Slashdot Mirror


Malls In California Are Sending License Plate Information To ICE (theweek.com)

Presto Vivace shares a report from The Week with the caption, "And they wonder why some of us prefer to shop online." From the report: Surveillance systems at more than 46 malls in California are capturing license plate information that is fed to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reported Tuesday. One company, Irvine Company Retail Properties, operates malls all over the state using a security network called Vigilant Solutions. Vigilant shares data with hundreds of law enforcement agencies, insurance companies, and debt collectors -- including ICE, which signed a contract with the security company earlier this year, reports The Verge. "[Irvine Company] is putting not only immigrants at risk, but invading the privacy of its customers by allowing a third-party to hold onto their data indefinitely," EFF wrote in its report, urging the chain of malls to stop providing information to ICE.

677 comments

  1. Invading privacy? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really? You have a State Issued ID that MUST be affixed to your car, and you are willfully driving it and PARKING IT in public view, on private property. And that is invading privacy?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Invading privacy? by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When you're a legal citizen, and then they inevitably also forward your data to a 3rd party consumer data broker to monetize it and track you without your consent, then that is an invasion of privacy.

    2. Re:Invading privacy? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      Really? You have a State Issued ID that MUST be affixed to your car, and you are willfully driving it and PARKING IT in public view, on private property. And that is invading privacy?

      True. Since a Bond DB5 license plate is not a feasible solution, the solution is to not shop there, encourage others to do the same, and let stores know why you won't shop there. Until, of course, once someone figures out how to hack CA new ePlate to darken it on command.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    3. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it saves just one child it is all worth it!

    4. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The purpose of the license plate is to identify you if there's a problem with your driving or with your parking spot. Tracking everyone is abuse.

    5. Re:Invading privacy? by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ummm Yes it is invading privacy.
      License Plates, and other ID, are meant to verify that you are who you say you are, and that such tools and devices are under the the laws and regulations of the particular state. They are not meant for tracking. If something is up like someone is wanted or a car is reported stolen, then we could put an alert for that ID and if it is found to be reported. However this is tracking everyone to see if they are up to something.
      The government doesn't need to know where I am shopping, my political view. Because they are tracking innocent citizens. Because we are all Innocent unless are proven guilty. This warentless tracking is wrong.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you're a legal citizen, and then they inevitably also forward your data to a 3rd party consumer data broker to monetize it and track you without your consent, then that is an invasion of privacy.

      But it isn't *your* data they are sending.
      It is the state owned license plate number that isn't yours which they are sending, and the owner of that data has given everyone permission to use their data this way.

      Since you included a "when" clause that doesn't resolve to true, even you are agreeing this isn't an invasion of privacy.

      There are plenty of other problems with this behavior that are actually problems, lets try to focus on those instead of making up problems that undeniably do not exist.

    7. Re:Invading privacy? by Moryath · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This. The government is required to have a warrant to track your whereabouts. This is well established through cases such as United States v. Jones 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012) where police tried to surreptitiously attach a GPS tracker to someone's car without a warrant, and Carpenter v. United States 16-402 S.Ct 585 (2017) which established that police require a warrant to obtain cellphone tower records.

    8. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that this database could be used by stalkers to track down and kill their spouses and children.

    9. Re:Invading privacy? by mjwx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really? You have a State Issued ID that MUST be affixed to your car, and you are willfully driving it and PARKING IT in public view, on private property. And that is invading privacy?

      The invasion of privacy is where they send it to ICE without you doing anything wrong. Just because you can see my license plate, doesn't mean you have the right to do what you please with it. Same with the front of my house or what you can see through my windows.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    10. Re:Invading privacy? by Oligonicella · · Score: 0, Troll

      A car in a parking lot is not a person. That car might be driven by anyone. This is not private information any more than someone walking around, snapping pictures and later collating the information. It's just automated. You'll have to make a stronger case that this is 'person tracking'.

    11. Re:Invading privacy? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      police require a warrant to obtain cellphone tower records

      Not what this is at all. It is perfectly legal for authorities to follow you around with a notebook. More like what this is. I don't like it either, but you need a better argument.

    12. Re:Invading privacy? by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      police require a warrant to obtain cellphone tower records

      Not what this is at all. It is perfectly legal for authorities to follow you around with a notebook. More like what this is. I don't like it either, but you need a better argument.

      Good job forgetting to quote the first case which is more analogous to this situation.

    13. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not, nobody is attaching an active homing beacon in this story. This is about observing already publicly visible details which are most likely known to cause cancer to the State of California.

    14. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are supposed to "Get The Fuck Out" why is ICE incarcerating them?

    15. Re:Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or simply leave the states if you are an illegal alien.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    16. Re:Invading privacy? by whoda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The car license plate does not identify the person driving the car, only the registered owner.

      People are not being tracked, the cars are.

    17. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You have a State Issued ID that MUST be affixed to your car, and you are willfully driving it and PARKING IT in public view, on private property. And that is invading privacy?

      .
      Data aggregation makes new data. Where once there was only one point of fixed time and location, two or more points working together can create a path. That path can form a regular pattern. etc. Noticing the plates is innocuous. Even keeping a record of them yourself is innocuous. Sending them to a government data aggregation site is not.
      .

    18. Re:Invading privacy? by gnick · · Score: 0, Troll

      Right. And go back "home". What could be so bad that they don't want to return to where they were born? Could there really be a situation in the world so bad that it's worse than having to duck ICE? I can't imagine.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    19. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are assuming they will go after the violent criminals. Isnâ(TM)t it easier and better and the âoepath of least resistanceâ to go after the non-dangerous ones? I mean who would YOU prefer to go arrest? End result will be broken up families, greater concentration of violent criminals. And for what? The number of violent crimes and murder had been reducing since 1992 until around 2015 potentially due to illegals moving into previously ultra high crime areas. As for the argument that even one crime that wouldnâ(TM)t have occurred can be prevented, since the crime rate of illegal immigrants is less than the general population, it is possible they stand in for crimes that would have affected a citizen. Remember Trump said he was going to provide a weekly list of homicides committed by illegals ... where is that list?
      Third, what will ICE do when they cant find enough illegals? When was the last time an government agency disbanded?

    20. Re:Invading privacy? by StormReaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is perfectly legal for authorities to follow you around with a notebook.

      Unless "authorities" have a reason to suspect you're committing a crime, the act of following us around with a notebook is police harassment. Note that the standard USED to be Probable Cause (as specified in the Constitution), but our Supreme Court has chipped away at our Constitution and redefined the requirement to be, "Reasonable Suspicion".

      I don't understand this trend in America of throwing away our rights to police. Police misconduct is rampant, and too many people are encouraging and enabling it. I can understand not wanting to be the one to personally challenge an edge case when confronting police; but we have a very safe, very effective way to collectively shape our police via collective public opinion. Never before in all of human history has our country given us ordinary citizens the megaphone that is the Internet. We need to use it as a tool to reduce police misconduct, not condone it.

    21. Re:Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, go back home. the majority of illegals in America are here not because their nation is at war (i.e. refugee), but are here to make more money than they would in their own nation. Some of the illegals that I know continue to send money to Mexico and Brazil, to their wives, where they are buying up land for retirement.
      Now, I do not report them because sending them home will solve NOTHING. Instead, I continue to write CONgress critters and push for e-verify on all jobs and to cut off all funding to any state that is giving money to illegals (other than emergency medical, nothing should be given to them).

      And BTW, those illegals are here because they got shot down for immigration. Wny? Because they have no real skil. So they come here, work jobs that simply do not pay their taxes, so that they undercut the legal workers, including other immigrants.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    22. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    23. Re:Invading privacy? by houghi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I always notice how there is a different interpretation what privacy is in the US and in Europe. (Not sure about what others think.)

      In Europe everything is private, unless it is public. In the US everything is public, except when it is private. Bit like the difference between opt in and opt out.

      I think it is invasion of the privacy. If you had a privacy law as they have in Europe, you would see that this IS an invasion of privacy.

      What many people worldwide do not realize is that privacy is such a fundamental law that it is taken as a given. Without it all the other laws and rights are useless.
      It is also like virginity. Once you have list it, it can not be put back and if it is taken from you by somedy else, it is a very bad thing.

      Allowing this will make people docile for further raping of your privacy.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    24. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they were claiming asylum, which prevents immediate deportation. So they are kept in queue until the asylum claim can be heard by a judge. There are well paid consultants training people on what to say once crossing the border without a valid visa or even a passport.

    25. Re:Invading privacy? by Kohath · · Score: 2

      You can't have privacy when you drive around in plain view with a clearly readable personal ID number. The only way to get your privacy back would be to end the requirement to display a license plate number.

    26. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But it isn't *your* data they are sending."
      I wouldn't be so sure about That. There are ALPRs that also can do facial recognition.

    27. Re:Invading privacy? by skam240 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow, some one with ideas about how to stop illegal immigration that are actually sensible. Making e-verify checks mandatory for employers is an infinitely more effective and cheaper means of stopping illegal immigration than that stupid money pit of a wall.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    28. Re:Invading privacy? by laurencetux · · Score: 2

      here is the problem
      1 there could be a near real-time record of everywhere you have been (note this will most likely NOT be used in your favor if you are suspected of a crime)

      2 errors in the record or deliberate hacking of the record: It would be easy to change the record to say you were at a Fetish Shoppe (or something else that could get you in some sort of trouble) or for somebody to say "oh he parked his car at this location but obviously walked to %suspectlocation%"

      3 since when is going to a Mall Probable Cause for being an illegal alien??

    29. Re:Invading privacy? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a basic premise of the rules of evidence that it's invalidated when a cop commits a crime to collect it, but not if a private citizen does it. Thus, even if it is illegal for private citizens to send this information to the police (which it isn't) it's still legal for the police to utilize it.

      We need to make it illegal for private entities to send your personal information (including your license plate data) to the police if there is no suspicion that a crime has been committed, and we need to explicitly make it illegal for the police to use it when they violate this requirement. Otherwise, what is happening is almost certainly completely legal.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    30. Re:Invading privacy? by locrien · · Score: 1

      They also have facial recognition systems at the entrances to any big mall. They catch people who have warrants or who are supposed to be in jail/prison that way.

    31. Re:Invading privacy? by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So they come here, work jobs that simply do not pay their taxes, so that they undercut the legal workers, including other immigrants.

      Seems like that's a problem caused by greedy, unethical employers. A hike in the minimum wage coupled with real efforts to prosecute employers who break immigration law would be a much more effective solution.

    32. Re: Invading privacy? by reanjr · · Score: 2

      Lawyers. Those well-paid consultants are called lawyers. Weird how people would want a lawyer to help them in a court battle.

    33. Re: Invading privacy? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      American law descends from English. Makes sense that because England is Big Brother capital of the world, America would lean that way as well.

    34. Re:Invading privacy? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Since a Bond DB5 license plate is not a feasible solution,

      You know, e-ink displays are getting cheap these days...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    35. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, following you in public is not illegal. I'm about as libertarian as they come, but you're making shit up.

      Police abuse pales by orders of magnitude to the abuse society would suffer without them. Look to most African or South American countries for a taste of what it is you want: Wholesale rape, murder, corruption, and destruction of social order.

      Not wanting to be murdered isn't the position of a bootlicker. It's the position of any sane human who isn't a teenager LARPing as an anarchist, who has spent their life swaddled in the comfort and safety of the protection they hate.

    36. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      No. The other way is to prevent others from taking pictures and selling it to 3rd parties. Didn't you read the summary?

    37. Re: Invading privacy? by Khyber · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "Acktuallyy"

      That's a typical Russian misspelling. Ivan needs to send your sorry ass back to English school.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    38. Re:Invading privacy? by dcw3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a big difference between being seen in public and being tracked, which is what's happening here. Law Enforcement is required to get a court order to track you, but this subverts that.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    39. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Those countries aren't "shitholes" you racist!"

      "We can't send them back! Their country is a shithole!"

    40. Re:Invading privacy? by Khyber · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Doesn't work when you're an actual native-born American and still look foreign.

      Looks like U lost all your honor, and your faculties, if such simple logic can escape you.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    41. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      People who think privacy still exists outside of their front door are living in a state of denial.

      And that includes for the electronic access you allow through your front door.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    42. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And that 3rd party consumer data broker could just as easily hire a teenager with a modern phone at $5/hr to get the same information.

      PUBLIC IS PUBLIC. Where you go has *always* been public information, just the tracking has gotten more automatic.

      Next you'll be suing tire companies for broadcasting the location of your car through the tire pressure sensor RFID

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    43. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would imagine that this database could be used by stalkers to track down and kill their spouses and children.

      False. The data will be in a secured, encrypted database that only corrupt police departments and corporations can view and exploit.

    44. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      We can always change the behavior of ICE to make it worse.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    45. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey xenophobe, it's "skill" not "skil".

    46. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Maybe that is who we need to deport- the employers.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    47. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No not the lawyers, there are large numbers of firms and individuals in the border towns training the border crossers on what to say and do to most effectivly target the "weak points" in immigration law. Bringing young children and/or seeking asylum used to get them in the easiest. There are even services where you can rent kids for the crossing.

    48. Re: Invading privacy? by Khyber · · Score: 0, Troll

      Go figure you're a fucking Libertarian, otherwise you'd have actually read some case law and found out that you (much like your bitcoin-swilling scamming kin) that there are plenty of cases where such is outright illegal - Katz v. United States, held that what "a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."

      First thing I think of when I hear "Libertarian" is "I don't know the fucking laws that run this country and failed basic civics class" and you demonstrate very fucking clearly why.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    49. Re:Invading privacy? by dasunt · · Score: 1

      Really? You have a State Issued ID that MUST be affixed to your car, and you are willfully driving it and PARKING IT in public view, on private property. And that is invading privacy?

      All of us, stereotypes aside, don't continually dwell in basements. We travel through public spaces, usually as part of our daily routine. And people travel through public spaces to meet with us.

      Yet most of us would not enjoy a record of our movements through public spaces each day. We wouldn't enjoy a record of where our vehicles can be found if they are parked in public view or private property that is readily and normally accessed by others. We would not want a record of who visited our home or whose homes we visit.

