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.
Europe is using smartphone data as a tool to help repatriate lost runaways.
" Admittedly, some refugees do lie on their asylum applications."
Who writes this stuff? There is a difference between an asylum seeker and an immigrant and a migrant and an illegal immigrant. To conflate it all is disingenuous.
Refugees aren't being deported (unless they have been extraordinarily naughty). You get deported (maybe, sometimes, if officials can be bothered or if you drag out your appeal for so long that they give up, and if you do not make too much of a scene) when your asylum claim is rejected. And plenty of rejected applicants are not deported, they just hang around. Hoping for another mass pardon of illegal immigrants, perhaps.
Separating actual refugees from immigrants with other motivations is vitally important, to make sure we can financially, politically and socially afford to take in as many actual refugees as needed. It's not unreasonable to ask applicants to provide proof to support their claim, and that includes submitting mobile phone data. As long as it is treated as the highly sensitive data that it is, with only relevant portions being retained and only for as long as necessary.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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.........
No, big difference between finding and removing immigration criminals and citizens.
Countries have borders and immigration laws. There is no problem using whatever means to locate immigration criminals.
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.
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.
Yeah, right. About that...
It would appear that unrestricted immigration and taking refugees is something the people don't want, both in the EU and here in the US.
In the US we allow about 1.1 million legal immigrants per year, which is generous in comparison to any other country. That's enough to skew the economy, make jobs hard to get, and puts a burden on the infrastructure. Letting unrestricted migrants in could cripple the country, possibly bring it down.
Non-citizens can apparently vote, and there's a big push in CA to force the census bureau to remove the citizenship question in the next census.
After the census is tallied, it means that CA gets 3 [US House] more representatives due to non-citizens, and for all states non-citizens total about 7 house representatives.
(Question: Is giving non-citizens legislative power like that insane? Asking for a friend...)
I have no Earthly idea why Merkel and the rest of the EU is so hell-bent on getting more refugees. Refugees are causing a lot of problems, it's clearly something the member states don't want, and there's apparently no end in sight. The whole refugee thing started because of Arab Spring (remember that?), which was 8 years ago!
My best guess is that being called "nazi" is still a big thing in Europe, and they'll do anything to save face and avoid being called that name. Trash their own country by virtue signalling.
Anyway...
The basic problem is that the people really don't want unrestricted immigration. It's something that people can readily see, and that affects them directly. Trump's approval rating actually went *up* during the recent protests.
When the government does something the people *really* don't like, it's the government that has to change.
Merkel is the one who oversaw in introduction of really strong privacy laws and tried to find a workable, humane solution to the migrant crisis.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Right. Most people have mobile phones in case they suddenly get a job interview.
The economic migrants come to your country for a better life. They integrate well into society.
No they don't. Many of them just want free benefits.
Countries should only admit good-looking immigrants.
They should be really good-looking too, as in "raise the national average" good-looking. For example, the certain parts of the US and Scandinavia would halt all immigration, because the people are gorgeous and handsome. Europe would severely reduce immigration, except for England, whose gene pool needs much improvement after centuries of inbreeding to preserve so-called "nobility".
Central & subsaharan Africa would accept everyone except people with deformities and retardation. Asia should follow a similar policy and accept everyone except really ugly blacks and ugly mixed-race people.
This would make the world a much better place for all the people worth improving it for. The rest are a disgusting liability and a burden.
The main issue I have with those requirements is the requirement to learn the "native language". The US doesn't have one. Some states have official languages, but even then, you've got more than one - New Mexico declared both English and Spanish official languages. Hawaiian is an official language in Hawaii, French in Louisiana, and Alaska has 21 official languages (most of which are actual native languages).
I also think that the language issue takes care of itself after the first generation. You're not going to find many second generation immigrants from anywhere who still don't know the main language where they move. The inconvenience of not knowing it far outweighs the difficulty of learning it, so they learn it.
sanctuary cities that don't obey the laws and cooperate.
Sanctuary cities do obey the law, and have no legal obligation to cooperate.
it's the ones escaping violence. The actual refugees. The economic migrants come to your country for a better life. They integrate well into society. The refugees are forced out by violence. They don't want to be in your country, they want to go home. So they don't integrate.
The people of Southern Europe are no longer indulging this sort of hair splitting. They can't afford to any longer.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
There's more to being a refugee than being really really ridiculously good-looking. Even if they are wearing Derelicte.
Didn't you read "A Brave New World"? Maybe we don't design humans outright, but there's enough evolutionary programming in us already that can be exploited.
Ask yourself why would anyone willingly consume and pay for poisons like cigarettes or alcohol? Consume and pay for unhealthy food, sit in front of that that TV, spent hours a day on the internet on social media looking at pictures and videos of cute animals, funny pictures and videos, and so forth.
Yes there are rights for when they are hunted, captured, detained and deported. All that is legal under the law. That has never changed.
There are laws for refugees. There are laws for immigration.
