Slashdot Mirror
Europe is Using Smartphone Data as a Weapon To Deport Refugees (wired.co.uk)
Governments are using migrants' smartphones to deport them. From a report: Across the continent, migrants are being confronted by a booming mobile forensics industry that specialises in extracting a smartphone's messages, location history, and even WhatsApp data. That information can potentially be turned against the phone owners themselves. In 2017 both Germany and Denmark expanded laws that enabled immigration officials to extract data from asylum seekers' phones. Similar legislation has been proposed in Belgium and Austria, while the UK and Norway have been searching asylum seekers' devices for years.
Following right-wing gains across the EU, beleaguered governments are scrambling to bring immigration numbers down. Tackling fraudulent asylum applications seems like an easy way to do that. As European leaders met in Brussels last week to thrash out a new, tougher framework to manage migration -- which nevertheless seems insufficient to placate Angela Merkel's critics in Germany -- immigration agencies across Europe are showing new enthusiasm for laws and software that enable phone data to be used in deportation cases. Admittedly, some refugees do lie on their asylum applications.
Following right-wing gains across the EU, beleaguered governments are scrambling to bring immigration numbers down. Tackling fraudulent asylum applications seems like an easy way to do that. As European leaders met in Brussels last week to thrash out a new, tougher framework to manage migration -- which nevertheless seems insufficient to placate Angela Merkel's critics in Germany -- immigration agencies across Europe are showing new enthusiasm for laws and software that enable phone data to be used in deportation cases. Admittedly, some refugees do lie on their asylum applications.
Useful idiots like Merkel just brought on the much needed police state. Once those pesky rapefugees are gone, they'll be using those tools on the native population.
All apart of the plan.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Rather than use it on law abiding citizens,let's use it to more readily track the illegal immigrants in the US (border hoppers and VISA overstays) and use this to more readily track them down.
This would go a long way of circumventing the sanctuary cities that don't obey the laws and cooperate.
I don't have a problem with people coming and migrating to the US to integrate and become US citizens, but if you are coming to the country, at least sign the fucking GUEST BOOK on the way in, and do things legally.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
There is a difference between an asylum seeker and an immigrant and a migrant and an illegal immigrant.
Yes and no. No sovereign nation is obligated to allow anybody but its own citizens in. When you are any of the above people asking a country to admit you, regardless of the reason, you're standing at the gate, hat in hand, hoping that by their grace they let you in. If they tell you to jump, you ask how high.
If you don't want to follow their procedures and allow an invasive search of your property, then that's fine, ask another country to take you instead, or go back to your home country.
Some genuine refugees lie, for a whole variety of reasons. They are still refugees and the system has to recognise that.
As opposed to NOT-genuine refugees? What separates the two? If someone who claims to be a refugee and is lying in order to pull off that fraud, that doesn't make them a refugee, it makes them a liar pretending to be one to scam the system. Tools that help to differentiate the scammers from the real thing are essential, since untold thousands of people continually attempt that scam.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
sanctuary cities that don't obey the laws and cooperate.
Sanctuary cities do obey the law, and have no legal obligation to cooperate.
So we have illegal migrants complaining that they have their phones searched for evidence of breaking immigration laws. This is not how people take a case to court, even in the court of public opinion.
Here's an example for you, admittedly about a different law. I recall a few years ago reading about people being shot in Chicago a week apart with similar circumstances. The person shot was a known criminal that had broken into a home, the homeowner that shot the criminal had done so with an unregistered firearm. In most places in the USA no one is required to register a firearm because that is considered a violation of the rights as protected by the US Constitution. These two homeowners were not charged with having an unregistered firearm, and in fact were not charged of any crime. Why is that? Because people are not likely to put anyone in prison over defending their own home even if that meant they broke several laws to do so. Every time a person goes to court so does the law.
You want me to be sympathetic on the plight of people having their phones searched? How about finding a person I might have a reason to find sympathy? I don't much care if admitted criminals have their phones searched to find out how they broke the law. We know they came to Germany by overland from somewhere that is not a neighbor. Therefore they are obligated to declare asylum in the first nation in which they are safe. Failing to do so is a violation of the law in most every nation. I agree that searching cell phones to find out which nation that might be is poor form, at best. Searching personal phones for evidence to use against a person is a violation of rights as I understand personal rights. Perhaps I'm merely exposing my US-centered world view but don't like this idea much at all. Here's the thing though, we know they broke the law and all the searching the phone does is expose just how severely they broke the law and/or what to do with the person once the process of proving they broke the law is complete.