      Yes, all of our actions, for all of human history, could be easily viewed by others if we were in a public area. But collecting, storing and correlating that information is something new, and it's being done on a large scale. That's new, and we should ask ourselves if it's something we should be doing.

    50. Re:Invading privacy? by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What really boggles my mind is the same people complaining and protesting about police misconduct one day are complaining and protesting to make sure only police have firearms the next.

    51. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0

      I thought "Born in East LA" was just a fictional story. Did this happen to you?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    52. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about have the wall be a row of solar panels? The electricity gained will pay for itself, Mexico wouldn't have to pay for it. Then, use a fence and modern surveillance techniques?

      Now you have a money maker.

    53. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I see that they ARE meant for tracking. That's why there is a law that they must be visible. If they were only for identification purposes, there'd be no need to display them.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    54. Re:Invading privacy? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      How does that help the majority who aren't illegal aliens? Your proposed strategy only works if everyone leaves the states, alien or citizen.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    55. Re:Invading privacy? by dasunt · · Score: 0

      Seems like that's a problem caused by greedy, unethical employers. A hike in the minimum wage coupled with real efforts to prosecute employers who break immigration law would be a much more effective solution.

      1. 1. Require all employers use e-Verify and keep a copy of the documents used for all employees. (Record).
      2. 2. Any employee turning in their employer for failure to use e-Verify will have their status automatically transitioned to legal immigrant. This will apply to all other employees and their families in the US. In addition, the employee turning in the employer will get a financial reward. (Incentivize).
      3. 3. Any employer found with undocumented employees will be massively fined. (Penalize).
    56. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even worse trend in America is protesting your own rights, like the second amendment. Whats next?

    57. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      What part of the Patriot Act did you not understand? We now live in a police state. Start acting like you do, and you'll have fewer problems with "Police misconduct"

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    58. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair to the GP, they did talk about lobbying their representatives congress for e-verify, which is along the lines of the solution you recommend.

      On the other hand, the GP's premise that undocumented immigrants are bad for the economy or non-immigrant workers or are making use of government services is BS. With the clarification that the best way to reduce undocumented economic immigration is less border security so the migrant workers can leave when they are done with their seasonal work.

    59. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the police are far too busy to look at several million years worth of camera footage when there is no suspicion a crime has been committed.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    60. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      "The invasion of privacy is where they send it to ICE without you doing anything wrong. "

      ICE is also too busy to look at millions of hours of boring parking lot footage. 99% of those cars aren't their target.

      If you aren't doing anything wrong, then your license plate is never going to come up on their pattern match, because gasp, they aren't looking for people who have done nothing wrong.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    61. Re:Invading privacy? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Yes, both of those examples should be just as illegal. $5 / hour is below minimum wage.

    62. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Then why do they have government owned CCTV cameras in England?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    63. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      1. If you are suspected of a crime, then you've done something wrong
      2. Police state sucks, but thanks to the Patriot Act of 2003, that's what we are living in.
      3. It isn't- and therefore, likely, the question isn't one of Vigilant sending *ALL* footage to police, but rather only inquires of the type "can you search your records for suspect license #xxxyyyz (can you imagine having that job? That's why modern visual search algorithms are so important). It's only when they already have probable cause that they ask for the data.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    64. Re:Invading privacy? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Certain political actors are looking to drive a wedge, and encouraging feeble minded never hurts.

    65. Re:Invading privacy? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      So your saying a shoot-out is the answer?

    66. Re:Invading privacy? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the police are far too busy to look at several million years worth of camera footage when there is no suspicion a crime has been committed.

      I'm sure that anyone posting to Slashdot who doesn't understand that there are automated tools for scanning and classification of video content should go somewhere else, because they are not the intended audience. I'm also sure that you're willfully refusing to understand this on a temporary basis because it completely destroys your argument. Your temporary willful ignorance is disingenuous.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    67. Re:Invading privacy? by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Informative

      PUBLIC IS PUBLIC. Where you go has *always* been public information, just the tracking has gotten more automatic.

      From a legal perspective, that's not true. Article IV of the Constitution is considered to protect your right to travel freely, and you can't have a right to travel freely if you are being tracked, because there are places that would inherently be embarrassing if you were widely known to have traveled there.

      The law has always recognized a difference between merely seeing that someone is in a place and tracking that person for a year to see where he or she goes. The latter, if surveillance is on an ongoing basis, is likely to cross the "reasonable" line and require a warrant (United States v. Jones). A license tracking system appears to be a prima facie attempt to sidestep that warrant requirement, and as such, is legally problematic.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    68. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, go back home.

      Home is where this is happening. Just two comments above you proposed that people leave the countries where this shit is happening.

      Let's say the government is going house-to-house without warrants. At each house, they go into the most office-like room, and open drawers and photograph whatever paper they find. On the 74th house, turns out one of the papers they photographed contained evidence of something illegal. They prosecute, and for whatever reason, people are outraged.

      During the outrage, one group of people say "hey, I have an idea. Let's enact a constitutional amendment making it illegal for the government to go snooping on people without already having evidence of a crime first."

      Another group says "That's a stupid idea. The government should be allowed to do whatever it wants. If you don't like the consequences of government agents breaking into your house and finding evidence of crimes and prosecuting you, then stop committing the crimes that they found evidence of!!"

      Remind me, which of the above two groups are you in?

      It seems you think we're talking about that 74th person. I think we're talking about all 74 of them, where the crimes of the 74th person are nearly irrelevant, having been diluted by the government's crime against 73 innocent victims.

      If you have a problem with illegal immigrants, that's one thing, but every time you attack a US citizen, it makes the US citizens want to attack you. You are much more of a problem than some poor scofflaw who is violating a law that most people don't care about anyway. If you get too hung up on people violating this nearly-worthless law, it's just going to make people think about repealing that law or at least making it easier to comply with. You know, one thing we could do whenever we find an illegal alien, is to just automatically legalize them. That solves the problem a hell of a lot better than your idea of causing mass harm to all our US citizens in the desperate hope that some foreigners will get some collateral damage.

      At least my seemingly-silly-but-maybe-not idea has no downsides. Yours is nearly all downsides. How many US citizens are you fucking over, and what do any of them get out of it?

    69. Re:Invading privacy? by pnutjam · · Score: 2

      I think we should make it illegal for anyone, public or private, to collect indiscriminate tracking data. Would you be ok with your neighbor putting up a website that listed when you were home and meticulously logged your arrival and leaving times?

    70. Re:Invading privacy? by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Yes, go back home. the majority of illegals in America are here not because their nation is at war (i.e. refugee)....Some of the illegals that I know continue to send money to Mexico and Brazil

      Yes, not at war at all. Just incredibly corrupt and ineffective police, large areas controlled by criminal gangs or drug cartels, frequent assassinations of community figures such as journalists and local politicians, minimal to nonexistent social services, and very limited social mobility. But nope, no war.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    71. Re:Invading privacy? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What part of the Patriot Act did you not understand? We now live in a police state. Start acting like you do, and you'll have fewer problems with "Police misconduct"

      The only way in which acting like you live in a police state can lead to less police misconduct is if your action is to oppose that police state at every turn, because ignoring it won't make the situation better. The police are emboldened towards abuse every time they get away with it, just like everyone else.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    72. Re:Invading privacy? by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 2

      " the majority of illegals in America are here not because their nation is at war (i.e. refugee), but are here to make more money than they would in their own nation."

      So are the legals (H-1B), can't really blame them, can you? I'll bet, if you lived in a "sh*thole country", you'd try the exact same thing. I know I would.

      Now, if you're looking for someone to blame, how about looking closely at those who use the H-1B as a way of importing cheap labor, while coming up with clever ways to claim "there aren't enough qualified tech people in the US". Sure there are, I'm sitting next to one right now -- a recent EE grad from a well-known local university. He won't work for peanuts, though, which is what you can pay an H-1B.

      This country was built by immigrants, legal and otherwise. They work harder than many US citizens. Quit running them down, it makes you look like a xenophobic racist.

    73. Re:Invading privacy? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I see that they ARE meant for tracking. That's why there is a law that they must be visible. If they were only for identification purposes, there'd be no need to display them.

      Wrong, and also wrong. If they were meant for tracking, they would just have a barcode, because that's easier to recognize remotely. They are meant for identification even when the vehicle is in motion on a public roadway, which is why they are required to be displayed in a specific location at all times.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    74. Re:Invading privacy? by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1

      You know those EZ-Pass toll readers? They log your plate as well. I'd be willing to bet ICE has access to that data.

    75. Re:Invading privacy? by pnutjam · · Score: 2

      They are meant to be at a glance ID. They are basically a tax stamp according to most jurisdictions. You must display to prove your vehicle is properly registered and taxed.

    76. Re: Invading privacy? by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Funny

      But it isn't *your* data they are sending.

      You're in a rough position and I don't envy you; it must suck to have to defend a defenseless position... the above attempt was desperate and while your "logic" rings hollow, you really shouldn't feel too bad... but if shilling for the Military/Prison Industrial Complex gets old (or you simply develop some self-respect), the good news is that the economy's doing well and you can probably get a job tomorrow delivering pizza... you do have a license, right??

    77. Re:Invading privacy? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Really? You have a State Issued ID that MUST be affixed to your car, and you are willfully driving it and PARKING IT in public view, on private property. And that is invading privacy?

      Driving in public view with a government issue plate does not imply giving consent for tracking. A LEO can trail you legally only if he/she has legitimate cause to suspect something. For having someone tailgate you 24/7, a specific investigation must go on. IANAL, but I'm sure a judge would have a problem with people being tracked without reasonable cause (and if he does not, then it is confirmed the country has taken a definite turn to the worse.)

    78. Re:Invading privacy? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      The car license plate does not identify the person driving the car, only the registered owner.

      People are not being tracked, the cars are.

      Which has already been found legally problematic with automatic speeding ticket issuing systems.

    79. Re:Invading privacy? by execthis · · Score: 0

      Glad to know that they're helping out ICE. Don't want illegals in the malls not the country.

      Funny /. is crapping its pants about this but then people use Facebook every day and all the oniine tracking companies do far more tracking.

    80. Re:Invading privacy? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't have privacy when you drive around in plain view with a clearly readable personal ID number. The only way to get your privacy back would be to end the requirement to display a license plate number.

      You have an expectation of privacy of where you are going or who is using your car (because the plate identifies the car and the owner, not who is driving it.).

      Besides, the spirit of the law is that we are not to be under a surveillance system. We are not meant to be under constant mass surveillance unless there is an actual legal reason to do so (say, you are under investigation or something.)

      Sadly we have been sliding down that rabbit hole without waking the fuck up. We are deep in it now.

    81. Re:Invading privacy? by execthis · · Score: 0, Troll

      Good point and still you were downvoted.

      I *want* illegals to be reported and kicked out of the country and the news that any companies are helping out in this regard pleases me.

    82. Re:Invading privacy? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

      Yes, go back home. the majority of illegals in America are here not because their nation is at war (i.e. refugee), but are here to make more money than they would in their own nation. Some of the illegals that I know continue to send money to Mexico and Brazil, to their wives, where they are buying up land for retirement. Now, I do not report them because sending them home will solve NOTHING. Instead, I continue to write CONgress critters and push for e-verify on all jobs and to cut off all funding to any state that is giving money to illegals (other than emergency medical, nothing should be given to them). And BTW, those illegals are here because they got shot down for immigration. Wny? Because they have no real skil. So they come here, work jobs that simply do not pay their taxes, so that they undercut the legal workers, including other immigrants.

      Many of your ideas have merit, but you are way off on that one. I've personally known engineers who have been shot down because of immigration red tape eve though there were highly qualified people, the type of desirable immigrants we claim to want to have.

      And with the current climate we are now denying legal entry to refugees who do have a reason to ask for asylum (thus forcing them to come illegally.)

      Not all of this is black and white.

    83. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why are license plates on the outside?

    84. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Your license plate is public, not private.

    85. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as far as the third point. there have been stories that ICE was going to look at people's immigration applications and start deporting people who have lied on the forms.

    86. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First thing I think of when I hear "liberal" is toxic faggot who is in need of a shower and/or a free helicopter ride.

    87. Re:Invading privacy? by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      Scam business set up to provide citizenship in 3..2..

    88. Re:Invading privacy? by MrTester · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullshit.
      They aren't selling the fact of a license plate number (that is the state owned information). They are selling the fact that I was at the Southridge Mall in SouthCity from 1 to 4pm on Tuesday, and that I am a regular customer there spending an average of 3 hours a week at the mall over the course of a year.
      Does it matter to anyone? I dunno.
      But it damn well IS MY INFORMATION.

    89. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At exactly what point does "identification" become "tracking"?

    90. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Illegal immigrants. It's two words. Every time it's reduced to one makes it easier for someone less rational to start foaming at the mouth about their very existence.

    91. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What privacy is there for information you literally display to thousands of people every day ... in public? Are you retarded?

    92. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are HERF guns and EMP bombs. I know which one I prefer.

    93. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government does not need a warrant to keep a log of your whereabouts when you're giving them your whereabouts. You're literally saying it's an invasion of privacy for the government to remember information you publicly gave them. That takes a special kind of stupid.

    94. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contrary to your imagined understanding of the law, I do have the right to do whatever I want with public information. I don't have to have your permission to take photos of your house, or even inside your house through the windows if it's from public property. I don't need your permission to publish it, sell it, or do anything else with it. There's literally nothing you can do to stop it. That's how public information works, bub. If you want privacy, the courts have consistently ruled that you have to take positive action to assert it. You can't just expect others to grant it to you.

    95. Re: Invading privacy? by saloomy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't put immigrants at risk. Immigrants have green cards, or visas, and are allowed to be here. It puts criminals at risk of having to avail themselves of the justice system, since they broke our immigration laws.

      Happy to clear that up for everyone.

    96. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll sooner give an "illegal" a free place to stay than you, you fucking bootlicker

    97. Re:Invading privacy? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good post and deserves to be up-voted.

      I'd like to point out an additional reason why we don't want to live in a world where we are constantly tracked and monitored. Everyone eventually screws up and does something illegal; frequently without even knowing that what we do is technically illegal. They throw something away that is supposed to be disposed of in a specific manner. They don't realize that a certain document needs to be filed. They perform an act that, seems socially normal, but is actually illegal.

