So I don't think I actually have a problem with businesses handing over their customer data if there is a valid warrant or subpoena. That's the system working as intended.
The main crux of the problem here is that the DHS has been granted a wide berth by congress to issue administrative subpoenas - i.e. not reviewed by a real judge and not directed at criminals. In "good" times this made investigations run smoothly. But the reality now is that ICE is doing wide dragnets to make arrests without any judicial oversight and often hostile to habeas corpus.
(Also, my understanding is that when banking is involved, it may also fall under the Banking Secrecy Act and Know Your Customer Rules - a whole other privacy nightmare.)
I know we instinctively want to frame this as a privacy problem, but the real problem we need congress to act on is abolishing these "shadow" justice systems that agencies have been able to set up.
> So I don't think I actually have a problem with businesses handing over their customer data if there is a valid warrant or subpoena. That's the system working as intended.
I disagree -- the third party doctrine that allows for governments to avoid serving/addressing warrants to the people whose data is actually being subpoenaed directly leads to things like the FISA warrant-rubber-stamp courts in the US. If the data stored on third-party servers on behalf of someone is not considered "papers and effects" of that person then it is entirely justified to subpoena every email stored on mail.google.com because it's just morally equivalent to a subpoena for "all of Foomatic's business records between 2020-2025".
It seems bonkers to me that things that are essentially implementation details (such as the way that MTAs work and the lack of crypto-obfuscation in email) should allow for a legal interpretation of the 4th amendment that effectively neuters it. Letters sent via snail-mail are handled by several third parties in a very analogous way to emails but (mostly due to historical reasons, such as the fact that letters existed during the drafting of the bill of rights) we do not apply the third-party doctrine to letters.
Of course, the US government has spent decades chipping away at the privacy of snail mail, so eventually we may end up in a world where snail mail and email are treated the same way (just not in a good way).
Could you explain/cite what you mean by letters not working the same way? You're saying government agencies can't give give the same sort of subpoena to said third parties? Or that if they did, it wouldn't work?
There will always be the opportunity for the foibles of humans to affect the procedures of the law. Trying to play "guess if the shadowy government agency is doing the right thing this week" is a losing game. They always take the proverbial mile, they are not ever going to be satisfied with the inch.
>Trying to play "guess if the shadowy government agency is doing the right thing this week" is a losing game.
Which is why the best strategy is to bring things out of the shadows and have the government operate in the open whether that is more literal by making their actions part of the public record or just figuratively by requiring a lot of disparate parts of the government to coordinate on something like this so it can only go wrong with truly widespread corruption.
Playing a cat and mouse game with the government via technology is also a losing game. They'll always have more money, people, and expertise on their side. When the heart of the problem is the humans involved, the solution is inherently politics.
There’s definitely been variability in how far government agencies have been pushing under this administration.
It’s going to get interesting if the next Democrat in the white house takes similar steps based on current precedent. That would hopefully result in long term reforms, but we might just be heading to civil war regardless.
Suggesting that republicans break, democrats overlook is biased and inaccurate. Obama attempted and got away with plenty of "creative" interpretations of the law. There's a clear partisan tendency to overlook oversteps that are in the favor of one's "team". Party politics is a disease.
It heavily depends on what kind of creative interpretations of the law you think are reasonable.
Democrats often go for “creative” interpretations that fit the existing legal framework just fine. Defining CO2 as pollution is upsetting for what it does but is within the spirit of what the law was intended and fits what it actually says just fine. Much of the civil rights movement operated on such principles because the laws where on the books it was the systems that didn’t keep up.
Republicans tend to find creative interpretations that depend on ill defined principles like executive power or corporate personhood which have about as much to do with the actual law as sovereign citizens and are open to unlimited abuse.
Failing to differentiate between each type of interpretation misses the inherent limitations of the first type.
It's called the ratchet effect, and it has been extremely obvious since at least Obama.
In recent years it's become far worse again.
Continuing a $20 trillion war on terror. Torturing people. Smearing whistleblowers. Killing millions with sanctions. Arming genocide and vetoing ceasefires. Keeping millions of files with details of the most horrific crimes imaginable sealed, while the perpetrators hang out on islands and buy politicians... Etc... All bipartisan, with very little dissent within one party and none at all in the other.
Those things are so, so far beyond "not breaking norms".
> This is set to continue, else they wouldn't be pushing for Newsom.
Most of the very farthest left politicians in the Democratic party tried to tell us that Biden was working tirelessly for a ceasefire. I don't know how they managed to say that with a straight face after watching him veto 4 UN ceasefires, but they did.
And all the media covered for it, acting like the massive protests were just a few miseducated antisemites, like Hillary said.
Yeah. This is set to continue. Voting blue down the line isn't going to get it done, I'm afraid.
You could be right, though I do think that we can't say for sure until they (i.e. non-corporatists) actually get a shot. What we can say is that the US is in this mess after nominating corporate dems for decades and asking for people to vote for the "least bad" option. Watching interviews with working class who voted Obama and now Trump shows that this is a core reason. Yet online there's still a huge number of people advocating for repeating the same thing expecting different results.
I think one reason why this is especially bad in the US is because of its cultural optimism, which inherently leads to extreme shorttermism. People are vouching to support Clinton/Biden/Harris/... because of blind optimism that somehow after 4 years thing will get better, to an extent of willingly completely ignoring the previous decades and somewhere deep down knowing that doing it is probably worse in the long term.
Why even consider violent civil war a possible outcome when we can redirect to peaceful separation instead, before more innocent life is lost? Human life is more important than federal supremacy. The adults in the room need to reject the immature tendency towards violence even if we're to decide that we can no longer live together as "one nation".
Splitting up the country to avoid a bloody civil war? Are you serious? The first thing that happens if California secedes is California's ports will be blockaded by US warships. And it's going downhill quickly from there. This administration would love nothing more than justification to lock up every citizen left-of-right-wing, or just exterminate them outright. They have been demonizing liberals for years as child molesters and satanists, casting them as less than human, violent, and depraved. You think a bloodless separation is possible? It's more likely that pigs will sprout wings and fly.
What prominent left-wing politician has ever talked about "re-education" camps? None, that's who.
I'm not talking about vile rhetoric coming from reddit commenters, I'm talking about people in the current administration - when Steven Miller said "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be" - exactly what do you think he meant?
No, Hillary Clinton does not count. Hillary Clinton is not currently a prominent politician, hasn't run for any office in over a decade, and lost the election during the timeframe when she said that. So you're reaching pretty far back to come up with that.
