zlacker

>>WaitWa+(OP)
Why do all the discussion posts about ICE’s biometric app get taken down? Although they may invite politicing, they are very relevant to HN.

e.g [flagged] Target director's Global Entry was revoked after ICE used app to scan her face [>>46833871 ]

>>mmoust+Qg
Look at this topic in the meta-level. It has a relatively low number of upvotes, extremist comments being actively upvoted - with the current top post suggesting people engage in sabotage, with many if not most dissenting views ending up flagged. This isn't exactly a productive nor interesting topic, because people are more interested in attacking people and circle jerking, rather than engaging in any sort of interesting discussion. So it ends up reading like the typical slop on Reddit, which is essentially where discussion goes to die. It's not great seeing that sort of stuff here as well.

>>somena+zp
What is "extremist" about "sabotage"? These are private companies and private individuals, they can choose whether to or not to interact with ICE. Unless its a part of some formal investigation there is nothing criminal or extreme about providing whatever data or response or lack thereof to them. Or do you not believe in freedom of association and free speech?

>>donkey+jA
ICE is a law enforcement agency and so intentionally seeking to obstruct an investigation is indeed a crime. Impairing the access to data opens the door to fraud and other charges. And the manual linked goes above and beyond these relatively 'soft' crimes and into things like arson. Betting your life, and career, on these sort of things testament to how radicalized some have become.

>>somena+IL
How is this obstruction? Unless it's part of a proper investigation, they are just another private individual. You are free to do or not engage in business contracts with them, and any data given true or false or data not gievn can hardly be a criminal matter as its not an investigation and simply a business dealing between two parties.

>>donkey+5N
A company is absolutely free to choose whether or not to do business with them, but an employee acting to try to undermine them as a customer or their relationship with the business is what would open the door to all these sort of laws and consequences, especially when that relationship is precisely in the furtherance of a law enforcement purposes, and the interference was motivated by an effort to impair that enforcement.

Stuff like actively expressing opposition to taking them on as a customer, trying to persuade management to do otherwise, and so on would all be perfectly kosher. But the stuff the top post in this thread alludes to, let alone what it links to, is how you end up in prison for a very long time after the 'I didn't know it was illegal' defense fails.

>>somena+SU
An employees actions would be a matter of judgment between the company leadership and themsleves, I don't understand how it's a criminal matter. To the outside entity it's a business contract, to the company it's an internal matter if and how to deal with any specific activities of the employee.

>>donkey+M21
> An employees actions would be a matter of judgment between the company leadership and themselves

There has been a few news articles (and court cases) where this question has been raised and it is not strict true. Employee actions are only actions for which the employee has been given as an task as part of their employment and role. Actions outside of that is private actions. When this end up in court, the role description and employee contract becomes very important.

A clear case example is when a doctor is looking up data on a patient. Downloading patient records from people who they are not the doctor for can be criminal and not just a breech of hospital policy, especially if they sell or transfer the data.

>>belorn+Mm1
I was tempted to add this very line when I wrote my message but I hoped it would be obvious I don't mean things like illegally stealing private data. I was talking about things like "falsifying" data to the contractor, which doesn't seem like a crime to me just a contract violation.

>>donkey+Xp1
If the employee are destroying property owned by the employer, for which is not part of the employee role or assignment, then they could be charged with hacking and property destruction just as if it was done by someone outside the company. The way around this that some people can attempt is work-to-rule strike. That would be a legal way to sabotage a contract without actually going beyond that of the employee contract.