      No one wants to live in a police state where everyone is a criminal- or has something over their head. I guarantee there is not an adult in this country that has never broken a law (even if unwittingly). When everyone is a criminal- authorities get to pick and choose who to arrest. This is what happened in the Soviet Union where they would make obscure laws just to have an excuse to arrest people.

      When everyone is under surveillance, everyone is a watched criminal- and big brother gets to pick which people pay for their crimes and which don't.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    98. Re:Invading privacy? by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Every tire sold in the USA for 10 years has had an embedded RFID.

      Once they correlate those to your license number, it's over.

      But what do you care? You carry a personal spying device in your pocket.

      BTW repo men spend all day driving the streets/parking lots and automatically reading and recording every license number they pass.

      I'm considering just collecting a large bag of RFIDs and storing them inside a fender liner. That or a spark gap generator hooked to the ignition.

      I understand a ring of bright UV LEDs in a license plate frame will prevent most CCD cameras from getting readable data.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    99. Re:Invading privacy? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      You know, e-ink displays are getting cheap these days...

      Didn't one Californian county start tests with e-ink licence plates?

      That could help, if combined with GPS/GLONASS/Galileo - if on a public road, display the license information, but if on private grounds, display something else instead, like a random license plate number...

    100. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be so sure about That. There are ALPRs that also can do facial recognition.

      First, while that statement is true, both in that devices exist and a picture of your face would be your data, in the context of the original statement in this thread it's irrelevant.
      I never claimed facial scans or pictures wouldn't be an invasion of privacy if sold off without consent.

      Your face is not on your license plate affixed to your car however. That was specifically what was brought up and what I responded to, nothing more and nothing less:
      Really? You have a State Issued ID that MUST be affixed to your car, and you are willfully driving it and PARKING IT in public view, on private property. And that is invading privacy?

      So I am very sure about my statement, which only said your license plate number is not your data or property.

      Second however, let's discuss your claim.
      I admit a picture of your face, and the resulting "fingerprint" based off of it is certainly your personal information/data. No argument there.

      But is that an invasion of privacy? Specifically, is it an invasion of privacy while in a public place where you should have no reasonable expectation of privacy?
      I'm not really sure you would have a claim there either, at least with this specific instance.

      While it would be nice to have laws requiring permission before sending said data off to a third party, as it stands we mostly do not, and the law is fairly clear that the property owner is entitled to take, store, and use your image within the bounds of copyright law while you are on their property.

      An actual image of your face, photograph style, can be taken by them, but the fact you retain the copyright to your likeness means they can't distribute it without permission.
      This was done as I recall to prevent your face ending up in an advertisement you don't wish it to be in. You are free to license that right out, but that requires a license made and granted, far from a passive thing.
      It also allows you to decline permission to use your likeness along side a product you don't wish to be, for example something you object to existing.

      A facial fingerprint specifically however may or may not fall under that same copyright protection. (I am unsure actually)
      If such a hashing result is considered derivative, then there you go, that would fall under the same copyright distribution laws as the image of your face itself.

      But those are copyright violations, not invasion of privacy ones.
      So while certainly a crime, it isn't the crime we've been previously discussing.
      Now that said, let's drop even that previous talking point in the name of discussion.

      We can work around the distribution problem simply by not doing so and working on the data locally.
      A local copy of the database(es) to match against should be enough to not run afoul of copyright law.
      Then it comes down to the sort of unique identifier that database pops out on a match.

      Does it return a name? I suppose that would be "personal information" enough.
      Does it return a flag or status message of some sort? Like "stolen car" or "wanted". I'm pretty sure that would be OK.

      Does it return some number or UUID type thing? I'm not sure how that would work legally either.
      For one this would still need correlated against some other database to have any meaning.
      I can see that working in limited ways, but this being one of them, as in submitted back to ICE or FBI or whoever.
      I'd argue this would fall under the typical (and wrong IMHO) interpretation that yes your personal information is involved somewhere in the chain of events, but completely within a government division.
      Although this should fall under invasion of privacy, sadly our government has argued pretty successfully in court that they are entitled to this information and should be exempt from the laws restricting its use.
      I don't agree with that, and don't believe the law actually says that, but that

    101. Re:Invading privacy? by Hodr · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's only boggling if you can't imagine more than a one step process. You can't start with disarming the police, but if they are ever sucessful in banning guns from the public they can then make the argument that police no longer need guns.

    102. Re:Invading privacy? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Your vote is for 'bring that here'.

      Every nation has the right to control its borders and decide who gets in.

      You freaks love Canada, America should just adopt Canadian standards, but that would make us Nazis.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    103. Re:Invading privacy? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Since a Bond DB5 license plate is not a feasible solution,

      You know, e-ink displays are getting cheap these days...

      Now, if you could get an eInk display that was clear but could be darkened or patterned to obfuscate numbers...

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    104. Re:Invading privacy? by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      what about the corrupt stalkers who are also polices? Cum on I've seen the movies !!?

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    105. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What really boggles my mind is the same people complaining and protesting about police misconduct one day are complaining and protesting to make sure only police have firearms the next.

      Most aren't advocating for 0 guns. They are advocating for less powerful guns, and closing loopholes that allow criminals to obtain guns. Why does a person need a gun that can kill many people in a matter of seconds? And why shouldn't all gun sellers be required to check to see if a person is a criminal before they sell a weapon which for the most part is intended to cause death?

      And before we use the "protecting ourselves from the government" excuse, realize that that ability ended when bombs could be dropped from the air. The police bombed a house in Philly and ended up pretty much destroying a city block in 1985. See Philadelphia MOVE bombing - New York Times. The occupants of the house they targeted were armed with guns, but they were no match for a bomb dropped by a helicopter.

    106. Re:Invading privacy? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Your vote is for 'bring that here'.

      No, my vote is for fix it. No matter how hard and dangerous you make the journey, people will always try to make it, and you hit diminishing returns for our money very quickly. While a lot of causes of migration are systemic, the US drives a lot of the problems in Mexico with the war on drugs. End that, enact some form of drug legalization and promote treatment of addicts over incarceration and you stem the flow of money and guns to the cartels. That weakens their control over Mexico and allows Mexico to deal with their systemic problems. Once Mexico is in shape they are in position and motivated to stop the illegal immigration into their won territory from Guatemala, and so on and so forth. You fix illegal immigration by not trying to keep them away but rather to keep them from leaving(wanting to leave) in the first place. It's a more effective use of our money and it benefits the originating countries by building up their own economies. Illegal immigrants are objects of fear and loathing, they are objects of pity. The fact that they are willing to risk death to come to America and work long, crappy jobs for crappy pay just to make things better for them and their families means they could do so much for their home countries if given the opportunity to do so.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    107. Re:Invading privacy? by Mycroft-X · · Score: 1

      It's still illegal if the private citizen or company is doing it as an agent of the government. i.e. I may not be able to search a house without a warrant as a police officer, but it's just as inadmissible if I pay someone else to search the house. You may say "well don't informants get paid?" and the answer is yes, but they are paid to do only what the police officer themselves could do if they had the same relationships, credibility, etc.

      What needs to happen is a court needs to decide that if a law enforcement agency contracts with a private company to purchase data that the law enforcement agency could not legally acquire themselves, then the results as tainted. License plates not only being publicly viewable but in fact being property of the state themselves doesn't really make that apply in this specific case anyway.

    108. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact is that a vehicle with a license plate was in a public place during specific times. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy is such a public place.

    109. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making e-verify checks mandatory for employers is an infinitely more effective and cheaper

      It's all well and good until e-verify screws up and you no way to fix it. Welcome to eternal unemployment...

    110. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Good point and still you were downvoted.

      I *want* illegals to be reported and kicked out of the country and the news that any companies are helping out in this regard pleases me.

      All of them or just the brown ones?

    111. Re:Invading privacy? by MasseKid · · Score: 1

      When these laws were conceived (and when the constitution was written) the idea that mass scale surveillance like this was completely uneconomical or flat out impossible. Citizens do not have an expectation that a cop could examine my license plate upon some reason or suspicion. They do have an expectation that the city does not hire a cop for every citizen to follow them around and report the citizens every move. Just because we do it with a computer rather than an actual police officer does not make it ok. Just like accessing a website for the intended uses should be allowed but aggregating and scraping the website for all of it's content is not.

    112. Re:Invading privacy? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      No, no, it's Skil. He's complaining that the immigrant workers leach off the saws and drills of local landowners instead of bringing their own.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    113. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This. The voice of sanity in this whole insane debate. It's not about ethnicity, background, race, color, or any of that. Followed the law vs. didn't follow the law. It really is that binary.

    114. Re:Invading privacy? by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      A hike in the minimum wage coupled with real efforts to prosecute employers who break immigration law would be a much more effective solution.

      Sure, how about all of the above. Illegal immigration has done more to reduce the quality of life in the border states than any other single factor.

    115. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ...there are places that would inherently be embarrassing if you were widely known to have traveled there.

      Like a mall.

      captcha: flamed

    116. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      âoeMay be protectedâ indicates a situational dependency. It does not indicate that every public action is necessarily protected.

      Now, get into the oven like a nice commie scum, ok?

    117. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be if the gov't spent the same kinds of efforts on unethical employers (eg. Trump et al) than on non-violent drug offenders.

      captcha: villainy

    118. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost like you found the reason why the "racist republicans" won't do anything for real border security. New deal: you want cheap labor? pay the economic burden associated with it. This goes for Walmart who encourages their native employees to apply for welfare and foodstamps as well.

    119. Re:Invading privacy? by laurencetux · · Score: 1

      And how many stories have we had in the last year of %Company Big Enough to Know Better% having a data breach?? even if you limit to Banks and other Corps that should know better due to FEDERAL LAW you still have a nonzero number.

    120. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, this is perhaps walking the line of legality. But legal, versus common values of what is 'just' are not always the same.

      From a consumer EXPECTATION --- its downright fucking creepy if it sold to 3rd parties, but then to the government, and especially ICE.... this is a great precedent me to further avoid malls.

      A lot of RELATIVE privacy in public is reasonably expected. I can see someone walking around writing down plates. I can see PEOPLE with cameras, etc. The fact that technology allows this to be automated is an escalation. Now hidden cameras tracking and monitoring everything, selling and reselling the information..... down right dystopian

    121. Re:Invading privacy? by SoulMaster · · Score: 1

      Being "tracked" and being "reported," however, are two entirely different things.

      In the reverse of this case, and in the absence of automatic security cameras, if ICE (or other law enforcement) submitted a list of license plates to the mall and said "can you please let us know if your staff notices any of these license plates in your lot," there is no issue. It holds then that the reverse is true—a citizen can, absolutely and unequivocally, report any public information to any authority, including a particular car's location. A citizen can also be compensated for reporting information deemed "useful" to law enforcement (aka "reward").

      In this case, the mall is exercising it's right to monitor it's premises, which includes it's right to capture license plate information for anyone on it's private property, then sharing that list with law enforcement for a fee. There's simply no crime here and there is no violation.

      Also, I think you mean the 4th Amendment, not Article 4. Article 4 is: Full Faith and Credit, Interstate Extradition, New State admittance to the Union, Protection from invasion/domestic Violence, Privileges and Immunities. Unless of course you mean "Freedom of Movement" as part of "Privileges and Immunities," but fundamentally that only allows people to cross state borders and absolutely allows tracking and has nothing to do with being embarrassed. (You do not at all have right to not be embarrassed.) Specifically In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States)

      A more applicable law would be 4th Amendment, which disallows for warrantless tracking, but again, that's tracking by the government, not asking for reports from private citizenry. "Person of Interest" law is an example of this. Law enforcement has the right to seek the public's assistance in locating a person/people of interest without needing a warrant. "Have you seen this man?" is an example of that. It was specifically addressed as part of Carpenter v. United States, which put severe limits on the Third Party Doctrine, but not on "reasonable expectation of privacy (Kats v United States). Specifically "For example, federal Fourth Amendment protections do not extend to governmental intrusion and information collection conducted upon open fields; expectation of privacy in an open field is not considered reasonable. Some states, however, do grant protection to open fields." (from https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...)

      -SM

    122. Re:Invading privacy? by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      What really boggles my mind is the same people complaining and protesting about police misconduct one day are complaining and protesting to make sure only police have firearms the next.

      I think the "abolish ICE" crowd is the most idiotic as they have a completely unworkable "solution". How would even a state that loves illegals more than its own citizens, like California, handle several million people coming over the suddenly non-existent border? It would be such a disaster that if I didn't live in SoCal I'd root for it daily as it would serve most of the idiots here right. If we could implement it on a city by city basis I'd love to see San Francisco drown in illegals that they foolishly welcomed in.

    123. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're in a rough position and I don't envy you; it must suck to have to defend a defenseless position... the above attempt was desperate and while your "logic" rings hollow, you really shouldn't feel too bad... but if shilling for the Military/Prison Industrial Complex gets old (or you simply develop some self-respect), the good news is that the economy's doing well and you can probably get a job tomorrow delivering pizza... you do have a license, right??

      That's an interesting insult against me. Where on earth did you see me say this was *MY* position?

      https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/dl/how_info_shared

      Scroll down to the bottom of that page under the "Database" section.

      This isn't *MY* position, this is the governments position that I was only pointing out being the governments position.
      It's also not *MY* logic. You should know better than to ever attempt finding logic in the law.

      I've also stated elsewhere that I fully and completely disagree with this stance. But I won't hold that against you as I didn't state what is obvious to any rational human being in words directly in each and every post I made.

      I guess this means I need to point out the fact this article is talking about California, and the specific state law link above is for California. That means they are the same place.

      Care to offer your apology now? Or will you simply continue on being a hypocrite, justifying your shooting of the messenger simply because I'm posting anon?

    124. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've just explained why this will never happen.

    125. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never before in all of human history has our country given us ordinary citizens the megaphone that is the Internet. We need to use it as a tool to reduce police misconduct, not condone it.

      We don't have time for all that nonsense. We have to stay focused on celebrity relationships and some fitness device called a 'Cardi B.'