In the sense that all reasons are made up, I suppose that might be true. But while deporting illegal immigrants for no other reason is totally fine, deporting the ones that also have a criminal conviction is definitely not made up reasons.
Yeah, and your point? ICE has already descended into detaining anyone, literally anyone, because they have quotas to meet. They seized a white Irishman last October who had a valid work permit and was just about to head to his green card interview.
That guy had been overstaying a tourist visa for something like 17 years, and only started the green card process in April 2025. I don't think people who have overstayed tourist visas for 17 years should be eligible for any kind of permanent residency in the US, and would support laws making it impossible for someone in his position to get a green card or a work permit.
The fact that he is a white Irishman is legally irrelevant and enforcing immigration law in a race-neutral way is pretty un-Gestapo-like behavior.
Only because we made the "overstaying" an illegal offense. But there's no reason to -- if the guy was paying taxes the whole time, and never committed a serious crime, then we should be happy to welcome such guys, ramping up our GDP.
Don't forget that the paperwork costs a lot, if one has children, can get close to $10k.
Look at Spain -- instead of deporting "illegals", they just made them "legals" (those without a criminal record). Easy, problem solved.
You make it sound like deportations happen because of some mistaken legal wording. That's distortion of reality. A significant amount of US citizens voted for them to happen. I'm sure they heard about GDP many times and still found other reasons more important. It wouldn't be a wild guess to assume that they won't buy Spain as a good example.
I just point out that to me "overstaying visa" is such a completely artificial concept, with arbitrary timelines, and is not explainable by any rational considerations of the state. Otherwise they'd neglect it.
Or, as I saw myself in another country, a border guy is like "Wow, you overstayed your visa by N years! Don't worry, let me correct that. I recommend getting a permanent residency, would be easier for you to pay taxes and use our government systems. Welcome!"
Not of course. If you know you're not willing to understand why people think the way they do then what's the point in drawing conclusions from your biases?
> I just point out that to me "overstaying visa" is such a completely artificial concept
So is the concept of a "country" or a "state". Everything is an artificial concept. The first duty of the state is to have border integrity, so the country means something, and that includes deciding who can come in and for how long. This is very, very basic stuff that's normal in every country in the world.
The US lets the most people in legally in the entire world, and by quite some measure[0]. If you think it's some xenophobic nightmare of a place then that seems an extremely narrow understanding of the world and the US's place in it.
Far from it. Concept of "country" or a "state" are way less artificial. Up until 1924 USA welcomed almost anyone with any background. Many countries don't care about it today. Australia was populated with literal criminals.
The concept of a "state" and its borders is to determine where its laws apply to. Historically, there was rarely even resources to mark the boundary in any meaningful way. But the problem of two kinds claiming sovereignty over a territory got resolved pretty easily -- whoever has the ability to collect taxes (aka tribute). Immigration was not a major concern at all. If anything, a feudal was more concerned of their tax base moving OUT of their jurisdiction, not preventing movement IN.
As I said above, Spain just gave permanent residency to everyone "overstaying" the visa. Does the concept of Spain as a country stopped "meaning something"?
> The US lets the most people in legally in the entire world, and by quite some measure[0]. If you think it's some xenophobic nightmare of a place then that seems an extremely narrow understanding of the world and the US's place in it.
USA immigration process is very hostile, compared to almost any other country in the world (IMO only UK and Switzerland are comparable). I went through it, as well as in other countries, can compare. Why are you so sure I have the "extremely narrow understanding"? Even paying $700+ for just one form, without any guarantees or money back is already sus.
I like this theory of paying taxes is a felony, tell me more!!
Levity aside, working on a tourist visa is a violation but generally isn't prosecuted as a felony.
Also the grandparent post said "They seized a white Irishman last October who had a valid work permit and was just about to head to his green card interview."
If he had a valid work permit I suppose this means that he was allowed to work and pay taxes on that work, in other words - no, he was not committing a felony.
All you need to pay taxes is an SSN.
One can get an SSN in many ways, e.g. long ago on another visa. Same as income to pay on -- can be earned in many ways.
The first lady originally came to the US on a tourist visa before getting work as a model and eventually applying for a green card several years later. Musk came to the US on a student visa for a program that he never actually enrolled in. Even if you want to argue its "race-neutral", it's certainly not "proximity to the president neutral" so it still is very much "Gestapo-like behavior".
Some people have this weird view of history in which everything is judged by the end state. They believe we can’t compare a situation to something like Nazi Germany if it is not identical to the final stages of that fascist regime. The problem with that thinking is it ignores how these regimes got to that point.
Not only do they constantly escalate their atrocities growing worse over time, but many of those atrocities simply weren’t and won’t be known until the regime is deposed meaning the in the moment understandings of their evilness is incomplete.
It's not Gestapo-like, and whatever is your position on political spectrum it's ridiculous to put things like Stalin-Hitler-Mao-Pol Pot repressions on the same level as anything happening in the US.
Two teenagers just doing their jobs, dogpiled by roughly four adult men, beaten up and released hours later. One of them was just dropped off at the Walmart down the street, the other they released at the federal building they’re working out of.
I am confused here. If the law grants ICE (or whatever is the umbrella agency that ICE operates under) the power to detain to determine legality of the status, ICE does it, and then releases people back, the law works as intended, no?
I am confused what is the difference between this, and police who can detain a “tall man in black short and red hat” and 10 hours later (or whenever) release back due to new information, or mistake in ID?
I understand that we absolutely have to strive to zero of such cases, but operations at scale (like law enforcement) have zero chance to have no mistakes.
Replace "tall man in black short and red hat who may have committed a violent crime" with "anyone who looks like they may speak Spanish even if no crime has been committed," even if they have a valid government ID card and we arrive at the problem with ICE.
> "anyone who looks like they may speak Spanish even if no crime has been committed,"
There are two parts to it in my view.
First, sure, I understand where you are coming from. At the same time I find this argument a bit problematic because if the numbers on border crossings from South America are true, and majority of those that crossed through are from South and Central America, who do you think ICE is going to look for? Tall, blond, white people from Norway (and I am not saying that there are no people who are out of status from Norway)?
Second, while Trump and co claimed that they will go after "only after criminals", and ICE arrests a bunch of people who may be not criminals in the hardcore sense of killers, etc., but they do arrest a significant amount of those as well. I do not understand this -- if the person crossed the border, are they supposed to get a pass just because? Why?
