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...
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.
Found the political bullshitter with an agenda!
Non-citizens can apparently vote
Not really. They cannot vote in federal elections at all per 18 USC 611. (I'd link it at uscode.house.gov, but Slashdot apparently doesn't like the URL. I trust you can find it.)
Since you mentioned CA in particular, I'll note that they can't vote there at all. Only US citizens can vote in CA, according the California Secretary of State.
As far as I know, every state requires US citizenship in order to vote. Certainly everywhere I've lived.
It's OK if you're afraid of immigrants, but it's not OK to lie about how things work in the real world.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'"