    126. Re:Invading privacy? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      People forget what privacy was like.

      When I was 24, I left my house in the morning and no one knew where I was unless I broke the law all day until i got back home.
      Then no one knew if I was home unless they dropped by or called.

      This is a new type of privacy right. The right to be "ignored" unless you break the law. The police, your relatives, your friends, NO ONE knew where you were or what you were doing for the first half of my life. That's a different kind of privacy and it was real.

      Automation combined with a lack of mercy and restraint in law enforcement leads to a dystopian future.

      I'll say this too. Behavior like this by the malls would be one just one more reason to not go to the malls.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    127. Re:Invading privacy? by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      Really? You have a State Issued ID that MUST be affixed to your car, and you are willfully driving it and PARKING IT in public view, on private property. And that is invading privacy?

      Regardless of whether it technically invades privacy, don't pretend there's nothing to be unhappy about. If you go out and walk around and have a few conversations with people, you probably don't so much mind that a few interlopers will hear various fragments of conversation. But if there's some guy following you around writing things in a notebook and making it a point to photograph you, is the fact that he's technically not violating your privacy going to make you feel good?

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    128. Re: Invading privacy? by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This. The voice of sanity in this whole insane debate. It's not about ethnicity, background, race, color, or any of that. Followed the law vs. didn't follow the law. It really is that binary.

      Agreed. I will add that the current legal immigration system needs a massive rework and more funding.

      Sadly, however, both sides are more interested in keeping illegal immigration as an election issue and front-and-center in public debate. After all, without such perennial wedge issues to keep the electorate's attention, they might start seriously discussing things like term limits and auditing and opening up the Federal Reserve to oversight. Gotta keep the proles stirred up, angry, and thus reduced to functioning on their lizard brain in very predictable and usable ways.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    129. Re:Invading privacy? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your current location is your personal information. It's as key as your appearance which IS legally protected I.P.

      This is a huge problem in that it can make it easier for a fascist government to control the citizenry.

      We should really be subverting and destroying these cameras. We've accepted the possibility of being enslaved in return for security from theft.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    130. Re:Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Totally agree that it is NOT all black/white. In fact, I believe that we need to keep the true DACAs and their parents.
      The real problem here is that so many Americans have turned extremists.
      We have the far right that screams that ALL illegals have to be sent home and that we have to build the wall and stop all refugees.
      Then we have the far left that screams not only do we give citizenship to ALL illegals, but that we should have open borders.
      Both of these are extremists in nature and totally insane.

      For example, about 10-15% of all illegals are DACA. Most of them have stayed in school at least 4 years, OR have GED/better. IOW, they have integrated with our society. They may speak their native tongue, but I will lay odds that their english is better than the native tongue. For all intents and purposes, they are Americans. Give them a green card and if they serve in military or vista, give them citizenship.
      If an illegal came here and has children here (legally or via above DACA), then give them a pink card. Let them work here, pay taxes, but get NO social benefits. Basically, we do not want to separate, not give them benefits.
      And then phase in e-verify over 2-3 years. Change the immigration system. Drop the H*Bs, but increase the green cards. The new GCs , and part of the old number, should be based on America's job needs.
      In addition, add a bill for pushing robotics esp for low-end jobs such as janitorial, fast food cooking, Agriculture, etc.
      We want to speed up the automation of manufacturing/services, while pushing for more education (not just college, but vocational as well). Bringing in adults from other nations that have zero skills makes little sense. They will simply end up on even longer term gov. support.

      But, like you, I have known several H1B that were great on the computer, but were denied green cards. It turned out that it was the sponsoring company (verizon) was expecting infosys to send them back home and for them to work from there. But, these guys really belonged here and had been promised to get green cards if they went out on H1B. H*Bs are criminal rackets. Once somebody has green cards, then companies can not screw them over.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    131. Re:Invading privacy? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and after they finish with the illegals, then you may be in the next group they come for.

      I have a friend who is a strong 2nd amendment supporter and gun owner. But he's *finally* realising that the scenario where right wing police show up and confiscate his guns after a major right wing person is shot is a realistic possibility.

      Mr. Trump, for example, has already shown he's willing to set aside the rule of law and a love for dictators who don't have 2nd amendment issues.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    132. Re:Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      My sis-in-law is an ex-illegal from costa rica. Nice place. BUT, like 40% of all illegals that were here, she came in on a visa to work as a nanny, and then decided that she liked the higher pay and the better area. So, she ran for 4 years and then fake married an American, divorced, and then actually ended up marrying my B-i-L.
      I also know ppl in Northern Illinois where a metal working company is owned by a guy that married an American, and then the guy brought up over 40 illegals from his village, who have fake papers, and during the winter, go back to Mexico, while collecting unemployment from Illinois. I have been invited down there before their divorce, and was told that no, the area is wonderful, no drugs, no major unemployment, etc. BTW, as to the divorce, between the American and the sleazy business owner? Well, she found out about his other family in mexico. She was not happy.

      Both of these go on a lot. There is a reason why construction contractors switched to using sub-contractors rather than handling employment themselves. They did not want to be held responsible for hiring illegals.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    133. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police are more likely to use violence in a malicious and illegal way than civilians are- so why the hell would you argue against police misconduct but for police armament? (Google "Police domestic violence nearly twice average rate", etc. if you want studies that show police are more violent per capita than civilians.)

    134. Re:Invading privacy? by bob4u2c · · Score: 1

      Facebook already has this covered.

    135. Re:Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      First off, MOST illegals are NOT working for crappy pay. Yes, those that work in fast food DO make lousy wages. But those working in construction make same pay as what an American would, but do not pay taxes. Sadly, they are making 15-30/hr, which I made 12/hr back in the early 80s as a labor, jr carpenter.

      Secondly, you have the first part right, but not the second. We need to legalize ALL DRUGS, but control them better than we are.
      The real issue with jobs is to phase in FULL e-verify on all jobs over 2 years, along with going after ANY STATE that pays out money to illegals. For example, California, Illinois, and back in late 00s, Colorado, do not actually check for legal status. Once e-verify has gone through, then any state who is not in full compliance gets 100% of their federal funding cut off.
      As to e-verify, simple to do. Start from the git-go with all new hires, along with ALL executives/top managers (high-end white collar). After 1 year, then do the entire rest of the manager/white collars (e.g. software engineers). After 2 years, then do all construction and manufacturing (basically high-end blue collar). Finally, after 3 years, everybody is fully checked. The last includes all services, foods, Ag, etc.
      Stop access to jobs and gov payouts and yes, they will leave and quit coming. Simple as that.

      And as somebody suggested, any illegal that outs a business after the 3 years for cheating, should get a pink card, some financial reward, while the business ppl go to jail. Any legal immigrant that harbors an illegal should lose their immigration upon being deportation of the illegal.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    136. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't London in Europe, and doesn't London have the most cameras of any city in the world (second perhaps only to Chicago)?

    137. Re:Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      So, you are saying that if you are an illegal here in the states that you can not choose to simply go home?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    138. Re:Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      please do not. This attacking of illegals by ICE really is not doing much to stop the flow. The fact is, that as many illegals as ever are STILL coming over the borders, or coming in on visa and overstaying. The difference is that they are now working to not get caught.
      THe ONLY solution is for ICE to go after companies that hire illegals and really apply the laws to those that hire them. And if they catch any business owner mistreating the illegals, then we should REALLY throw it at them.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    139. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which side are the solar panels on? You can break conventional panels by throwing rocks or empty beer bottles.

    140. Re:Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      If no illegals, then these malls will stop turning over data.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    141. Re:Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      which is why we need to raise the minimum wage and push back on paying food stamps, etc.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    142. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lawyers wouldn't risk getting the stank of 2,000 miles of trains, trucks, and hiking, on their suits. They train, "activists", who in turn revel in that stank and pass the info along as well as whispering sweet nothings into the eras of the human traffickers.

    143. Re: Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      illegal alien if you must be pedantic.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    144. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The economy is doing well" .. For who exactly?

    145. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't realize that Southridge Mall in SouthCity has cruisy bathrooms?

    146. Re: Invading privacy? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      case law

      Laws are laws. Congress makes laws.
      Courts merely interpret them. Decisions on individual cases are legally binding, but they are not law. When a case is tried, the verdict and sentence are not constrained by past decisions. Plenty of lazy judges phone it in and point to "case law" so they don't have to do any thinking and don't risk rocking the boat. That does not mean "case law" is law, binding to any other case, or relevant to the discussion.

    147. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Glad to know that they're helping out ICE. Don't want illegals in the malls not the country."

      And just who the fuck is going to work those shitty paying jobs?

    148. Re: Invading privacy? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      There are even services where you can rent kids for the crossing.

      Which is why they're now doing DNA testing. Surprise! Lots of mismatches are popping up.

    149. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once e-verify has gone through, then any state who is not in full compliance gets 100% of their federal funding cut off.

      Oh yeah, that'll work. Except for the problem that it would be illegal for states to actually act as you demand (see Plyler v. Doe), and let's face it, your dogmatic, draconian solution would just have those states resent the oppressive heel of your tyrannical approach even more.

      I get it though, you hate illegal immigrants so much that you don't care how innocent people will suffer from your outrageous acts.

    150. Re:Invading privacy? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      What really boggles my mind is the same people complaining and protesting about police misconduct one day are complaining and protesting to make sure only police have firearms the next.

      Errr, they are 2 completely different issues. Furthermore, a viable solution for both issues are also completely different.

      The former is caused by the bad ones inside the force. There ARE GOOD law enforcement people, but they will never be recognized because most people think it is "their job" so they must be that way. When there are a few black sheep that cause trouble, news is everywhere and ruin all other's good standing. A viable solution is to weed out the bad one and be more scrutiny.

      The latter is to support law enforcement on their job. If the law enforcement people are all good and follow their rules, then it is the solution that only police have firearms. Of course, we aren't living in a perfect world, so it is impossible that only police would have firearms.

      In conclusion, you are mixing two issues by over look what the real cause is. You are too bias to be able to reason at each case. Also, your post shows that you do not like law enforcement and government for some reasons, period.

    151. Re:Invading privacy? by currently_awake · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it's illegal for the police to do something without a warrant then it should be illegal for the police to hire someone to do that action without a warrant. If the American Federal Government is paying you to do something then (as an employee) you should be subject to the Constitution of the USA while doing it.

    152. Re: Invading privacy? by orlanz · · Score: 1

      How is the ability to follow you around and record your travel on a daily basis, not an invasion of privacy.

      Would you not think it is an invasion of your privacy if I followed your family around and waited outside your house or car and kept a detailed journal of all that I saw?

      And how does that invasion change just because I use BigData & AI?

    153. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every tire sold in the USA for 10 years has had an embedded RFID.

      Once they correlate those to your license number, it's over.

      But what do you care? You carry a personal spying device in your pocket.

      BTW repo men spend all day driving the streets/parking lots and automatically reading and recording every license number they pass.

      I'm considering just collecting a large bag of RFIDs and storing them inside a fender liner.

      Sounds like a good idea. I'm sure the false-positive procedure for getting your property back is well-thought-out and easy to navigate.

    154. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's so hilariously transparent when they play word games like saying "immigrant" when they really mean "illegal alien".

    155. Re: Invading privacy? by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      The point is, having to hire one or more teenagers to collect & log plates costs a lot more than systematically harvesting the same data via automated means, so it was previously a self-limiting process.

      A truckload of 3x5 index cards with license plate numbers & timestamps written on them is *data*.

      The same 3x5 index cards, sorted by plate number, is *information*.

      Information is more expensive (and more invasive) than mere data. The problem is, the cost of transforming unstructured data into valuable (and invasive) information has fallen, so de-facto safeguards we used to take for granted no longer necessarily apply.

      Let's take speed limits as an alternate example. If the police have to dedicate a fair amount of time, resources, and effort on enforcement, they end up focusing on the worst & most egregious offenders. Give them the ability to time your movements between any two points & automatically charge fines to your credit card if you plausibly exceed the posted limit (with limited ability to challenge those fines on procedural grounds), and you could suddenly go from a ticket every 5-20 years (that you can challenge & usually win) to dozens of tickets with hundreds of dollars in fines within a single month. Technically, the law itself wouldn't have changed, but the barriers to enforcement are part of the reason why voters tolerate such laws at all. Raise enforcement from 0.001% to 99.994%, and the heads of elected officials would roll.

    156. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only boggling if you can't imagine more than a one step process. You can't start with disarming the police, but if they are ever sucessful in banning guns from the public they can then make the argument that police no longer need guns.

      Police officers in both Australia and the UK, test cases for blanket bans on firearms, still have guns. Banning the right to own tools for self defense is all about increasing the gap between citizen's ability and authority's liberty.

    157. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you, buddy. Fuck 'em, I got mine!

    158. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TIL that being against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is xenophobia. I suppose it's better than xenophilia, at least.

    159. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What time is dinner, mi amigo? Also, I'm allergic to down pillows and pets.

    160. Re:Invading privacy? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Illegal immigration enforcement should be priortized by burden. Those who don't pay taxes or live off the proceeds of crime should be the highest priority. Those who take minimum wage jobs americans don't want and pay their taxes and don't do (other) crime are not a burden and should get to stay.

    161. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You have a State Issued ID that MUST be affixed to your car, and you are willfully driving it and PARKING IT in public view, on private property. And that is invading privacy?

      Driving in public view with a government issue plate does not imply giving consent for tracking. A LEO can trail you legally only if he/she has legitimate cause to suspect something. For having someone tailgate you 24/7, a specific investigation must go on. IANAL, but I'm sure a judge would have a problem with people being tracked without reasonable cause (and if he does not, then it is confirmed the country has taken a definite turn to the worse.)

      We are not talking attaching a GPS tracker w/o a warrant; we are talking information that your car arrived at a specific public location at a specific time and left at a specific time. We do not have city-wide video cameras capturing everything, and such a system would cause data-overload (eg it only makes sense to look at specific locations at specific times because you suspect a certain someone was there).

    162. Re:Invading privacy? by currently_awake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The illegals are just tourists if they can't get jobs and collect welfare.

    163. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd wager most people that drive a car are tight with its owner. Are you "borrowing" a car everyday?

    164. Re:Invading privacy? by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I *want* illegals to be reported and kicked out of the country

      Is it important that they be reported and kicked out, or would you be okay if they just left on their own?