They should do some actually police work. This kind of "Papers, please" approach to immigration enforcement is dystopian. If you genuinely feel that illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be fixed, attack it systemically. Go through government, business, and housing records, find people who aren't here legally, and then go detain them. Don't just round people up based on nothing but their ethnicity and make them prove their innocence to you. It's inherently unAmerican, at least according to the ideals we like to claim we have (even if our history often falls short of those ideals).
>but they do arrest a significant amount of those as well.
Then arrest those people who commit crimes. If these people are guilty of something, why is ICE the one rounding them up? Why isn't the FBI or local police? If this is all motivated by a desire for lower crime, why are we treating it as an immigration issue instead of a crime issue?
> They should do some actually police work. This kind of "Papers, please" approach to immigration enforcement is dystopian.
Why it’s dystopian? It’s literally how it’s done in other places as well.
I agree that the government has to go through and punish those who employ illegal immigrants too to disincentivize unauthorized employment, but it doesn’t have to be only one avenue.
> Why isn't the FBI or local police?
I do not know where you live, but lately crimes in the US in many jurisdictions are not prosecuted, and repeat offenders are not punished. Coupled with the fact that many cities forbid their local law enforcement to cooperate with immigration, I am not sure how can local police do anything.
If an illegal immigrant committed a crime it is a failure of both local LEO and immigration. It doesn’t have to be only one.
I think a couple of these points are getting mixed together.
On the “crimes aren’t prosecuted” issue: that’s a broader criminal justice question, not really an immigration one. Whether someone is a citizen, documented immigrant, or undocumented immigrant, the question of prosecution policy is the same. If people think prosecutors are being too lenient, that’s something to take up locally through elections, town halls, etc. Immigration status doesn’t really change that dynamic.
On sanctuary policies or limits on local cooperation with immigration enforcement: the argument many cities make isn’t “ignore crime,” it’s “local police should focus on crime.” When local law enforcement is seen as an arm of immigration enforcement, it can discourage victims or witnesses from reporting crimes at all. So the policy goal is usually public safety, not shielding criminal behavior.
And on the last point: I agree. if an undocumented immigrant commits a crime, sure, there can be both a criminal justice component and an immigration component. But it helps to be clear about what problem we’re actually trying to solve. If the concern is crime, then that’s primarily a policing and prosecution issue regardless of who commits it. If the concern is immigration system design, then we should look at whether data actually shows disproportionate criminality among immigrants before framing it as an immigration enforcement failure.
> Immigration status doesn’t really change that dynamic.
Yes and no. It raises the question of how this specific crime could have been prevented. And it is very hard to argue against that with proper border enforcement, there is a good chance that some crime would have never happened.
The issue of social justice driven prosecution, while not related to the act of entering without inspection, just amplifies all these cases, and mixes the problem of lack of immigration enforcement with poorly thought out policies about prosecution and punishment.
What problem are we trying to solve here? I agree that we need to have proper border enforcement. But deporting people because they got a traffic citation[1]? Am I supposed to feel safer from "dangerous immigrants" now?
We need to solve the problem of prosecution and punishment of crimes. And we need to solve the problem of improper border enforcement. But this ain't the way. This just seems like a huge waste of resources.
And just another thought -- when non-white US citizens such as myself, my relatives, my in-laws, feel the need to carry their passports on them to prove citizenship and even then are fearful of being roughhoused and detained for no reason, the system is obviously broken. Or, maybe it's working exactly as intended.
Crime? I concede that if someone is illegal and they get stopped by law enforcement then I understand if they need to be deported. They are, after all, here illegally. The veteran from my previous comment should not have been deported after having served our nation honorably, but that is a one-off.
My point is that we have people at the top levels of government and corporation who have associated with a known sex trafficker. We have crimes literally right in front of our faces. Why are we spending resources on building a secret police of masked thugs who are basically doing whatever they want however they want, to deport people hanging outside of Home Depot?
Again, what problem are we trying to solve here? Are we just looking for people to deport, or are we trying to reduce crime? If we are looking for people to deport, then they should just say that instead of pretending like they are going after violent criminals and gangbangers, but then deporting gardeners.
If we are trying to reduce crime, there's some obvious places to start, and it isn't at the local Home Depot.
> Crime? I concede that if someone is illegal and they get stopped by law enforcement then I understand if they need to be deported. They are, after all, here illegally.
I am not sure I understand your position. If someone in the country illegally, then unless they commit a crime, or stopped by law enforcement, they should not be deported?
> The veteran from my previous comment should not have been deported after having served our nation honorably, but that is a one-off.
I’ve read the story in your link, and something is off. The person in question came to the country legally (not clear what it means in terms of his immigration status — maybe he came on a tourist visa, and then overstayed? Student visa -> overstay/fall out of status?) in 1975. At some point served in the army, which again was possible during some periods of time between 1975 and 2007 (perhaps even later), honorably discharged. Then, after some questionable things (not necessarily crimes, circa 2007) something went sideways, and lead to order of removal in 2014. The guy is old, and from a humanitarian perspective, IMO, he should not get deported. I still do not understand why he did not naturalize, but it is irrelevant at the moment.
> My point is that we have people at the top levels of government and corporation who have associated with a known sex trafficker. We have crimes literally right in front of our faces. Why are we spending resources on building a secret police of masked thugs who are basically doing whatever they want however they want, to deport people hanging outside of Home Depot?
> Again, what problem are we trying to solve here? Are we just looking for people to deport, or are we trying to reduce crime? If we are looking for people to deport, then they should just say that instead of pretending like they are going after violent criminals and gangbangers, but then deporting gardeners.
Why there should be a focus on only one? I mean, if you are doing an investigation into drug trafficking, make an arrest, and then discover that one of the arrestees is also committed another crime. Would you charge this person with the newly discovered crime, or not?
> If someone in the country illegally, then unless they commit a crime, or stopped by law enforcement, they should not be deported?
Sure, I can see why they should be deported. I don't think it's necessarily a good reason to be deported, but I concede that if you're illegal and get caught doing something you should not have done, then there's grounds for deportation. Like Al Capone got caught because he didn't do his taxes.
> from a humanitarian perspective, IMO, he should not get deported
That's interesting. Where do you draw the line?
> I mean, if you are doing an investigation into drug trafficking, make an arrest, and then discover that one of the arrestees is also committed another crime. Would you charge this person with the newly discovered crime, or not?
Sure, and there's tons of precedent for this (see Al Capone). But this isn't what's happening. ICE is not investigating crimes. There's purposely looking for people to deport, and employing filthy tactics to do this.
Again, if the tactics they're using causes US citizens to carry their own documentation, there's something seriously wrong.