You do not advocate the rule of law. That is wrong.
He related that manyl of the refugees he'd come across seemed to have managed to lose all of their identity papers and documents, but all of them seemed to have been able to hold on to their smartphones and selfie sticks.
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
Bollocks. A lot of the places in the world have always been completely broken.
Not sure if there was a plan. I mean besides 'Merkel is forever' one.
The fact is however that this was all predictable. But first things first: borders were open before you just had to show a pass, sometimes visa and some such. This is not a closed border. I lived under closed border regime together with Merkel so I can tell. The open border that she and her minions are blathering about is no border - no checks allowed. This goes as far as not to check age of people claiming to be minors - something that in Germany has a significant financial reward for the 'minor'. As for refugees - I would not call all of them rapefugees but the media refusing to address these problems for 3 years now made it impossible to distinguish between those that rape and those that don't. So here we go. A regime that refuses to control borders is at some point forced to install cameras on each railway station and public square and equip it with face recognition software - that is what previous minister of interior started doing after wave of crime (that according to the official statistics does not exist) started making people uncomfortable.
An obvious troll, admittedly, but I'd still like to see what the person posting this looked like in real life.
:-)
Spoiler; probably *not* someone who's posting AC nonsense to Slashdot because they're in hiding from hordes of supermodels after them for their aesthetically perfect body and have nothing better to do.
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.
The population of the EU is around 511 million. So far this year, 42,000 undocumented migrants have entered Europe. Compared to the population of the EU, that's a rounding error. The EU can easily accommodate the numbers of refugees coming in. The EU is not overwhelmed or being flooded by migrants and anyone publishing headlines or broadcasting news to that effect shouldn't be considered journalists (journalists are supposed to report facts, their implications, and keep things in perspective). Additionally, every EU country has ratified the UNHCR Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. In other words, EU member countries have a legal obligation to accommodate refugees.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
WHAT benefits?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Illegal migrants have considered such fraud prevention in every nation they could register in. Thats why they don't register in the first safe nation they enter.
A bank account for payments from a gov linked to photo ID linked to biometric data at a federal level? Avoid that nation with good banking laws.
A nation that allows an illegal migrant to register under a list of names and has no active reconciliation between gov payments, the ID and banks? Try that nation that will not investigative fraud.
Someone is offering legal insight to illegal migrants into the enforcement of each nation and directing illegal migrants to nations that do not track their banking systems and photo ID's
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Bullshit. Which law?
Obstruction of justice:
"Obstruction charges may also be laid in unique situations such as refusal to aid a police officer, escape through voluntary action of an officer and refusing to assist prison officers in arresting escaped convicts."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... :
"[Section] 507. Officers to make character known; assistance for officers[3]
(a) Every customs officer shall-- (1) upon being questioned at the time of executing any of the powers conferred upon him, make known his character as an officer of the Federal Government; and (2) have the authority to demand the assistance of any person in making any arrest, search, or seizure authorized by any law enforced or administered by customs officers, if such assistance may be necessary."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... :
"In the United States, a customs officer is a federal law enforcement officer working to enforce customs laws as well as over 400 laws for other federal agencies. Customs officers enforce these laws for every person or thing that enters or leaves U.S. Among their many functions are detecting and confiscating contraband, making sure that import duties are paid, and preventing those without legal authorization from entering the United States. In the past, American customs officers were part of the Department of the Treasury, the oldest law enforcement agency in the U.S., dating back to 1789. U.S. Customs (CBP) is the second highest revenue collector in the United States through fines, collection of duties, and illegal money seized; only the IRS collects more money for the federal government. Every day, on average, U.S. Customs arrests 135 suspects of different crimes, seizes 2,313 pounds of narcotics, confiscate 196 firearms, intercept 210 fraudulent documents, prevents 54 criminal aliens from entering the U.S., and detains one suspected terrorist. Customs officers need no probable cause to search, detain, or seize anything or any person. Today customs officers work for the Department of Homeland Security within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Investigations. They are present at every international airport, seaport, and all land border crossings."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Where did you go to school, because they're clearly teaching a very distorted view of history.
I mean, lets consider countries the British strongly influenced. Nope, not seeing refugees from Antigua, Australia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei, Cameroon, Canada, China, Dominica, Egypt, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Grenadines, Guyana, India, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Cyprus, Samoa, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent, Swaziland, The Bahamas, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, USA, Vanuatu, Zambia or Zimbabwe.
So Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Myanmar are the only ones with any recent trouble, one of those was a racial issue unrelated to the UK and one of them is a religious one also related to the UK.
Meanwhile four of them are nuclear powers, most of them are stable and provide safety for their citizens and in general they've benefited greatly from the British influence into their legal systems and governance.
Sure, the UK have also influenced places like Libya, Iraq and Syria. All three of them were killing their own citizens in vast numbers first, so don't go pretending the UK caused any of this.
I'll let people from other western powers defend their own countries.