      If the latter, then here's a better solution for you: Let's impose heavy fines on any American business who employs an illegal immigrant without validating them via e-verify, and significant jail time for American who does so knowingly. Also, let's offer permanent residency (a green card) to any illegal alien who rats out their boss.

      Illegals will instantly become unemployable. Very few green cards will be handed out. With the economic motive for staying in the US removed, the vast majority of illegals will leave. No Orwellian tracking required.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    165. Re:Invading privacy? by swillden · · Score: 1

      A hike in the minimum wage coupled with real efforts to prosecute employers who break immigration law would be a much more effective solution.

      Making e-verify mandatory and prosecuting employers who don't use it would do the job without a minimum wage hike. To really make it effective, I suggest that we also offer permanent residency to any illegal alien who rats out their boss.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    166. Re:Invading privacy? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Scam business set up to provide citizenship in 3..2..

      Heavy fines would make that uneconomical. Or, if the scam businesses have no assets, then we should add criminal penalties with significant prison time.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    167. Re:Invading privacy? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Raising the minimum wage is a potentially disastrous idea. We're already on the verge of an automation-induced crash in employment, artificially boosting the cost of labor will accelerate the trend.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    168. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Literally every American, of literally every age, class, race, religion, political belief, and any other retarded identity you subscribe to.

      Objectively. Beyond argument. Supported by every economic measure available.

      All Americans are doing better now than they were 3 to 9 years ago. Some, such as people of color, are doing better than any time in the history of the world.

    169. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because the brown ones are the vast majority of the criminals doesn't make it racist to kick them out. It just makes them criminals who should be kicked out.

    170. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where exactly do you draw the line between use of publicly advertised information and invasion of privacy?

      If you are parked at a light with a cop behind you, they are liable to run your plates just to see if the owner of the vehicle (the likely driver) is wanted for anything, and the query probably doesn't end with the local police DB.

    171. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your friend is as much of a fucking moron as you.

      The 2nd amendment protects us from all government action, left or right.

      The vast, vast majority of fascism and demands to destroy our freedoms come from the left. If police come for our weapons, it will almost certainly be a leftist controlling them.

      It's difficult to make an armed population submit to Marxism, Islam, criminal gangs, and government-mandated penalties like the ACA.

    172. Re:Invading privacy? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact is that a vehicle with a license plate was in a public place during specific times. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy is such a public place.

      Until this decade, I damn well did. Until the latter half of this decade, I damn well did. While it was possible to track me and everyone else in that public place sooner, it cost too much, so no one did. Now it's so cheap, any asshole can do it, and every asshole is doing it and that's not ok. I expect to be able to move around in a public place in relative anonymity, without being tracked by tens or hundreds or thousands of random jackoffs like you. And this is completely reasonable.

    173. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alright, best do nothing. Open borders for everyone!

    174. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When those consumer brokers also know there are no other drivers and cars registered on your address, they have a very high certainty who is driving your car.

    175. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      "Legal citizen" has nothing to do with it.

      Nothing in the Bill of Rights mentions citizenship. Always remember: if they can do it to illegal immigrants, they can do it to you. After all, how else could they even know who is illegal and who isn't?

      Same argument holds true with "outright criminals" in place of "illegal immigrants". The correct hill to be fighting on is not the one with the standard saying that some people should be privileged and protected from the law. It's the one with the standard that says all people should be so protected.

    176. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you lived in Europe, that would be considered "your information".

      But since you're in the USA, that information is considered the property of whoever goes to the trouble of collecting it. You have no rights over it.

      Not trolling, that's just the way it is. That, in a nutshell, is the difference between privacy laws in Europe vs the US.

    177. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may not know this, but the identification provided by that plate is only allowed to be accessed for lawful purposes directly related to a particular and identifiable need.

      Since ICE has not applied for a warrant for these malls, clearly they do not have any need or purpose for this information related to their remit.

      Accordingly, it is an invasion of privacy.

      Fortunately, California can pass a law forbidding the misuse of such data, seize control of ICE (because the Trump administration is incompetent enough to continue the practice) and solve the problem.

    178. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the problem is that we have a bunch of laws enforcement of which would be a bad thing, repealing those laws is by far the more sensible solution compared to deliberately designing inefficiencies in our enforcement of all laws to prevent the need to enforce the stupid ones.

    179. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if I publish a book that contains my own biometrics?

      Could I then sue all and any organisation that attempts to store my own biometrics in their database under copywrite?

      It would be an interesting way to turn these bullshit copywrite laws to a positive purpose.

    180. Re:Invading privacy? by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Also, your post shows that you do not like law enforcement and government for some reasons, period.

      Huh? I think both protests are stupid, meaning I support both law enforcement and law abiding citizens having guns. As do most pro 2a people. And most law enforcement and military, for that matter.

      And there's a difference between liking government and trusting government. You can like what the government does without trusting that they will continue to do so perpetually. They've already broken that trust a few times (e.g. Snowden revelations) without so much as a slap on the wrist. If that's what they do with an armed citizenry, imagine where they'd go without one?

    181. Re:Invading privacy? by HeckRuler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a big believer that, without a warrant, cops should be limited to what civilians can do. When the government does it, it's called tracking. When a civilian does it, it's called stalking. Both are illegal. Or at least should be illegal. We should have to deal with harassment from the cops any more than from ex-lovers.

    182. Re: Invading privacy? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I expect to be able to move around in a public place in relative anonymity, without being tracked by tens or hundreds or thousands of random jackoffs like you. And this is completely reasonable.

      You can expect whatever you like; the question is how are you going to prevent it?

      I expect to be able to enjoy my dinner without having random jackoffs call to try and sell me something. I expect to be able to drive downtown without having dozens of random jackoffs insisting that I let them "clean" my windshield. I expect to be able to attend a speech without having mobs of random jackoffs try to block my entry or shout down the speaker. All of those expectations may be completely reasonable, but good luck putting a stop to it.

    183. Re:Invading privacy? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Yes, go back home. the majority of illegals in America are here not because their nation is at war (i.e. refugee), but are here to make more money than they would in their own nation.

      I'm pretty sure it's a little of column A and a little of column B. Yes, they're here for work.... but there's an awful lot of corpses left by the drug cartels in Mexico right now. "Bloodiest election". "the most violent campaign Mexico has experienced in recent history, with 130 political figures killed since September 2017".

       

      Some of the illegals that I know continue to send money to Mexico and Brazil, to their wives, where they are buying up land for retirement.

      ...props to them? I mean really, imagine if more Americans had that sort of fiscal responsibility.

      Now, I do not report them because sending them home will solve NOTHING.

      Then.... why are you advocating they go home?

      e-verify on all jobs

      Where's the complaint from the republicans about how regulation is killing business? But yeah, it's hard to argue against this one.

      cut off all funding to any state that is giving money to illegals (other than emergency medical, nothing should be given to them).

      How about teaching their children? Because you're advocating that we kick them out of schools. That's a free* service provided to anyone in the district. You'd really rather have uneducated teenagers with loads of time on their hands and nothing to do? Have you really thought this one through?

      They drive on roads built with tax money. Want them to walk everywhere? The cops and army protect them. Want some sort of "open season" on beaners?

      *TANSTAAFL! It's typically paid for by property taxes. Renters get by scott free.

      So they come here, work jobs that simply do not pay their taxes, so that they undercut the legal workers, including other immigrants.

      Some of them, yeah. But any job that fills out an
      Over 3 million have an ITEN, a tax number in liu of a social security number. And they pay taxes into the collective pot that they'll never get back. That's the pot you and I pull out from. Collectively, they put in $10 billion dollars. That's straight-up taxation without representation. Theft plain and simple. Donation, if you're trying to spin it. But they choose to do this because that's STILL a better deal than their options back home.

      And that doesn't count people with a fake SSN or forged papers.

    184. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do NOT search "Larken Rose".

    185. Re:Invading privacy? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      I suggest that we also offer permanent residency to any illegal alien who rats out their boss.

      This. With mandatory jail time. If it's simply cheaper to pay the fine, fire Pedrotres, and hire Pedroquatro then it's just another tax. When ICE has sting operations, they should be hauling away management. With culpability going up the chain of command if you really want to play hardball.

    186. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whis is why you need to search "Larken Rose" to start to learn about and see the only real solution to any of this bullshit.

    187. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont forget all the wireless tire pressure sensors and active wifi systems cars all have that are just open and listening.

    188. Re: Invading privacy? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Entering the country illegally is a misdemeanor level of offense. Sure, it's illegal, but stop treating it like a massive offense when larger crimes are committed with impunity by citizens every day (failing to report taxes correctly for instance).

    189. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, after they deport all the illegals, I can't wait to go to the grocery store and find all the empty shelves where there used to be food produced by all the migrant farm workers. It's estimated that between 50% and 75% of farm workers are in the country illegally. That's very generous of you to offer to take their jobs!

    190. Re:Invading privacy? by drnb · · Score: 1

      And that 3rd party consumer data broker could just as easily hire a teenager with a modern phone at $5/hr to get the same information

      Actually bail and repo guys are doing most of it. They have been cruising parking lots with license plate scanners for years. They find targets often enough to make this useful. They sell their data to brokers to offset their subscriptions to these brokers.

    191. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because legal immigrants who are citizens are often asked for proof that they should be here. Someone white with a good ability to mimic an American accent never has to show papers to prove that they're allowed to walk on the streets.

    192. Re: Invading privacy? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      It only protects us if the government respects the constitution and the rule of law.

      Now what about the last two years of GOP behavior makes you think that is as true as it used to be?

      They are literally going to repeal certain laws by not defending them.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    193. Re: Invading privacy? by radarskiy · · Score: 0

      Clearly, abused spouses are criminals.

      Or are you saying that the cameras magically don't record the plane number if a citizen is driving?

    194. Re:Invading privacy? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "But it isn't *your* data they are sending.
      It is the state owned license plate number that isn't yours which they are sending, and the owner of that data has given everyone permission to use their data this way."

      In that case there's no point in sending it to ICE since they are trying to locate illegal aliens, not cars.

      Or are you saying that the location of a car CAN be connected to the location of a person? In which case the plates of cars of people who are not illegal aliens can also be used to track people who are not illegal aliens, since the camera does not know what data not to collect because it involves a person who is not an illegal alien.

    195. Re:Invading privacy? by sarren1901 · · Score: 1

      Swillden, that's a great choice. Really, all companies hiring non citizens are the only reason non citizens get jobs. If those companies would follow the law, finding under the table work would be much more difficult.

      That's why there is really no difference between our parties. They just like to pretend. Both love illegals. They are used for cheap labor and as a political issue to get their bases going. Works for both "wings".

    196. Re:Invading privacy? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      How is it "your data" when it is publicly and freely given to everyone on the street? You can sit on a street corner and photograph car licenses all you want without any "invasion of privacy". Do you seriously contend that your documented presence in public is a "privacy" matter?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    197. Re:Invading privacy? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      It is NOT YOUR information if you take actions to make it 100% public and freely gained. YOU are in public, ANYONE can sit and take notes on your movements and locations. YOU gave that out for free by simply being in public. You do know the difference between public and private, don't you? Seriously - you contend your public, freely observable actions are 100% private property?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    198. Re:Invading privacy? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Well, there is a 3rd solution - you could take a few dozen into your own home, let them use your car, and then they don't have to worry about being tracked or found out and can stay in the US...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    199. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have cameras that record 24/7 outside of my house. If you pull up on to the street in front of my house or into my driveway, you, your car and the government license plate in your car will be recorded. It is perfectly legal because the street is a public location where you have no expectation of privacy and the driveway is my property where I can record anything that I want at any time.

      You sound like a little kid plugging his ears and throwing a temper tantrum because you can't get your way. Too bad, grow up and deal with it. It's called life and you aren't always going to get what you want.

    200. Re: Invading privacy? by sarren1901 · · Score: 1

      So ditch your phone and grab a bicycle. Use cash and never use discount cards. Don't order stuff online and get a PO box at the post office. Get a solar array setup that allows you to take your home off the grind. A water well is good too, but if you use city water/sewage as opposed to a septic system, they may require a meter on how much water you pump out (San Diego County does this).

      Also, no Internet use for anything of importance and never YOUR Internet connection. Tor of public wifi helps here I suppose. Use encrypted email text only. Get all your friends to adopt a VoIP solution so you can securely communicate. It helps if you know how to setup all of this stuff yourself.

      Not sure falling off the grid would even save you. It could very well act as a lightning rod for government to pay attention because why would someone go to all that effort for privacy unless they were up to something illegal.

      I agree this shouldn't be necessary and it should be illegal to collect and track all this data, but good luck getting enough people to make that their number 1 voting issue and even better luck getting the politicians that runs on that platform to actually follow through with effective legislation. Not to mention funding for it at all necessary levels.

    201. Re:Invading privacy? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The right to take photos on public property is pretty much settled. If you are in public, I do not have to get a "release form" from you to take your picture. I can share those pictures as I like - and with whomever I like. If you don't like it, then we need to change the law. But right now - this is 100% legal, expected, and people complaining about it are simply the latest generation of tinfoil hat wearers...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    202. Re:Invading privacy? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      No. The other way is to prevent others from taking pictures and selling it to 3rd parties. Didn't you read the summary?

      Taking pictures in public and communicating them to others are both free speech activities protected by the Constitution's first Amendment.

    203. Re: Invading privacy? by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      It's amazing the mental hoops people jump to justify their own oppression.

      Yes, legally they may well be within their right. But it does not mean it's the ethical or moral thing to do, nor does it mean we shouldn't change those laws. Remember , slavery was quite legal once, and America went to goddam war to fix that shit

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    204. Re:Invading privacy? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Just because you can see my license plate, doesn't mean you have the right to do what you please with it. Same with the front of my house or what you can see through my windows.

      Simply incorrect. If I can legally take a picture, I can legally send it. Sending it is free speech. It isn’t even a question under serious legal dispute.

    205. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nordstrom's has been using a video monitoring system in it's stores to track your phone's SSID, where you are in the store, how long you linger at displays, what you touch, and your purchases, if any. They have a sign at the entrance stating that they are doing this. Cisco bought the company that makes the software. Malls and other buildings are interested in implementing it.