> if you're illegal and get caught doing something you should not have done, then there's grounds for deportation.
So, the act of crossing the border without permission is fine?
> That's interesting. Where do you draw the line?
I draw the line in this particular case (and I have not spent time to learn more about his legal troubles, but assuming it was an honest mistake and he was careless w.r.t. hiring proper legal help to know implications on his immigration status) that this person served in the military and had a permanent residency that he lost due to a plea + his age, then yeah.
However, a random person crossing the border? No, they should be deported, and it does not matter if they are black, brown, or a tall Scandinavian blond.
> There's purposely looking for people to deport
Isn't it the whole purpose of the agency? Are there countries with functioning governments that have no ICE-like agency that is responsible to find and deport illegal immigrants?
> Again, if the tactics they're using causes US citizens to carry their own documentation, there's something seriously wrong.
I agree. That being said, I would think we have to examine how we got to this point, and I am not sure the answers and the conclusions would be good for both sides of the isle.
> So, the act of crossing the border without permission is fine?
Sure. If you're seeking asylum, why not go to the country that has a statue that says "send me your poor, huddled masses?"
> Isn't it the whole purpose of the agency? Are there countries with functioning governments that have no ICE-like agency that is responsible to find and deport illegal immigrants?
I can't answer that. But as a brown tourist to foreign nations I can say I've never ever been stopped and asked if I had my documents in those countries, except of course at the point of crossing (airport etc).
But as to the whole purpose of the agency? My question again is, what is the purpose of the agency? If the purpose is to just remove more illegals then I'd say it's not really doing a stellar job; Biden's administration did more deportations without resolving to scare tactics: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/22/us/trump-biden-immigrants...
But I pose to you this question — why not just add more resources to expedite the asylum process, rather than ruthlessly deporting and separating families and kids?
I am confused why you want to debate and make excuses for an agency that sent an innocent man to torture prison for all the months it took for the courts to get him back. Honestly. The complete inhumanity of some people.
Just a handful of examples from last year. As a resident of Minneapolis I can assure you it is much, much worse than these few examples.
Are you not familiar with Liam Conejo Ramos? Or Kilmar Abrego Garcia? Just two other high profile cases, but this is far more prevalent than any reporting has outlined. Three of Liam’s classmates were also “mistakenly” shipped to Texas and returned. At least one of his classmates, a documented asylum seeker like the rest, is still in Dilley.
I think you are a bad person who wants to sit around and talk about this as if it’s some sort of abstract philosophy and not a situation where actual human beings’ lives and health and bodies are being ruined by thugs paid for by my tax dollars. You are a bad person.
This guy had an order of removal, so he seems to be a valid person to detain and deport, no?
Edit: the more I read about it, the more I am convinced he is not a "literally everyone" case.
He was in the US for 20 years, and had no green card. He has work authorization, which means he probably got it as part of the i485 application to get a green card due to his marriage. Other publications report that he came to the US on a tourist waiver visa program, and overstayed. So, what was his status all these years?
No wonder the trust in media is all time low -- this article did a sloppy job to paint a specific picture, and this picture has a bunch of holes in it.
> We lock up innocent people all the time, as the court system is imperfect. That doesn't make something the Gestapo.
Correct. The methods, the scale, and the targets do. Refusing to ever show any identification or proof of orders at all when that definitionally makes them a secret police does. Repeatedly violating federal court orders does (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46965333). Repeatedly violating habeas corpus rights does. Assaulting people in the streets merely for witnessing does. Let us not forget that a woman was violently shoved backward to the ground while she was backing up in the lead-up to the killing of Alex Pretti, and the government's immediate response was repeated shameless lies and hiding or destroying evidence, just like they did with the killing of Renee Nicole Good, just like they did with the killing of Geraldo Lunas Campos, just like they did with Alberto Castañeda Mondragón, ... The list doesn't end.
It's very weird of you to just ignore all of that.
Ultimately, whether or not people are able to do anything involves consequences for their actions.
There's the "three" boxes of liberty that are meant to give a framework for how humans in a society are to introduce consequences to state actors who abuse rights: the soap box, the ballot box, and the jury box.
So we need to start using at least those three to prevent human rights abuses with regard to search warrants.
What about the consequences for the people that let in millions of illegal aliens with criminal records that harmed and killed Americans? Should those politicians be charged as accessories?
I know there are people who shouldn't be here who have committed violent crime, but is it really millions? Is it to the point where we need to be letting God-knows-who run around American cities with tac gear and firearms dragging people off to inadequate detention facilities for over six months?
if only they had killed the Americans without harming them, but I think it was a step too far to harm the Americans and Kill them! That's rude. How many Americans did each of these millions of Illegal Aliens Harm and Kill, I'm guessing at least two due to the plural usage and there are millions of the Illegal Aliens therefore there are at least two million.
This means that the Illegal Aliens have evidently harmed and killed at least 4 million Americans.
I'm not gonna sugar-coat it here, that is a lot of harming and killing alright.
are the millions of illegal aliens with criminal records in the room with us now? Can you show us on the doll where the millions of illegal aliens with criminal records touched you?
No, this is absolutely the system working as intended: The State exists to protect large monied interests and their power, and those entities in exchange will sell out individuals to the State that seek to undermine their power. The State will never not do this.
Like, I realize I'm the rambling anarchist up in here, but show me ANY government ever that didn't Murder and Pillage, two things that we all hate when perpetrated by individuals. There's no amount of democracy that can be injected into a hierarchy responsible for controlling hundreds of millions of people that will inhibit authoritarianism, the best people can hope for (and what many white/middle class citizens thought they had for the last few decades) is not being the target of that authoritarianism.
Cat's out of the bag now and we're doing that thing we do every few decades where we weaponize the State against the citizens.
> The State exists to protect large monied interests and their power, and those entities in exchange will sell out individuals to the State that seek to undermine their power. The State will never not do this.
Reminds me of a certain ideology, can't quite put my finger on it.
I find it funny how many people think that Capitalism and Fascism are compatible or the same... completely disregarding the fact that Fascism is a form of Socialism borne out of the limitations of Communism.
There's a little more to it than that... but what most people ascribe as "fascism" conflates with authoritarianism, which includes the political and economic structures the people talking or using the "F" word generally do support.
There's no communism that doesn't lead to authoritarianism, for example. Which leaves the distinction about economics.
>>There's no communism that doesn't lead to authoritarianism
Unless you believe this because "there's no State that doesn't lead to authoritarianism (based, dope, great take)" saying "this thing is actually the exact same as a thing that is literally the opposite of it" is just whataboutism.