Everyone deserves their day in court if accused of a crime. People should feel secure from unlawful search by a government agent, regardless of the nation. What I'm finding real hard to do is feel sympathy for criminals being searched when we know they broke the law.
Someone wiser than I pointed out the best way to stop a bad law is strict enforcement. You want that law on searching phones overturned? Then find a police officer that searched the phone of an old lady that was accused of jaywalking. That's going to get people's sympathy. You want the law on requiring homeowners to register their firearms in Illinois overturned? Then charge a person that just killed a home intruder with having an unregistered firearm. The powers that be know this, and so they often deny the ability for someone to challenge a bad law in court by not enforcing the law against someone that a judge and/or jury might find sympathy.
One more thing... These people are fleeing shithole nations so that they can find a better life elsewhere. I'm fine with that so long as they do so with the intent to "when in Rome do as the Romans do". If they come to Germany, Denmark, or the USA then they need to learn the language of the nation they came to, find a job, and obey the laws. Germany has gained an international reputation for taking refugees, and I believe that this is the compassionate thing to do and a model for all nations to follow. What has happened is that people believe that they can break the law and still get to be a refugee. That's not how this works, and that's not how it should work. Either fix up your shithole nation so you don't have to flee or leave by the legal means as dictated by international law and the laws of the nation you wish to obtain sanctuary.
If you break the law to get into another nation then I'm not going to care much if the nation treats you like a criminal.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
make jobs hard to get
Immigrants take jobs, and then spend their wages on goods and services that create new jobs. The preponderance of the evidence is that they create more jobs than they take.
and puts a burden on the infrastructure.
They also pay taxes to build new infrastructure.
Letting unrestricted migrants in could cripple the country, possibly bring it down.
We used to have unrestricted immigration. The economy expanded rapidly, and living standards soared.
Why shouldn't people in prison be able to vote? They are citizens, and they likely have grievances with the way our government currently functions.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Illegal immigrants do not pay federal taxes. A Social Security number is required for that. Identity theft is a felony, which many of them commit. Not to pay taxes mind you, but to get jobs that the true owner of that SSN# is on the hook for the unpaid taxes on.
Once again you conflate legal and illegal immigrants on purpose to somehow brand those opposed to illegal immigration as racists or nazis or whatever. People have woken up to that,
As far as I know, every state requires US citizenship in order to vote.
But can do nothing to verify that the person casting that ballot is a US citizen. Trying to require something as simple as ID is labelled as "racism" and results in lawsuits.
Imagine a law that says only people older than 20 can drink alcohol, and then not allowing the bars to check IDs to make sure all the people they serve are at least 21. Would you still argue that there is any law against 18 year olds drinking? Any USEFUL law?
It's OK if you're afraid of immigrants,
Nothing here shows any fear of immigrants. It shows a disdain for criminals, however. Not every immigrant is a criminal.
but it's not OK to lie about how things work in the real world.
Nor it is OK to ignore that prohibiting the enforcement of laws effectively eliminates those laws.
There are strict criteria for claiming refugee status. Otherwise why would anyone wait through the long legal immigration process if all they had to do was just show up and say the magic word "asylum!"
I will agree that prisoners have the right to vote if you agree that prisoners have the right carry weapons.
I'm fine with felons released from prison being allowed to vote, just as I am fine with them being allowed to carry weapons. Prison is punishment for antisocial behavior, as well as confinement to prevent them from doing further harm to polite society. By putting people in prison we've determined in a court of law that this person has violated the social contract. With rights comes responsibilities. These people have demonstrated that they are not responsible and therefore they lose their rights for a while, and that includes the right to vote.
That's not saying we remove all ability to voice their grievances. I expect that prisoners would be allowed to voice their grievances by means of letters and phone calls to those in office. I expect them to have access to visits from legal representation, family, religious clergy and laypersons, and others that might offer guidance and means to seek a return to polite society. They can still make their grievances known, I just don't want criminals able to "buy" a shortened sentence from a governor with a promise of a pardon in return for their vote.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The federal government is the one who decides who can and cannot enter the country, and the Executive branch is tasked with securing the border and enforcing immigration laws.
States may not have to specifically aid the feds for certain things, but they cannot actively interfere with their operations. Doing so makes them active participants in crime. And yes, entering the country illegally is a crime. As is aiding and abetting such criminals.