      This just adds license plate scanning to that. The fact that your location is reported to various federal agencies, like DHS and ICE is problematic. If you're illegal, you most likely don't have a drivers license nor are you driving a car under your name since you have to register it.

    206. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They really mean, âoeundocumented Democratâ.

    207. Re:Invading privacy? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that made sense in your head.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    208. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck is this insightful? What a crock of shit.

    209. Re:Invading privacy? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between saying this must be kept private, and saying it's not good for people to be collecting and selling this data. Ie, both sides are right here.

      It depends on what "reasonable" means here - we effectively cannot enforce absolute privacy when going into the public, but we *should* be able to reasonably assume that we're not being spied upon when we go to the mall. There are always special cases of course, there could be a guy sitting in the parking lot jotting down everyone's license plate, but it's unreasonable to expect that this can be prevented in all instances. But it is not unreasonable to expect companies to not spy on us.

      What you're trying to say is that you can never have 100% privacy in a public space. That is not the same thing as a green light allowing any company to spy with impunity. The "reasonable" part lies in between the two.

    210. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I swear, listening to liberals these days is like listening to Glenn Beck or Alex Jones 8 years ago, just with all the names and parties changed.

    211. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These days, they think it is. Perfect this is happening in CA. There's your "sanctuary" bs.

    212. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like I can follow you and take pictures of you and report to the world every public place you go to

      No, this is invasion and erosion of privacy pure and simple. The data that is captured is that of the property owner. Not the company they hire to monitor it. In effect that security company is guilty of selling stolen property

      Unless you're ok with your dr selling data about you too. The dr office is also a public place.

    213. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      It's what they pay Uber Drivers when you subtract out wear and tear on the car. In fact, there's a whole gig economy site dedicated to $5/hr jobs- fiverr.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    214. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the automated tools need something to look *for*. If no crime has been committed, then there's no evidence for the automatic tool to search on (yes, I just included misdemeanors like traffic violations as crimes- because for illegal aliens, they are deportable crimes)

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    215. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      The Constitution was superseded by the Patriot Act in 2003. We've been living in a police state since.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    216. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Quite the opposite. The only way acting like you live in a police state can lead to less police misconduct is if you cooperate entirely at every encounter. Here, watch Chris Rock in this educational video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    217. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Who needs a barcode when they are in a standard non-proportional font? It's easy enough to run a OCR on such a font, even in a very blurry stop light camera.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    218. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      When the cop is radioing ahead to set up a roadblock to stop your ignorant ass.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    219. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      "This attacking of illegals by ICE really is not doing much to stop the flow."

      I'm sure we could up that until it does. I'd suggest gun emplacements on the border, like we did with the Korean border between North and South Korea.
      Big bonus- a 10 mile wide, 2000 mile long no-man's land would quickly become the world's largest wildlife preserve.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    220. Re: Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      And on the plus side, the result would be more people following the law- very much a good thing.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    221. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe your republitarded ass should quit voting in the gestapo then

    222. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Over 90% of the time cars are driven by the registered owner.

    223. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are being tracked. Object tracking and face recognition is now good enough. You're being tracked from when the car drives within range, from when you step out of the car, from when you stand too long looking at an item, to when you checkout and link yourself to your phone number/awards card and then back to your car.

      Be assured images of what you look like are part of your data profile being sold around by businesses.

    224. Re:Invading privacy? by execthis · · Score: 2

      Yes E-Verify should have been made mandatory a long time ago. Ever since I was a kid and had my first job delivering newspapers I was required to fill out an I-9 form with all my employers. Back then it actually meant something. Today it's a joke - it's actually like an insult to American citizens - given the blatant fraud that occurs and the open support for illegals among politicians whose level of betrayal of American citizens amounts to treason.

    225. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read that reply before replying?

    226. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't even speak and write English, yet I'd wager you consider yourself smarter than most. So how are all the people even stupider than you going to cope with no simple low paying jobs to do? Not everyone is cut out for education, and then there's people like you where it didn't stick.

    227. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chocolate rations have also been increased!

    228. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Set aside rule of law"

      "Enforcing the law that requires people have a legal residence permit or citizenship"

      Pick one.

    229. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then if a judge doesn't follow case law and goes back to the original legal documents and makes a different decision they will either be called Conservative or activist, depending on what they decide and who judges the judge.

    230. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may due to multiple factors. What is the rate of domestic violence in other, relatively similar, high stress occupations? Also, many police are ex-military. The correct conclusion might be that police have insufficient access to services to help them cope with past experiences and current stresses.

    231. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's usually more than entering the country illegally: they often commit fraud and identity theft by using someone's social security number, which can seriously cause problems for that person later

    232. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extremist drivel that takes forever to make any considerable point. Got any highlights?

    233. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's that clear-cut, then let's see some sources and discuss the methods.

    234. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could've said the same thing with just "Nobody in modern-day society cares enough about privacy to make it a priority." They will eventually learn the folly of that, but as always, humanity is slow to move, socially.

    235. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me throw out a few whatabouts that this system was intended for:

      - Amber alerts. License plate info goes out with the alert. ALPRs are invaluable here
      - Stolen vehicles
      - Arrest warrants of criminals

      And so on. I seriously doubt ICE was the first thought when this was put in. General law enforcement of a routinely visited public place was most likely the reason.

    236. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Xeno-" is literally "strange, other"; "-phobia" is "fear of", and "philia" is "love of".

      Why would you be proud of fearing people who are different from you? What folly is there in merely *accepting* those different from us? It's not some false dichotomy between love and hate. It's acceptance and fear.

      Granted, we need immigration laws to ensure that the people coming to our country are versed enough in its history and culture to be able to get along okay. But that doesn't mean we get to culturally ostracize people for being different. The world's harsh enough as it is thanks to other people. Why add more suffering?

    237. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. When's the last time a company announced that they were collecting *less* information than before? You are a fool if you believe a company will stop the gathering of PII in this age of selling it. The getting is as good as it's going to get, because culture is catching up and people are getting tired of business leeching from the public.

    238. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you sweet summer child...

    239. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two problems here
      1) the government is buying the data. Just because a third party collects the data should not then make it ok for the government to have the data.
      2) my location is my property. its noones business where i decide to go

    240. Re: Invading privacy? by dj245 · · Score: 1

      I agree with the heavy fines. Green cards for rats is a terrible idea though. People will cross illegally and then turn on each other so one of them can win the "lottery".

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    241. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you missed the part about how this was malls in California. That's blue country. Moonbeam Jerry would be upset you accusing him of being a Republitard.

    242. Re: Invading privacy? by nowwith25percentmore · · Score: 1

      If I as an individual built such a surveillance network to track your whereabouts across multiple locations, you'd probably want to charge me for stalking. At the same time, you have no objection to a business doig the same, and selling that same info for profit. What gives?

    243. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's frustrating about the current political climate is that there's no serious discussion about getting e-verify to work. If employers could actually effectively check work permissions for non-citizens, then almost all incentives for illegal economic migration would evaporate.

    244. Re:Invading privacy? by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      I continue to write CONgress critters

      Are you surprised they don't take you seriously?

    245. Re:Invading privacy? by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      OK 4...3...2... instead

    246. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "coupled with real efforts to prosecute employers who break immigration law"
      You mean mandatory e-verify? Because this is currently opposed by every single Democrat and by all Republicans outside of what the mainstream media calls the "far-right" (i.e. the Freedom Caucus and the Trump groupees). What you are proposing is the obvious common sense solution but its opposed by all of the mainstream political factors either because of the big business lobby (gotta have that indentured servitude labor) or the activist left (gotta have those future Democrat voters/ "demography is destiny"). Love him or hate him, Trump is the only alternative and the only chance to pass immigration laws that make logical sense.

    247. Re:Invading privacy? by swillden · · Score: 1

      And what, exactly, are you positing would happen at the end of your countdown?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    248. Re: Invading privacy? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I agree with the heavy fines. Green cards for rats is a terrible idea though. People will cross illegally and then turn on each other so one of them can win the "lottery".

      I doubt any significant number of green cards would be handed out, because employers would know that they are almost guaranteed to be caught, and so would refuse to take the risk.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    249. Re:Invading privacy? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The only way acting like you live in a police state can lead to less police misconduct is if you cooperate entirely at every encounter.

      That doesn't work, because police beat people like a pinata for the crime of cooperating with them on a regular basis.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    250. Re:Invading privacy? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the automated tools need something to look *for*. If no crime has been committed, then there's no evidence for the automatic tool to search on

      The tools look for license plates. Then they OCR the license plates. Whether a crime has been committed or not. Then they know where everyone is going all the time and they can use that information for various nefarious purposes. This is not complicated, so you are either doubling down on disingenuousness, or a lot dumber than I thought — and that's saying something.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    251. Re:Invading privacy? by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      You must have read it if you quoted it back to me, yes?

    252. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      No, actually, they don't. Following the law and being a police informant works in a police state to keep you from getting beaten.

      Acting like a gangsta and insisting on "rights" that no longer exist, that's what gets you beaten like a pinata

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    253. Re:Invading privacy? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Fiverr jobs aren't $5 anymore. Plus, those were never intended to be hour engagements.

    254. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but who is going to search 20 million rows of data to prosecute somebody for a license plate NOT connected to a crime?

      Nefarious purposes have logic. This isn't rocket science. At some point, a human being has to make a decision, or else that ocr data is NEVER going to be looked at.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    255. Re:Invading privacy? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, but who is going to search 20 million rows of data to prosecute somebody for a license plate NOT connected to a crime?

      That's not how it works. Your failure is one of imagination.

      Nefarious purposes have logic.

      And you don't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    256. Re:Invading privacy? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, actually, they don't. Following the law and being a police informant works in a police state to keep you from getting beaten.

      No, no it does not.

      Acting like a gangsta and insisting on "rights" that no longer exist, that's what gets you beaten like a pinata

      Ask the Jews about that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    257. Re:Invading privacy? by HeckRuler · · Score: 0

      That's fine. And the cops are full well within their rights to record what goes on in or around their police station. But if you start selling that data and access to that camera then you start running into privacy concerns.

      You sound like a old fart nationalist jerking his knee and you're still fighting the hippies. Or some sort of Russian shill trying to tear down my society... but your grammar is too good for that.

    258. Re:Invading privacy? by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      The cost of labor should cover the housing, food, clothing, medical, educational, and transportation expenses of the people doing that labor. The notion that there is, or even can be, a free market in labor ignores the principles of what makes a market free - in particular, the fact that a market isn't a free market if participants cannot realistically walk away from a deal.

    259. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      How it works is that there is limited machine time, and only certain where clauses in the select statement.

      They don't just pick where license=Rand() and then prosecute somebody for no reason.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    260. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      In Nazi Germany, Jews were against the law. And yet, those who converted were treated well and put to work on the war effort.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    261. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Itâ(TM)s more the 1984 vibe. Once every camera everywhere has this capacity...

    262. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah this isn't the Right wing police at all. This is all Left Side issues. Remember, the left wants you to register your weapons. The left are the ones who introduced most of the restrictive laws. Almost all the Right side States have fewer laws and have strict laws regarding your privacy. The Right wants you to have the right to do what you want on your own land and want others to butt out.

      Besides, Obama was the one who signed us up with the UN to start registering who buys Ammo.
      https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/us-agrees-to-un-global-gun-control/

      Gun sales went through the roof during the Obama Administration because Obama is anti 2nd. Every time we have a mass shooting, it's the left that cry's out we need more info on each person and each individual. It's the left that want's the Government to start identifying who has mental illness and to start blocking them from owning guns.

      Sorry, this isn't the Republicans that are going after you. This is the Democrats. Remember who wants socialism? Democrats do. they want to butt into every thing you do.

    263. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a significant difference of me walking in public and someone following me, in public, and tracking everywhere I go and every person I meet.

      The former is happenstance that someone sees me, the latter is stalking.

      So parking at a mall you may peruse my car being there. Writing down every number plate, searching records of it, keeping logs etc is surveillance.

      SCOTUS just ruled tracking a cellphone without a warrant runs afoul of the constitution, even though a cellphones location is, ostensibly, public (since it broadcasts it's location publically)

    264. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tried doing this. Arpaio, the famous Sheriff from Phoenix AZ would go on raids to stores that hired illegals. Got told by Obama and the left that doing those raids were racist and illegal. Now the left is allowing this to happen?

    265. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't ppl understand basic economics. If Walmart can pay $30/hr for greeters per store, they can hire 3 people at $10/hr or 2 @ $15/hr.
      So in the SJW fight for $15 world it's great, they'll interview the 2 who got a 50% raise and praise their liveable wage, and no one bothers to interview the guy who lost his job.

    266. Re:Invading privacy? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I disagree, but in any case that's not really related to the topic at hand.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    267. Re:Invading privacy? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I addressed your concern, yet either you don't think I did, in which case you should say why not, or else you have some other concern, in which case you should express it. Or if you're not interested in the discussion, say so.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    268. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. It's illegal to run a license without probable cause. How about you leave grown up shit to the grownup.

    269. Re:Invading privacy? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Ah, so if immigration laws are not enforced, then you are okay with your guns being confiscated?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    270. Re:Invading privacy? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      yea.. and the russians are opposed to Russia.

      Except when they go to Russia for private meetings with no free press allowed.

      I was a conservative who voted for republicans most of my life. This shit is going sideways and folks are so obsessed with left/right that they can't see a couple hundred years of our democratic traditions being tossed aside, republicans actively siding with the russian government, and the attacks on the free press.

      For christ's sake, wake the hell up before it's gone.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    271. Re: Invading privacy? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I don't recall democrats actively trying to stop a democratic investigation into russian influence on our elections.

      a citation would be nice...

      Wake the hell up. i was a republican and voted for three republican presidents. Something is badly wrong in our government.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    272. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I understand and agree with most privacy concerns, are you seriously thinking that ICE and Customs are going to sell data relating to your car at a mall? As soon as you walk out of your house there's cameras everywhere along with GPS devices in our pockets marking our locations at all times and it's only getting worse with emerging technologies but somehow it's more troublesome at the mall parking lot? Gimme a break...