These takes are weak. Here's what I think fascism is (based on like, studying words and theory and philosophy and shit, and not just trying to stunt on my political opposites): It's a far-right, ultra-nationalist, violent, authoritarian world view that SEEKS centralized power and openly opposes liberal and communist parties where it is erected. By design and declaration it seeks to promote violence, masculinity, and a national rebirth to a bygone era lacking in modern decadence.
All this is to say, if you're an Anarchist (hi brother!) seeking to scold the commies for not being Left enough, save that for after the revolution. And if you just want everyone to equate commies with fascists because "then both bad" because you're Right of them, get better at rhetoric.
But tech companies should be complying with subpoenas from governments in countries they would like to operate in. I don't like what is happening in the US either, but to me this feels like a problem with the electorate. Maybe it's possible for Google to provide some of these services without actually having access to the data under subpoena, but I don't know enough about what services they were using or how they work.
> A free state should not be able to sniff after people for made up reasons.
Right, exactly -- a free state should not do that, yet the system is working as intended, therefore we do not live in a free state. It's time to accept that.
That's how I meant it but now actually I don't agree with the usage of "accept", because acceptance implies consent. So I would change the word to "acknowledge".
You can't write rules against bad actors. There will always be some legal loophole a bad president can invent to exploit. if not for administrative warrants we would see some other creative (read: illegal) use of executive power.
The only option is to not elect someone that doesn't respect rule of law. And since I know some enlightened "centrist" will play the both sides game: What's 1 thing any previous president has done equivalent to violating posse comitatus.
I strongly disagree. You should always write rules under the assumption it will get in the hands of the worst people. If there is a 'become god-emperor' lever in your supposedly democratic government system then it is a shitty system.
Maybe so but what here really would've prevented this? The information involved is necessarily public: bank details and credit card numbers need to be shared otherwise why have them?
Writing a rule that says the government can't do this is just the government writing a rule it can simply remove it ignore when inconvenient.
The banking information belongs to the account holder and the bank. Google knows it by coincidence but should not share it because it isn’t theirs. If the government wants to know my banking details they can ask my bank. If they can’t figure out who my bank is they should get better at investigating. This approach is just exploiting Google’s wide reach.
Cool. Yeah but the topic is that it's currently not working when you have a president that doesn't want to respect rule of law.
Just like Roberts schizo-rambling about the federalist papers and inventing new terms like "Core constitutional powers" while not addressing any of the dissents. Roberts pens in that the president gets broad immunity for "core" (defined nowhere) powers and ignores the public's interest in not having a criminal president.
Originalists like senile Roberts must have forgot the framers were literally escaping a monarchy with no judicial accountability. Maybe him and Alito can figure out the mental gymnastics needed to ask his wife to take down the stop-the-steal flag outside his house.
> I know we instinctively want to frame this as a privacy problem
It absolutely is a privacy problem. If that information was in your house, the 4th amendment would apply and they'd have to show up with a real judicial warrant, so you'd know what was happening.
Even if that's the "system working as intended" (intended by who exactly? I'm sure Peter Thiel loves it), anyone who cares at all about their own privacy should be using providers outside of US jurisdiction, because the US government does not, in practice, protect its citizens against unreasonable search and seizure as described in the Constitution.
> In "good" times this made investigations run smoothly.
In good times they were still a blatant form of government abuse however the majority were completely unaffected and so didn't get riled up about it.
Similar to how a vigorous defense of freedom of speech is somehow consistently less popular among constituents of whichever party happens to be in power, as well as when applied to "objectionable" political views.
It's kind of sort of glorious how Google and ICE are both setting their reputation on fire like this at the same time.
The cloud has such a long legacy of being the safe easy convenient place that you just don't have to think about. Nations have somewhat kept their fingers out of the cookie jar.
But now it's just wanton unchecked madness, with no real process, with no judicial review. Google giving in to ICE so quickly is absolutely existentially destructive to Google's business model, of the cloud being a default place you can put your stuff & rely on.
The cloud never deserved this reputation, and there was a certain freight train of inevitability that was coming crashing in from the future, that nations would make the cloud untenable & hostile a space. That felt inevitable. But this is so much harder worser faster dumber than could be expected.
"Administrative subpoenas" have always been bullshit that mostly rely on there being no penalty for companies that hand over user information to anyone with a badge and then justify it with a five-hundred-page TOS document.
Google, among most other tech companies, deny portions of administrative warrants. Here's a story about someone who was stressed out about their notification by Google (spoiler, Google decided to deny the government's request)
edit: It appears that this outcome is an outlier and most admin warrants are honored. It is unfortunate to see the Washington Post decline in reliability like this.
Google does not provide those products (not in the US, as far as I am aware), but they are a money transmitter in the same vein as Square/Block, Stripe, and Venmo [0]. They won't be directly subject to the Bank Secrecy Act, but they partner with the major payment networks (who have their own rules and their own partner programs with banks) as part of Google Pay and customer payment profiles.
But I don't think this matters much for this case, as DHS is not investigating financial crimes. This is about what discretion Google has to comply with administrative warrants, which is not settled law and isn't clearly spelled out in their own policy.
I just looked it up, and money transmitters are included in the Banking Secrecy Act as "Money Services Businesses". So yes, they have KYC obligations in the sense that they know where you are moving your money and are obligated to tell investigators.
Unfortunately, KYC is used for much more than just financial crimes, and the precedent to comply is much more firmly established.
There is a case to be made that administrative subpoenas can be good. They save taxpayers money, they speed up investigations, and they free up the court for more important matters.
As with all things though, these agencies should not be self-regulated without civilian and judicial oversight.
> I know we instinctively want to frame this as a privacy problem
I think it is, but I think this is a more fundamental level of privacy than most people are thinking of when they think of privacy
> In "good" times this made investigations run smoothly.
Privacy people often talk about a concept called "Turnkey Tyranny". Really a reference to Jefferson's "elective despotism". The concept is that because any democracy can vote themselves into an autocracy (elective despotism) that the danger is the creation of that power in the first place. That you don't give Mr Rogers (or some other benevolent leader) any power that you wouldn't give to Hitler (or any horrifying leader).
Or as Jefferson put it
The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.
> but the real problem we need congress to act
So no, that is not the "real problem". They should be involved but there are more fundamental issues at hand. Power creeps. Power creeps with good intention[0]. But there is a strong bias for power to increase and not decrease. And just like power creep in a movie or videogame it doesn't go away and can ruin everything.
