zlacker

>>fajmcc+(OP)
If you work for Palantir and if you work on these systems: You have blood on your hands. You know that it's not right what is happening on the ground right now. Do something.

>>chinat+Ma
The US gov (including ICE) uses all of Microsoft Office for coordination and planning: email, spreadsheets, powerpoint, document generation, etc. Would you say Microsoft employees have blood on their hands too? If not, what makes Microsoft different?

>>jonnyb+qi
From the article for context:

> Palantir is working on a tool for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that populates a map with potential deportation targets, brings up a dossier on each person, and provides a “confidence score” on the person’s current address

So essentially, the relevant app here is custom built in order to help ICE raids.

That's substantially different from generic office tech where ICE happen to be one of millions of users.

>>benrut+Dj
You're going to have to explain to me why it's a bad thing or immoral for the government to be aware of where immigrants who legally need to be deported live.

>>Amezar+aA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

>>tremon+4D
That’s not an answer. Please explain why it’s a bad thing that Palantir had produced an application that shows ICE agents the probable addresses of people they’re supposed to deport along with information about them.

If the answer is “I don’t believe in immigration law and the government should not enforce it regardless of what people vote for”, that’s a completely acceptable answer.

>>Amezar+ND
Because these systems are not only used on illegal immigrants. To give you a very clear example: a US citizen was murdered without any due process a few days ago by ICE.

Because surveilling people -- PEOPLE, not citizens -- without probable cause is a violation of the US constitution?

It is a bad thing because it leads to innocent people being brutalized, it's a violation of the constitution, it's very clearly the primary tool of an increasingly authoritarian government?

>>mlsu+QH
“Due process” is not a magic incantation. This is emotional, moralizing rhetoric that doesn’t persuade anyone. People who insert themselves into operations involving the state’s actors who have a monopoly on violence are risking their lives and legal jurisprudence has upheld the state’s actions to stop them by whatever means necessary in similar cases many, many times. And it’s obvious things could not operate in any other way. The state cannot give you a free pass to stop the operation of law enforcement and they definitely can’t give you a free pass to run over the agents of the state. “Due process” does not factor in to live situations that have a risk of death or injury. (It also doesn’t mean a court case. People talk about it in this thread as though the administrative orders issued by immigration judges aren’t due process.)

I don’t have a problem if people want to acknowledge this and risk their lives knowingly in protest of whatever they don’t like, but it’s absurd to pretend that’s not what you’re doing. I don’t think that’s what’s happening though when Good’s girlfriend asked why they were using real bullets.

The state having your address is also not surveillance in any meaningful sense.

edit: I'm ratelimited so I can't reply to the reply: no, he didn't answer. These people did get due process. So it's about something else. ICE is being used for its legally authorized purpose, which yes, includes removing people who illegally hinder them.

>>Amezar+SI
The term to consider here is >extrajudical killing< As in: Someone wotking for the executive kills another citizen, without 1) a need to do so for selfdefense 2) any justification from the judicary for it, and that without being charged for murder/aggrevated manslaugther. The argument: they are not doing what this law enforcement person wants do do of them (whether that obstruction is legal or not), so they are free to be killed is nothing but the total disregard for the law, any decency and the respect for human life and dignity. In short it is lynchmob mentality.

>>NonHyl+mn1
The argument is that people recklessly driving their vehicles with a total disregard for the lives around them are a danger to the people in front of their car and anyone else on the street, which is recognized by the Supreme Court even when nobody is directly in front of the car. They don’t have to wait until you kill someone and get tried for it. They can legally just shoot you under current law. That’s what the courts say.

Self-defense is, however, an entirely plausible defense in this scenario, even if the agent could have acted differently to not be in the path of someone already behaving erratically, and even if people only with the benefit of slo-mo multi-angle replays don’t think so. That’s why nobody is being charged. This happens all the time, unfortunately. The minute you choose to endanger people around you in the presence of people with guns, you’ve rolled the dice on your life.

So do you have any actual examples of what you’re describing?