    273. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only one side is more interested in keeping illegal immigration as an election issue. The other wants to ENFORCE THE LAW.

    274. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also from Texas so I somehow felt the need to respond...

      Your friend is probably tired of hearing you drone on and is trying to shut you up for his own sanity.

      What rules of law did Mr. Trump set aside because every lefty in the country would love to have proof of such wrongdoings right away. Please provide your information ASAP.

      When dealing with the spectrum of insanity that is our world's various governments, you either ignore, make enemies, or try to get along in some way or another, preferably one that benefits your voters, even the voters who hate you and are too ignorant to understand how playing nice helps them. Love doesn't come into the equation.

    275. Re: Invading privacy? by misaltas · · Score: 1

      Hehehh... Your laughably smug reply is not nearly enough to mask the fact that you're simply and irrecoverably wrong, and we're all pretty sure you know it.

      You own a vehicle and you register it with the state. No one's had a problem with that for many decades. It's actually done a lot of good for us as a society. Now you decide to drive around, in public, onto a commercial vendor's property, and they take public pics and sell that to anyone who believes that data is of value.

      The fact that only recently the technology exists for any idiot to capture, distribute, process, analyze, and act upon this otherwise public volunteered information doesn't mean that something that's been going on for many decades is now suddenly wrong. Obscurity is not security. The sudden removal of obscurity doesn't mean that the lack of security or the lack of commonly understood disclosure is now suddenly the problem. Can't believe a slashdot reader would have to be reminded of that. I guess mall owners are now going to have to post "voluntary entry onto these premises provides consent to be photographed". So thanks. Another sign. Or maybe you're an attorney.

    276. Re:Invading privacy? by misaltas · · Score: 1

      You are required to register your vehicle and display proof of that registration in the open. Then you chose to drive that vehicle onto SOMEONE ELSE's property. That property owner decided to capture that information that you are legally required to display, in the open, and sell it.

      Sounds pretty shitty of them, I agree. But then you have the right to not drive onto someone else's property.

    277. Re:Invading privacy? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It is NOT YOUR information if you take actions to make it 100% public and freely gained. YOU are in public, ANYONE can sit and take notes on your movements and locations. YOU gave that out for free by simply being in public. You do know the difference between public and private, don't you? Seriously - you contend your public, freely observable actions are 100% private property?

      I kinda think there is a middle ground. Does the Government need to know when you are taking a shit in the Taco Bell?

      No - the Government can put a camera in the toilet bowl and record the turd exiting your asshole. And since it is trash, they can send someone in and retreive it and do tests on it while you watch. Once it exits the butthole and plops into the water - it's theirs.

      Is it an invasion of privacy? That toilet is in public. So no.

      But while we can strut around with big government dicks on how right that is, it really is a questionable activity.

      So okay, the Mall can do this - the government can do this - and if you had a library fine from when you were 18 years old, 40 years ago, they can tow your car, arrest you, and there ya go.

      Here's the rub though. I won't be going to any mall that does that because I think its an asshat move. And guess what - I still have the right to do that.

      There are things that can be performed that are perfectly legal. Yet not too good for business. And if I pull into a parking space at the mall, and Mall security drives behind me and takes that perfectly legal picture of my license plate - I'm hopping back in the car, and buying on-line. After all Malls are doing really well lately, ands they don't need customers.

      We have evolved into a "If you have nothing to hide, you will happily submit to surveillance by your government." state. I can't think of anything I have to hide, but I do have other options if I'm treated like a criminal.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    278. Re:Invading privacy? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Imperialist! They will start shooting at you if you even try to fix their mess. They are currently in a 'make it worse' phase, having elected a socialist.

      Mexico has fairly strong anti illegal immigration laws. They allow passage to America, via a traintop, but Guatemalans aren't welcome in Mexico.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    279. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you want them to leave?

      People like you have no idea how much work gets done by illegals. And before you say something stupid, I would love to let many more come over legally and be paid fair wages, but you dickweed conservatives would never allow it.

    280. Re:Invading privacy? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In Nazi Germany, Jews were against the law. And yet, those who converted were treated well and put to work on the war effort.

      You have that ass-backwards. Resisters had the best survival rate. The Jews who went along with the Nazis died the most.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    281. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your current location is your personal information. It's as key as your appearance which IS legally protected I.P.

      You don't understand a thing about public vs private or the law.

      If you are in a public location, you have zero expectation of privacy under the law. Anybody can legally take your picture, record video of you or note your license plate number and there is nothing you can do about it.

      We should really be subverting and destroying these cameras

      Now destroying other people's property? That's illegal and you'll be fined, sued and/or go to jail for doing it.

      Bottom line, you're lashing out like a little child stamping his feet and screaming "But it's not faaaaair!"

    282. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instant legalization of illegals is in your list of possible ideas with no downsides?

      Please deport yourself and take a like-minded friend with you. Might I suggest any number of the failing socialist countries in South America? I hear they need low-skill workers.

    283. Re:Invading privacy? by side.road · · Score: 1

      Heck the i9 BS was broken when it first came out in the '80s. I had to jump through hoops to get a copy of my BC from IL while living in SoCal. Then at the company I was working at they discovered that there were over 90 people with the same SSN. Or rather immigration did when they busted the place. Despite being computerized, no one in HR noticed the duplicates??? Need heavy fines against companies or individuals who hire/exploit illegal immigrants.

    284. Re:Invading privacy? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Yes, there probably is a middle ground. I know where I live, there is a shopping mall frequented by those typically here illegally. How do I know? Well, there's lots of day labor available for cash, and when the police cruise by everyone seems to disappear... Perhaps this shopping mall is known as a location where those here illegally (meaning - law breaking residents) tend to congregate? It would be akin to the police cruising known areas of crime in any other city...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    285. Re:Invading privacy? by thatshortkid · · Score: 1

      No, disarming the police is on that list too.

      --
      The IRS is the one organization that you don't want to fuck with. Remember, these are the guys who took down Al Capone.
    286. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, idiot, ICE is not paying for it. The mall owners are helping out ICE.

    287. Re:Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      e-verify works fine.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    288. Re:Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I am amazed at the shear number of ppl that scream about the illegals, but will not call in the employer.
      It is the EMPLOYERS THAT MATTER. They are the ones providing jobs and incentives for illegals to come here.
      W let them in for the first 4 years of his admin, but without jobs, and state support, they will not come.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    289. Re: Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Had you any real knowledge, you would know that it was strictly about children that are brought here. In fact, it was school funding for the kids since it went STRAIGHT TO THE CHILDREN, not the parents. It specifically says that adults are not covered. We do NOT give adults ANY MONEY. PERIOD.

      If you had a brain, you would oppose illegals as well. I have a sis-in-law that was an illegal, and the rest of the in-laws are here legally (via UK, India, and Australia ). And NO innocent person would suffer from anything that I have suggested.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    290. Re:Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      In fact, Americans are not allowed in Mexico either unless you have loads of money and seek citizenship.
      What is odd is that nearly all other nations have much tighter immigration laws than America, and yet, ppl scream about how bad we are for wanting to enforce our simple laws.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    291. Re:Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      First off, I spoke of illegals. H1B are here LEGALLY. Asshole.
      Secondly, I AM opposed to H1B, but believe instead that we should knock off all H*Bs and increase the green cards with a focus on job needs. H1Bs are treated HORRIBLY until they get their green card. And I have known at least one person who was denied it by Verizon because they wanted him to go back to India and work on their junk there.
      Thirdly, I'm married to an Indian who emmigrated here LEGALLY. Her entire family emigrated here LEGALLY. I know of a number of illegals here. I do not turn them in because it would solve NOTHING. And where am I running down illegals to speak of their crimes, or to speak about the REAL situations (such as taking jobs, not paying taxes, etc)?

      The only racists are those that want to continue this. One thing I have seen is that most of the Latino illegals want America to enforce the laws on illegals from OTHER nations, just not on Latinos. That is about racists as they get. Would that include YOU?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    292. Re:Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      nope. We need to automate as fast as possible. That is especially true on the lower-end jobs. For example, it is fairly easy to automate mucking out stalls, yet, we have not done that. In California, the farmers are FINALLY getting smart and having equipment designed and built for Ag automation. We need to do the same with restaurants, esp. fast food, etc.

      But keeping ppl here because they work low=end jobs is a horrible idea. There will always be plenty of ppl that can work those jobs.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    293. Re:Invading privacy? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      This. The government is required to have a warrant to track your whereabouts. This is well established through cases such as United States v. Jones 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012) where police tried to surreptitiously attach a GPS tracker to someone's car without a warrant, and Carpenter v. United States 16-402 S.Ct 585 (2017) which established that police require a warrant to obtain cellphone tower records.

      United States v. Jones established that it was a violation of the 4th amendment's protection against unreasonable searches to trespass by attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle without a warrant. It did not cover tracking absent physical intrusion and did not rely on expectation of privacy.

    294. Re:Invading privacy? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Even worse trend in America is protesting your own rights, like the second amendment. Whats next?

      Law enforcement has planned to and gotten caught collecting license plate data at gun shows and nobody cared. If they can do that to citizens exercising their rights than they can do it to everybody.

      They do the same thing at political protests.

    295. Re:Invading privacy? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      It's a basic premise of the rules of evidence that it's invalidated when a cop commits a crime to collect it, but not if a private citizen does it.

      Only if it has been previously established on narrow grounds that what the cop did was unlawful and only if exclusion would serve to deter future violations. In other words, the exceptions have swallowed the rule.

    296. Re:Invading privacy? by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      I don't think you did address my concern. Larger fines would just push up the price and not stop anything. Fines are just the cost of doing business. And even the threat of jail time would just make it take a little bit longer to find someone willing to risk it. So I added a 4.

    297. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an id that identifies you, so it is your data, as much as a randomly generated guid in a database row that contains name, address, dob is your data.

    298. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many cases it's the same person, or the same address.

    299. Re:Invading privacy? by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Without jobs they will have to find other means of earning some cash...

    300. Re:Invading privacy? by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      There will always be plenty of ppl that can work those jobs.

      But there won't always be plenty of jobs for those people to do.

    301. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's never too late to do the right thing.

    302. Re: Invading privacy? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      The other wants to ENFORCE THE LAW.

      Some do but the 'establishment' types do not, however, and they are the majority. They've had many chances with Congressional veto-proof majorities to pass legislation to improve the immigration system but chose not to time after time after time. Term limits need to be enacted along with Senators once again being elected by State legislatures instead of popular vote to even begin to get some of these serious issues adressed in a meaningful way instead of 'kicking the can down the road' as has been the case.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    303. Re:Invading privacy? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Under CA's GDPR you have a good case against them as illegal merchandising of your PII.

      It will be interesting to see how the marketroids react to this threat to their income stream - and quite frankly the death of 1,000,000 papercuts is more terrifying to them than taking on a state entity or the ACLU.

    304. Re:Invading privacy? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "ANYONE can sit and take notes on your movements and locations."

      They can, however under California's GDPR laws - as with Europe's - they must have your explicit written permission to sell that information to 3rd parties - and those 3rd parties must have explicit written permission to sell it to 4rd parties. etc.

      Permission is not fungible and as with Europe, long-arm statute provisions mean that trading the information gained in California outside of California is not a way of performing an end run around the legal requirements.

      I'm waiting for this same law to be used against Linkedin - who despite GDPR laws in europe, haven't stopped their spamming.

    305. Re:Invading privacy? by swillden · · Score: 1

      We disagree on the impact of jail time. Especially given the green card offer, which would virtually guarantee they'd get caught. Oh, I suppose it might be possible to find some population of American ex-cons who really prefer to be in jail and would be willing to do it because their goal is to go back anyway. But it's not going to be a large population, and if the crime is a felony the three-strikes law would quickly remove them from the pool.

      Also, I don't think you've thought through the question of large fines. With enough money, you can immigrate legally regardless of your skills or almost anything else. With, say, $50K you can hire a good immigration lawyer who will get you through the tortuous hoops. So, set the fines high enough that people with enough wealth will prefer to immigrate legally -- as they already do.

      And even if I'm wrong on both of those, if your goal is to dramatically reduce illegal immigration, a few hundred -- or even a few thousand -- green cards per year for rats is well worth it, isn't it?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    306. Re: Invading privacy? by greenzrx · · Score: 1

      The first time it's a misdemeanor, the second time it's a felony.

    307. Re: Invading privacy? by spkay31 · · Score: 1

      "After all, without such perennial wedge issues to keep the electorate's attention, they might start seriously discussing things like term limits and auditing and opening up the Federal Reserve to oversight. Gotta keep the proles stirred up, angry, and thus reduced to functioning on their lizard brain in very predictable and usable ways" You got that right. And surprise - BOTH sides want that and always have.

    308. Re:Invading privacy? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Like I said upthread, if we adopted Canada's immigration policy that would make us 'nazis'...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    309. Re: Invading privacy? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "And on the plus side, the result would be more people following the law"

      It doesn't work like that. Anyone who thinks that speed limits control traffic speeds has their head up their ass.

      6 decades of traffic research across the world has shown that drivers go at the design speed of the road and if the speed limit deviates more than 10mph from the design speed, they'll ignore the posted limit and go with the design speed.

      The counterpoint is that when the speed limit _is_ close to the design speed of the road, then the "pace" of the road (the 2 standard deviations of speed either side of the free running average) is normally within 4-6mph of the average, so you don't have problems with "speed spread" and slow drivers forcing everyone to pass them (these are a greater traffic hazard than the occasional speeder as on a single carriageway they put _everyone_ on the wrong side of the road).

      That's why traffic speed enforcement is supposed to be rigidly controlled, traffic departments aren't allowed to set arbitrary speed limits, nor are they allowed to ticket every single motorist who exceeds a speed limit. Failing to keep enforcement under control turns it into cash-cows for local authorities and invariably leads to micromanaging control freaks ending up in positions of power - which has the documented perverse effect of markedly _decreasing_ road safety statistics.

    310. Re:Invading privacy? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Yes, but who is going to search 20 million rows of data to prosecute somebody for a license plate NOT connected to a crime?"

      having all the details of your movements for the last decade means that if/when you come to the attention of "tha authoritah"(*), you've already given them more than enough information for them to make up _something_ to charge you with, whether or not it's related to what they were investigating you for.