Jefferson himself writes a lot about this tbh. It is why we have a system of checks and balances. Where the government treats itself adversarially. But this is also frustrating and makes things slow. So... power creeps.
So the real problem we need to solve is educating the populous. They need to understand these complexities and nuances. If they do not, they will unknowingly trade their freedom to quench their fears.
And this is why it is a privacy problem. Because we the people should always treat our government adversarially. Even in the "good times". Especially in the "good times". The founders of the US constitution wrote extensively about this, much like the privacy advocates write today. I think they would be more likely to take the position of "why collect this information in the first place?" than "under what conditions should this information be collected?". Both are important questions, but the latter should only come after the former. Both are about privacy. Privacy of what is created vs privacy of what is accessed.
[0] You mentioned banking, so a recent example might be the changes in when transactions of a certain level trigger a bank report. The number has changed over time, usually decreasing. It's with good intention, to catch people skirting the laws. You'll never get 100% of people so if this is the excuse it an be a race to reporting all transactions. Maybe you're fine with Mr Rogers having that data, but Hitler? You have to balance these things and it isn't so easy as the environment moves. You solve a major part of the problem with the first move but then the Overton window changes as you've now become accustomed to a different rate of that kind of fraud (and/or as adversaries have adapted to it). A cat and mouse game always presents a slippery slope and unless you consider these implicit conditions it'll be a race to the bottom.
A large part of why the government has slowly accumulated these powers is because Congress has been abdicating its power to the President under both Republican and Democratic administrations since the early 1900s.
The first change I would make with a majority in Congress is to change apportionment so that there is 1 representative per 50,000 people. All it needs is a simple majority, and it would neuter the rural-area advantage in the electoral college while also forcing the legislature to streamline its processes.
Texas will undoubtably try to gerrymander itself into a pretzel, but it's not nearly as easy to draw 582 stable districts that produce a huge Republican advantage - a minor demographic shift could easily lead to a backfiring blowout at the polls. With 6,835 seats in the House, Congress would be forced to streamline its procedures (goodbye, filibuster and reconciliation) and it would be significantly harder for the executive branch to ignore public disapproval.
Of course, this represents a ~15x dilution in the power of each current representative (who would then have to run in a new district) so I'm skeptical. Hopefully enough Democrats have woken up and realized that the country won't survive if it keeps going on like this and deep reforms are needed.
So what about the Amsterdam government handing over the records to the new Nazi government in the past century? Under the back then new laws this was legal and lead to the genocide of countless people who happened to have the wrong belief listed in that data.
Please never make the mistake to confuse something being legal for something being fair or ethical.
I wouldn't give any power at all to Hitler. I wouldn't name him head of state. I wouldn't even let him vote in a town hall meeting about fixing a water main leak. By the principles you have stated, then, I shouldn't let anyone be head of state, and I shouldn't let anyone vote to fix water main leaks?
So what you say is that if someone is clearly ethically wrong, it doesn't matter whether it is legal or not.
That is also my opinion. If we are lucky, we are born into a society in which what we perceive to be right aligns with what the rules say. The next step down on the luck ladder would be a society where there is misalignment in some cases, but there are mechanisms you couls use to change the rules (as is the case in most free countries), and then there are cases where not only are the rules unfair, but you have no way of changing them. In that case resistance is only way to deal with it.
Now with the wisdom of hindsight you can say, the Nazis were clearly bad. But this was much harder to see for thr people during the time. I know because one of my grandfathers was in the Wehrmacht while the other hated the Nazis. Money quote (translated from German): "Everybody thought Hitler would make Germany great again".
I'm getting tired of these comments that normalize being in the middle of the slippery slope as if it is merely the same as being at the top of the slippery slope was. They may not have been "good" times, but they were certainly better times when government agencies at least aimed to carry out their roles in good faith rather than minmaxing the rules to cause the most damage to enemies of the Party. Applying judgement while exercising delegated authority is exactly why these agencies were given wide leeway in the first place. And while we can say this was naive, it is even more naive to normalize the current behavior.
Laws are supposed to be crafted to be as applied by anyone, anywhere and at any time. This is why lawyers and politicians are supposed to have foresight and be prudent.
You look at prior events and see them as justified due to the people involved and situations.
If the US government can, for example investigate Richard Spencer or some other extremist figure based on a web post, then they can do the same for someone else on the other end of the spectrum.
But even more terrifying is that they can do the same for someone not in the extremes.
When my friends on the left held power and used it to quash the speech of my friends on the right, I spoke up.
When my friends on the right are doing the same, I also speak up.
The sad irony is that those not in power protest only when it is not their side.
> If the US government can, for example investigate Richard Spencer or some other extremist figure based on a web post, then they can do the same for someone else on the other end of the spectrum.
> But even more terrifying is that they can do the same for someone not in the extremes.
This isn't a valid principle. It suggests that we should oppose laws against murder, because if the government can imprison a murderer, it can imprison someone who saved a life. Even more terrifying is that it can imprison someone who saved a dog's life or didn't save or kill any lives.
Most people are in a bubble and are unaware of what their tribe is doing.
I may be wrong but I think there have been Republicans who have resigned for extra-marital sex.
While we are screaming about the current POTS and his relation with Jeffery, we gave Bill Clinton a platform to speak during the 2024 Convention. When I bring that up, I get told "It's important that we beat Trump."
The Epstein was arrested in 2019, the files have been in the hands of both Democrats and Republicans. Neither group really looks like they want to prosecute anyone further; only use accusations that their opponents are in there to galvanize their base.
I did not realize that we invited "nobodies" to speak at the convention; I can tell how shunned he was based on the Wikipedia page:
>Third night (Wednesday, August 21: A Fight for Our Freedoms)
>The third night was emceed by actress Mindy Kaling, featuring performances by Stevie Wonder, John Legend, Sheila E and Maren Morris. Vice presidential nominee Minnesota Governor Tim Walz delivered his acceptance speech. Pete Buttigieg also spoke.
>It was confirmed that Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi was scheduled to speak. The evening was headlined by Walz and Clinton.
Headline - verb - to be engaged as a leading performer in (as in show or performance)
>Clinton left office in 2001 with the joint-highest approval rating of any U.S. president.
-Also Wikipedia
Yes, at this moment the current POTUS is more relevant. At the time however, both Trump and Clinton were both "Some nobody with secret service protection" with the only difference between them being one was running for his second term and the other was not.
>Democrats seem to want the files about him to be released.