Prison is a punishment. In an ideal world, it would be a punishment for anti-social behavior, but prison is often used as a political tool. For example. a lot of people in prison are there on non-violent drug charges, and a good chunk of those in there for violent charges because the prior drug charges hurt their employment opportunities. These people were unjustly put in the cage by the state, so they certainly need the ability to vote.
As for your concern about criminals buying pardons, it just doesn't work out unless there is a ridiculous, yet legitimate prison population. El Salvador has the highest homicide rate, at 83 per 100k. If we multiply that over 10 years, that's still only 0.83%, even in the murder capital of the world, easily within the margin of error. If there are enough violent criminals that they constitute a major voting block, your country has far bigger problems.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Prison is a punishment. In an ideal world, it would be a punishment for anti-social behavior, but prison is often used as a political tool. For example. a lot of people in prison are there on non-violent drug charges, and a good chunk of those in there for violent charges because the prior drug charges hurt their employment opportunities. These people were unjustly put in the cage by the state, so they certainly need the ability to vote.
There was a time that I would have agreed with you that "a lot" of people are in prison for non-violent drug charges. Assuming I agree with that premise I still see a problem. These people in prison had to know the drugs they possessed were illegal, and by possessing them they run the risk of imprisonment if caught. Perhaps they should have considered voting for people to legalize these drugs BEFORE they went about using or dealing them. If they broke the law as a means of civil disobedience then this only works as an act of civil disobedience if they run the risk of imprisonment. Either way they had to know the risks of their drug possession but chose to disobey the law regardless. I'm not going to "reward" what could be an act of civil disobedience with the ability to vote while in prison because, again, if by voting they believed they could overturn the law then they should have just voted and stayed out of prison.
As for your concern about criminals buying pardons, it just doesn't work out unless there is a ridiculous, yet legitimate prison population. El Salvador has the highest homicide rate, at 83 per 100k. If we multiply that over 10 years, that's still only 0.83%, even in the murder capital of the world, easily within the margin of error. If there are enough violent criminals that they constitute a major voting block, your country has far bigger problems.
Tight elections can be won with far smaller margins. I recall that an election for POTUS was won based on the margin of less than 600 votes in a district in Florida. I agree it's a small margin of the total vote. Where I disagree is that it does not matter. Let's also consider the logistics on this, should a person in prison vote based on where they lived before being incarcerated? Based on which district the prison is in now? Where their children go to school? What of the security of the vote? Getting impartial observers into a prison to observe the vote will be difficult. Getting the ballots and election workers in and out runs a risk of an escape or some "funny" ballots.
If what you claim is true, that the voting block of prisoners are unlikely to change the results of the vote then that only means that allowing prisoners to vote gains us little to nothing in determining the outcome. It raises a lot of questions on who votes, how the votes are counted, and all kinds of logistic issues. No, we don't need prisoners voting. They can vote on laws that might get them in prison before violating those laws. As I recall a person can often petition for the right to vote being returned once out of prison, or even in some states those that served their sentence get the right to vote restored automatically. As you say the votes from those in prison are unlikely to shift the vote either way so there's no value in counting them. On top of that I don't want criminals voting in other criminals should the margin be close enough that it might get them past the post.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Disenfranchisement of felons is a downhill slope. You punish people unfairly, then take away the only right they might use to help change the system so it doesn't happen to others. We tell prospective citizens that the right to vote is the most important right they have (in fact it is the "correct" answer to a question on the citizenship test) and then we go on to deprive even people who were born here of that right.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Trying to require something as simple as ID is labelled as "racism" and results in lawsuits."
Only where states create onerous requirements for getting ID. Frankly, no one should pay a fee for something that is for the convenience of the government. It should come out of the general fund and be paid for by taxes. No one should need to pay money to exercise their rights.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Trying to require something as simple as ID is labelled as "racism" and results in lawsuits."
Only where states create onerous requirements for getting ID. Frankly, no one should pay a fee for something that is for the convenience of the government. It should come out of the general fund and be paid for by taxes. No one should need to pay money to exercise their rights.
ID requirements are challenged no matter what the government does. Bringing ID vans to neighborhoods and making it free makes no difference. It will be challenged by testifying that there is at least one person who just can't possibly manage to do it no matter how easy it is. I bet they would manage to make it if you were giving away free cell phones. They would manage if you needed an ID to claim your free cell phone.
I think it's crazy that some groups would rather spend their resources fighting a voter ID requirement than helping people who don't have an ID get one. In my opinion the only reason to do this is they know the ID requirement will reduce voter fraud.