalism and comes with a lot of receipts for the
| Vietnamese/Australian white nationalist supporter with
| connections to the usual suspects in Silicon Valley
| accelerationism.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| What does this accomplish? I genuinely don't understand why
| this fallacy is _so common_ , even trying to come at it from a
| psychology perspective.
|
| Something being shocking is not the same as something being
| unforeseeable. Being shocked by shocking behavior doesn't make
| you some kind of idiot. Acting as if having emotions about
| immoral behavior is beneath you is self-aggrandizing.
|
| I'm sorry for my tone, but I'm sick of this genre of internet
| comment in particular.
| blix wrote:
| "Shocking" carries a meaning of a being sudden, surprising,
| or startling.
|
| It's this aspect that is being challenged, not the emotional
| reaction.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Shock in this context probably refers to the meaning of the
| word that is surprise, rather than the meaning of the word
| that is disgust or revulsion. Basically, people use the same
| word to mean subtly different things. Something giving you a
| shock can mean being startled, but not disgusted. Or it can
| be the inverse of that.
|
| > Something being shocking is not the same as something being
| unforeseeable.
|
| That is true only for one definition/common use of the word.
| hayst4ck wrote:
| This article is really worth a read and talks about the much
| deeper mechanics and institutional power behind what is happening
| now.
|
| _Clearview had compiled a massive biometric database that would
| eventually contain billions of images the company scraped off the
| internet and social media without the knowledge of the platforms
| or their users. Its AI analyzed these images, creating a
| "faceprint" for every individual. The company let users run a
| "probe photo" against its database, and if it generated a hit, it
| displayed the matching images and links to the websites where
| they originated. This made it easy for Clearview users to further
| profile their targets with other information found on those
| webpages: religious or political affiliation, family and friends,
| romantic partners, sexuality. All without a search warrant or
| probable cause._
|
| _A diehard Donald Trump supporter, Ton-That... Here, Ton-That
| appeared to conflate support for the Republican leader with
| American identity, proposing to scan migrants' social media for
| "posts saying 'I hate Trump' or 'Trump is a puta'" and targeting
| anyone with an "affinity for far-left groups."_
|
| _By the end of Trump's first presidential term, Clearview had
| secured funding from right-wing billionaire Peter Thiel, one of
| Elon Musk's earliest business partners, and signed up hundreds of
| law enforcement clients around the country. The company doled out
| free trials to hook users, urging cops to "run wild" with
| searches. They did. Many departments then bought licenses to
| access Clearview's faceprint database._
| morkalork wrote:
| _no bueno..._
| onemoresoop wrote:
| I think we're entering a dystopian era...
| stanislavb wrote:
| I think most people will agree with you.
| sudoshred wrote:
| At what point would you be certain?
| onemoresoop wrote:
| Let's see how it plays out first. The intent is clear
| though
|
| A reversal is possible.
| flower-giraffe wrote:
| Why did this fall of the front page so quickly? Older posts with
| less points are still there?
| chimpanzee wrote:
| As this article is actually on-topic, then it's most likely
| because it sows internal discord.
|
| Like most minds, the HN hive mind prefers to deny and suppress
| in response to various forms of cognitive dissonance, such as
| that which arises when one's actions (or inaction) contradict
| one's stated beliefs or morals.
|
| HN also isn't one for conscious introspection (ie meta
| commentary). Your comment and my response are generally no-nos.
| dijksterhuis wrote:
| might have hit the flamewar filter? pushing it down the
| rankings? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22159031
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25871251)
| stanislavb wrote:
| Yup, I was wondering the same. It might the so called
| "flamefilter", yet, it's suspicious.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-07 23:01 UTC)