Everyone wants the files released and those responsible prosecuted...until they are the ones with the files. Then there are all sorts of hints and allegations that their opposition is featured heavily but no charges brought.
It's really sick, there are real people with lives who have been ruined. Committed suicide because of what happened to them and yet all those with the power to act just talk, be it democrats or republicans.
while former US President is about as far from a nobody as it is humanly possible the commenter’s points are all valid. while the current President is most definitely one of the most dispicable human beings than ever roam this planet the whole epstein business is far above any US politics. and Americans generally do not give a hoot about this (see election in 2025) - especially when victims are women and children.
> Laws are supposed to be crafted to be as applied by anyone, anywhere and at any time. This is why lawyers and politicians are supposed to have foresight and be prudent.
Except this is both impossible and a bad idea, which is why we have judges, juries, elections, and every other part of the system intended to constrain the blind application of the law.
You have said very little that addresses anything I said, except to appeal to some vague sense of "both sidesism" which is so far away from our current predicament that the only applications I see are (1) to say "I told you so", which isn't productive and widely misses the mark with me (2) normalize the current situation and/or absolve blame by shifting it onto the other side.
Investigative agencies are going to be able to investigate people. So supposing that the "US government can ... investigate Richard Spencer ... based on a web post" isn't a compelling argument unless your goal is to completely reject the concept of government. This can certainly be a consistent position (I've held it in the past), but it's not a common one.
At which point it comes down to accountability for how delegated powers are used - both in individual cases, and to stop patterns of abuse. For example I've long argued we need to neuter the concept of sovereign immunity, and start routinely compensating people who are harmed by the government but never convicted of breaking the law - one should indeed be able to "beat the ride". So I'm not waking up to this in 2025 clutching my pearls gasping "I can't believe the government can just do this". I've been following how the government operates unaccountably for quite some time, and I'm pointing out that the current regime is still a marked escalation.
This isn't to say I am pushing lame answers like "just vote Democrat" (I don't consider myself a Democrat). And I do agree that meaningful reform needs to be in general terms (eg aforementioned sovereign immunity example). But I also think that dismissing our current situation as some mere extension of what has been happening for a while is a terrible way of framing things.
I am saying "No. Full stop." to the idea that we ever had a time when the government was attempting to carry out their roles in good faith.
"For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law" - Óscar Benavides, former president of Peru.
This can only be true if the law is broad and relies on "good faith". This is why laws and court ruling are often narrowly tailored, to prevent a precedent being set that will open the door for future abuse down the road.
>Investigative agencies are going to be able to investigate people. So supposing that the "US government can ... investigate Richard Spencer ... based on a web post" isn't a compelling argument unless your goal is to completely reject the concept of government. As has been often said, you can get a grand jury to indite a ham sandwich.
I suppose I could have fleshed out this argument a little further, a distillation of my point would be that "investigations" are carried out with little or flimsy evidence as a pretext to go on fishing expeditions to find something, anything to actually charge the person with.
>we need to neuter the concept of sovereign immunity
I wish we could get the government to hold themselves accountable, however they would need to pass a law to override the concept and they do not seem to be in any hurry to do so.
I am not attempting to say I told you so to you, nor normalize the situation. I disagree with your assessment that there ever was a "better time" and invite not only you but everyone to stand against bad laws and practices no matter the letter after the name.
> I am saying "No. Full stop." to the idea that we ever had a time when the government was attempting to carry out their roles in good faith.
This is such a strong claim, I don't know how it could even be supported.
At the agency level (the context of my original comment), this is effectively an assertion that the FDA has never meaningfully cared about food safety, NPS has always had some hidden motive for hosting visitors in parks, and so on. I'm nowhere near the best person to wax eloquently about the value of government, and I'm probably coming from a much closer position to you of being skeptical, but I think we have to admit there is some value here.
At the level of individual government agents, it's even less supportable. For example, most ICE agents are not boxing in vehicles to create an excuse to execute their drivers who had been protesting. Most ICE agents are just trying to perform their stated purpose of enforcing immigration law. This is NOT a defense of the agency, their leadership, the part of their stated goal that I have to begrudgingly admit is lawful, the tendency for agents to close ranks and defend the worst agents, the totalitarian propaganda holding it all together, etc. Rather it's an acknowledgement of the actual reality. (that we have to work with if we're going to attempt to reform it, and I use the term "reform" loosely here. I think the moderate option at this point is "abolish ICE")
The point is that in all of these situations, there is authority being delegated to individual humans, who are then supposed to faithfully carry it out. This is why we have oaths of office, and whatnot. You seem to be rejecting this very idea of how any human structure necessarily functions, in favor of some idea that laws can be objectively defined and mechanically executed?
> I wish we could get the government to hold themselves accountable, however they would need to pass a law to override the concept and they do not seem to be in any hurry to do so.
but then:
> invite not only you but everyone to stand against bad laws and practices
What do you mean by "stand against" if not ultimately pushing for reform, likely culminating in demanding some kind of government-inconvenient legislation that curtails abuses?
And I'm getting tired of these comments that normalize the awfulness of the past. We can be pragmatic in recognizing that "our guys" also did bad things. Less bad than awful is still bad. If we choose not to recognize our own foibles then we just fall down our old patterns of "it's someone else's problem".
Because otherwise, better than what we have now is an abysmal target and we should aim for better.
> We can be pragmatic in recognizing that "our guys" also did bad things
What do you mean "our guys" ? I don't have guys. I consider myself a libertarian, was both sidesing up until June of 2020, and had never voted for a major party in a national election until 2020 when I voted for Biden - which I view as me getting older and more conservative - aka valuing our societal institutions and values after seeing how much Trump openly trashed them instead of showing an ounce of leadership during Covid.
Even with this perspective, I still think it is foolish to write off the current administration as if it's just another iteration of back and forth corruption rather than a shameless wholesale kicking over of the apple cart.
Care to elaborate on your point then? Reading what you have written, I do agree with the abstract thrust of where you're coming from.
But I have also observed that the destructionists appeal to similar lofty ideas to justify what is currently going on - eg accelerationism.
(I also don't know what difference "tongue in cheek" makes. I've never looked at the government and thought anything like "these people represent me and work for my interest". I know a lot of people seemingly have, but that's not me. But I did look at the Biden administration, which I voted for, and think "this is the stable predictable evil I (and the rest of American society) already know how to cope with".)
Well, for background, my background is in investigative journalism with a focus on policing, technology, and transparency. I've been the plaintiff in a bit over 10 FOIA lawsuits and have three ongoing suits now. "Our guys" was more meant to be a hand waived ideal of what each in-person thinks their out-person is.
My point can be read as a recognition that ratcheting happens within the boring minutia and work is rarely done to recover from those ratchetings. Things like continuation of prosecution policies, legislation changes, staff changes, etc. There's a very strong tendency to consider those sorts of ratcheting effects as "just how things are" rather than recognizing that no, it hasn't always been that way.
Like, progressive politicians love to talk a big game about transparency, but when it comes down to it, they themselves contribute to systemic transparency failures. See Chicago's past two mayors' campaign transparency promises. Both have done a complete 180 on those promises and use never-losing lawyers to enforce that sort of thing. Chicago's mayor's office once asked me to do analysis of parking tickets' effects on poor folk... then a few months later accused my wanting a data dictionary of the parking tickets system so that I could modify the parking ticket system's data. That led to bad case law at the IL supreme court.
It's shit like that. The small-but-not-really-small things.
> So we agree, including that there is a difference.
No, that's a distinction without a difference. I mean, it doesn't matter in the slightest if at some point in time certain powers weren't abused, if they're being abused now the situation cannot be tolerated.
Arguing about how it's possible not to abuse the system is a waste of time at best and a diversion at worst.
I'm not arguing that it's possible to not abuse the system. I've recognized abuses for quite some time, regardless of which political team has been in power. The point is that we need to avoid normalizing our current situation by pointing to previous abuses.
It's worth pointing out that "criminals" are generally "people at the margins"... If for no other reason than to point out that pithy comments like this are often so vague as to be worthless, or even counter-productive!
It's also a good thing that antisocial behavior is often isolated to "the margins", so your statement can even be considered a good thing, by the same metric!
I'm not an expert in fourth amendment but I do know that assuming a subpoena without judicial oversight violates the fourth amendment is not correct. All the fourth amendment guarantees is unreasonable search and seizure. In some circumstances a judicial subpoena may be necessary and others not. An administrative subpoena implies that there has been a legal procedure and the administrative agencies are not exactly run like the wild west.
> An administrative subpoena implies that there has been a legal procedure and the administrative agencies are not exactly run like the wild west
Hard disagree. The fact that a government agency "reviewed" its own subpoena before enforcing it does not follow the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, which is to prevent government overreach in taking your belongings and information.
In fact, to take your definition of what's not unreasonable to its logical conclusion, by definition any process an agency came up with would be acceptable, as long as they followed it.
I think a better definition of a reasonable search and seizure would be one where a subpoena goes before a judge, the target of the subpoena is notified and has the opportunity to fight it, and where there are significant consequences for government agents who lie or otherwise abuse the process of getting a subpoena.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
>>no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation<<
that means there must be affirmation of probable cause to an overseeing body [i.e. judiciary]
administrative warrants are a process of "i know im right i dont need someone else to look things over"
If the party on the receiving end of a search needs to be a lawyer to simply understand the legality of a warrant, I’d argue the search is unreasonable.
> All the fourth amendment guarantees is unreasonable search and seizure.
Are you saying that by the existence of the fourth that unreasonable search/seizures are guaranteed to happen? It can't guarantee protection from them either.
DHS/ICE is in a weird constitutional spot. Most immigration violations in the US are _civil_ violations. So the Fourth Amendment is less applicable. It's also why detained immigrants don't automatically get the right to be represented by a lawyer.
ICE/DHS technically are just acting as marshals, merely ensuring that defendants appear at court proceedings and then enforcing court decisions (deportations).
It's not really that the 4th amendment is less applicable, it's that the procedural protections are lower in civil proceedings.
I think it's a pretty big undersell to describe ICE as "marshals" too - they've got plenty of discretion in how they prioritize targeted people and who they detain. They are not just a neutral party executing court orders.
In theory yes, but in practice it's more unclear. There are conflicting Supreme Court precedents, that weaken the Fourth Amendment in cases where criminal penalties don't apply. Asset foreiture is another example.
> I think it's a pretty big undersell to describe ICE as "marshals" too - they've got plenty of discretion in how they prioritize targeted people and who they detain. They are not just a neutral party executing court orders.
Yep. That's also a difference between theory and practice.
What exactly do you disagree with? Most immigration violations are a civil matter (USC section 8). There are criminal violations like human trafficking or illegal entry. But if you came into the US with a visa and then overstayed, you're not committing anything criminal.
And even illegal entry is a misdemeanor, the maximum punishment is at most 6 months in jail. So yeah, ICE and DHS _technically_ don't have more power than regular marshals for most immigration cases.
Which should scare you, btw. There are plenty of civil violations that can be similarly weaponized in future.
>"So I don't think I actually have a problem with businesses handing over their customer data if there is a valid warrant or subpoena. That's the system working as intended."
This person right here is the problem in our society.
Things never and will never get isolated to "valid warrant".
Look around us, social after social media in order to "protect the kids", you must provide your personal information to them.
Many people see nothing wrong with that and yet, service after service, business after business are being breached left and right.
Discord will mandate ID verification, just recently they have been breached.
Back to the article, if Google can do that for an immigrant, what make you think that Google won't do the same with your data as citizen whenever for whatever reason??
Don't agree with things you don't fully understand its consequences.
Maybe it is to a child or average citizen, but I don't believe that "not understanding the consequences" is the case here on HN. This is just a difference in philosophy, the old "freedom vs. security" tradeoff that everyone falls down on a little differently. Giving up your data to a company (and therefore the government) in exchange for services is a trust exercise, and there are ways to avoid making it, but they have significant unavoidable costs. It's an easier decision when you don't fear your own government, but where you fall on the spectrum rapidly changes when your government makes you the target. Of course you can say "the government is always going to turn on you, so you should never trust them!", but you'll sound like a loon to many native citizens of a Western nation that have had little to fear for decades.
The US is just experiencing a little more of what the citizens of communist and fascist nations have experienced. Over time, that might lead to rapid societal change, or maybe it's too late.
The main crux of the problem here is that the DHS has been granted a wide berth by congress to issue administrative subpoenas - i.e. not reviewed by a real judge and not directed at criminals. In "good" times this made investigations run smoothly. But the reality now is that ICE is doing wide dragnets to make arrests without any judicial oversight and often hostile to habeas corpus.
(Also, my understanding is that when banking is involved, it may also fall under the Banking Secrecy Act and Know Your Customer Rules - a whole other privacy nightmare.)
I know we instinctively want to frame this as a privacy problem, but the real problem we need congress to act on is abolishing these "shadow" justice systems that agencies have been able to set up.