      And in the USA, they'll just make up a laundry list of fictional charges so you have no choice but to plea bargain because you'll go bankrupt trying to have them thrown out.

      "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged. - Cardinal Richelieu"

      (*) As in Eric "Respec ma Authoritah" Cartman - because that's pretty much how the USA is operating at the moment.

    311. Re: Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Why would anybody set a speed limit that wasn't the design speed of the road?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    312. Re:Invading privacy? by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      America has the largest % of people in jail, so it's doesn't seem that much of a deterrent for other crimes. Why is this one so different? $50k for a lawyer won't do anything if you can't qualify for other reasons.

      If it's really so cheap and easy at 50k, why do people bother to do this for a million?

      2. Any employee turning in their employer for failure to use e-Verify will have their status automatically transitioned to legal immigrant. This will apply to all other employees and their families in the US.

      This was the original proposal, all can be quite a big number.

      So a large group of people who were willing to spend a million and set up a business and hire 10 people and, and..would easily be able to find someone they could pay to set up 1 scam business and beat this system with much less hassle/effort.

      People with not much to lose and a lot to gain will take the chance for the money.

      People would also be willing to sacrifice themselves to bring over their families/friends, family members friends etc, etc.

      The business and person "caught", need not have any assets to lose. And the proposal doesn't even mention the green cards are contingent on a conviction anyway. So they could just flee first and avoid the jail and fine anyway.

    313. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence why now is the time to remove illegals and get control of our borders.

    314. Re: Invading privacy? by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Is that a kind of practise for when you remove all the poor people too?

    315. Re:Invading privacy? by swillden · · Score: 1

      America has the largest % of people in jail, so it's doesn't seem that much of a deterrent for other crimes.

      That's a result of our foolish war on drugs, not a general proof that punishment doesn't work.

      If it's really so cheap and easy at 50k, why do people bother to do this [uscis.gov] for a million?

      Because that million is invested, meaning unless they do it poorly it actually gets them a green card and grows their investment.

      This was the original proposal, all can be quite a big number.

      That wasn't my proposal, and I agree that it's excessive.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    316. Re:Invading privacy? by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work for drugs, but magically it will work this time...

      So invest your million into a different business, or something else. Probably they don't even have a million each, but it can be a big group pooling their money remember. You are much more free to do what you want without the restrictions if you had the million to invest anyway. Plus it was mostly just to show your original price isn't even in the ballpark of what people will spend for a green card already.

      It wasn't my proposal either. I was just pointing out that it was a stupid one.

    317. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      If you don't break laws, you never come to the attention of the authorities.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    318. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, nowhere did the GP saying anything about invading homes, search/seizures. Windy said that illegal immigrants should go home.
      You might want to go back on your lithium. It is available cheaply.
      In addition, take up a class on reading comprehension.

      And you never had an idea, let alone an intelligent idea.

    319. Re:Invading privacy? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Uh do you realize the stats of how illegals come here?
      30-40% come over the Mexican border.
      40-50% come here legally on visas and then just stay.
      10-30% come over the rest of the borders.

      If you stop the Mexican border, they will simply jump in boats and come around on many many more miles of coast line. Heck, we have Mexicans that are being dumped off in ALASKA, and they cut through Canada to get here. Do you intend to guard 100% of our border?
      Here you go. Mexico is ~2000 miles.
      Canada/lower 48 border is ~4000 miles.
      Canada/Alaska is ~1500 miles.
      Coastal is ~ 12,500 miles.
      Great Lakes is ~ 5000 miles

      IOW, there is a grand total of 25,000 miles of perimeter that would have to be protected. Think that we can afford that?
      I don't.

      Far far cheapest, non-obtrusive, and easiest way is to simply phase-in e-verify on all business and their employees, along with stop states from giving illegals money.
      We do that, and they go home, and few will come here.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    320. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I would like to see 100% of the American border guarded by:
      https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/shm.htm
      https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator-uav/
      https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-air-force-is-retiring-the-predator-drone-for-the-mo-1792832541
      https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=jil

      The fewer human beings that are involved in the defense of no-man's-land style borders, the better.

      But then again, I'm an anti-globalist who wants to stop smuggling and trade. Stopping immigration is just a byproduct of ending the first two.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    321. Re:Invading privacy? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Yeah right.

      All you need to do is voice doubts over the legality of the activities of some of the members.

      Remember the Committee for investigation of unamerican activities
      or the various proven allegations of corruption over the years?
      Or the persecution of members of the ACLU, etc?

    322. Re: Invading privacy? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Why indeed?

      "Cha ching"

    323. Re:Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      The first was looking for (and actually found) Americans working for foreign governments as spies (most people just remember the paranoia of their "name names and we'll investigate them too" strategy of justice, they forget that the Rosenblooms were actually convicted in a court of law and executed).

      Corruption is to be expected in a police state, and figured into the cost of doing business.

      The ACLU were in active revolt against the government for quite some time.

      NONE of these activities that you complain about being prosecuted for, are legal in a police state, nor are they acceptable in a rule of law based civilization. Even the corruption that normally comes with a police state, can be adjusted by simply making accepting a bribe a capital crime.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    324. Re: Invading privacy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      At which point the next level government higher up, in a true police state, executes all the local officials. Hardly worth it, don't you think?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    325. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh. Breaking immigration law is a civil offense. It don't make you a criminal.

    326. Re:Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you make too much sense for this site, get real.

    327. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those tariffs are about to fuck you over.

      Of course, you are too stupid to realize that just as you are too stupid to realize that the improvements to the economy have been on a line of the same slope since 2012. ie none of this is Trump.

      Trumpanzee is as Trumpanzee does.

      numbnuts

  2. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Solution: Do not come here illegally.

    1. Re:Good by sjames · · Score: 1

      And don't have anyone wrongly report a debt.

    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other solution is to make it legal.

    3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inviting hordes or unknowns, ISIS soliders, rapists, MS-13 gans, gangs, is not a solution. Did you ate too much of SJW propaganda?

    4. Re:Good by RedK · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is legal. Just have to follow the instructions.

      If your first act in a country is breaking its established laws, then you don't deserve to be there. Follow the law, apply for proper Visas, make sure they are valid, and go through proper ports of entry.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    5. Re:Good by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > And don't have anyone wrongly report a debt.

      That will be an interesting achievement if you don't have your own uniquely identifiable primary key for the debt reporting system.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Good by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
        With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
        Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
        The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
        Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
        I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

      Unless you're Mexican and it's after 2016,
      because... well Jesus"

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a solution, that's removing borders/law which exist for a good reason. Countries have borders and need to protect them and vet who is coming in.

      Having no borders/stops opens the doors for 100s of millions of poor people around the world flooding the US, no jobs, money, infrastructure housing - crime is suddenly rampant, local society disintegrates.

      If the left keep on pushing that, anyone with basic pattern recognition and ability to see consequences of actions will WALKAWAY very quickly from that group/ideology/party..

    8. Re:Good by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's my point.

    9. Re:Good by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      It *is* legal to immigrate.

    10. Re:Good by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Don't quote a poem as if it's law. That's much like people insisting "God works in mysterious ways" is part of the bible.

    11. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Solution: Do not come here illegally.

      Amazing how many Americans are in favour of the over-reach of law enforcement as long as it's against someone else.

      Yup, the land of the free and home of the brave ... where simpering cowards actually believe the bullshit line "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide".

      Not even 20 years ago Americans would be screeching and howling and saying "papers please, comrade" to shit like this and expressing outrage. Now everyone just says "well, good, this will keep me safe and secure so please spy on everybody".

      When privacy is eroded for one group, it's eroded for everybody.

      The indiscriminate collection of such information affects you, you're just to fucking stupid to realise it.

      9/11 turned America into a bunch of whiny cowards who want the police to monitor everything to keep them safe, but who no longer grasp the implications of that.

    12. Re:Good by RedK · · Score: 1

      Jim Acosta ? Is that you ?

      Mexicans after 2016 can absolutely come to the US. They just need to enter a proper port of entry of submit the proper requests to get a proper visa, and apply for citizenship, in line with everyone else wanting to get in.

      Trying to lie about Mexicans being barred entry into the US is why Trump got elected.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    13. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inviting hordes or unknowns, ISIS soliders, rapists, MS-13 gans, gangs, is not a solution. Did you ate too much of SJW propaganda?

      Yes, because none of those types are here legally, or *gasp* born here!

    14. Re:Good by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't quote a poem as if it's law. That's much like people insisting "God works in mysterious ways" is part of the bible.

      It's not law. It's a national symbol. It's a national expression of what is (or was) important to the country. It is very symbolic of how most people in this country originally came here. The majority of Americans have ancestors who came here- not by visa- not by invite- but by fleeing persecution elsewhere.

      But, let's forget history. Let's forget what this country is and was. Instead, let's just concentrate on ourselves and our own discomfort at people that look a little different to us, or speak a language we don't understand because we're too lazy to learn. Let's forget what and who built the country- because it is inconvenient to our bigotries and insecurities.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    15. Re:Good by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      You are the one spouting propaganda. Make weed legal if you want to stop MS-13. It will also cut down on a lot of the need for the refugees. And if we end our dependence on terrorism juice, ISIS will go broke. The solutions are simple if you aren't paid to not see them.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    16. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh good, so you admit that it isn't a law and therefore isn't binding.

    17. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ideally, yes, that would be the solution. However, it's relatively difficult to legally enter the United States compared to other countries. The laws have been increasingly draconian since 9/11, and it's not clear that they're actually doing much to increase security. Furthermore, the Trump administration wants to also reduce legal immigration under the pretext of protecting American jobs. The problem is that unemployment is extremely low right now, so it's unlikely that immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans. Immigrants also disproportionately become entrepreneurs, meaning that immigration also creates jobs. Border security isn't inherently a bad thing at all, but the overall policy of the Trump administration is problematic.

    18. Re:Good by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      The innoshent hash noshing to hidesh!

      Also how dare my ISP share records of my web traffic with the MPAA and RIAA!

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    19. Re:Good by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The deplorables have long seen the Statue of Liberty as a symbolic trojan horse from France and would like it done away with - perhaps melted down and turned into a more up-to-date monument to America's attitude toward immigrants, the Mexiphobia wall.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    20. Re: Good by RedK · · Score: 3, Informative

      However, it's relatively difficult to legally enter the United States compared to other countries. The laws have been increasingly draconian since 9/11

      The US has some of the least stringent immigration laws of any country. Canada has more restrictions on who can legally immigrate than the US for cripe's sake.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    21. Re:Good by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You make it sound as easy as getting a learner's permit at the DMV. It's actually a decades-long byzantine process:

      https://www.americanimmigratio...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    22. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we already have enough home grown problem people, why in hell would we want to import even more?

    23. Re:Good by RedK · · Score: 1

      One that is simpler and easier to navigate than most other sovereign nations in the world.

      What's your point ?

      Get in line, wait like everyone else. Skipping means you're likely to get deported and barred future entry. Coming back is likely to get you a felony prosecution. As it should for a sovereign nation.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    24. Re:Good by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      My point is that it's disingenuous to hide blanket opposition to practical legal immigration behind support for a legal immigration process that acts as a tarpit for legal immigration attempts.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    25. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of Americans have ancestors who came here LEGALLY- not by visa- not by invite- but by fleeing persecution elsewhere.

      Clarified that for you

    26. Re:Good by RedK · · Score: 1

      It is not a tarpit though. It's meant to prevent flooding of a host country with unproductive elements that are simply seeking a handout.

      There's limited needs and capacity in host countries, and as such, immigration factors those needs and that capacity instead of simply accepting anyone that applies.

      Sovereign. Nations.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    27. Re:Good by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Or maybe your just like the rest of the worlds nations. Opposed to unchecked immigration.

      There isn't room for everybody that wants in (duh), same as every other developed nation. So to get in, you need skills/money and no criminal record, same as every other developed nation.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    28. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the Federal government really wants to reduce legal immigration. start by cracking down on the companies exploiting H1B visas.

    29. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      restrictions on immigration to the US is a relatively recent thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    30. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you also discussed obtaining a visa and crossing the border at a port of entry. The US has increased the information it requires to obtain a visa and is relatively strict about admitting people at ports of entry. Try flying to the US versus European countries and you'll see there's a substantial difference.

      On the issue of immigration, it's not wrong to curtail illegal immigration. However, the fact that a person has been charged or even convicted of a crime does not eliminate the requirement to treat them humanely.

      I have no problem with expanding border security, though the wall is a joke. Address DACA by providing a path to citizenship for those brought to the US illegally through no fault of their own. Reduce illegal immigration and toughen penalties for employers who hire people who aren't legally allowed to work in the US.

      In exchange for curtailing illegal immigration, we should also expand legal immigration and speed up the process of obtaining citizenship. Immigration is generally a benefit to the economy. I'd also restrict H-1B but establish a similar program to allow in more unskilled temporary labor. Deport the illegal immigrants and keep them out while replacing them with temporary legal labor.

    31. Re: Good by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I really don't have any experience with how difficult it is or isn't to legally immigrate to any country. What I do have is friends who were legally in the immigration system for more than a decade before finally getting everything sorted out. One friend in particular immigrated as a young child, grew up here, married a citizen, had multiple children via that marriage, and wasn't granted citizenship until she was nearly 30. During that time her records were lost multiple time by the government, which required her to resubmit all her documentation and pay fees to correct their mistakes. At one point she was stopped by border patrol at an internal checkpoint and deported with her citizen children to Mexico because her records had been lost again.

      That all happened more than a decade ago but I doubt very much that it has gotten any better in the intervening years. In my opinion it shouldn't matter if other countries are worse about it than the USA. There is clearly lots of room for improvement and pointing out that others are even worse is a cop out. The poster you're replying to though was probably thinking about the European Union where moving between member countries is rather simple.

    32. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The concept of a state enforced border is illegal. Property is theft.

  3. Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Illegal == Criminal.

    They are not meant to be here and are actively breaking the law.

    They should be turned over to the authorities like any other criminal.

    Yes, it IS that simple.

    1. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure on any given day you are a criminal too as you are breaking all sorts of laws you didn't know existed. If people see this happening, you should do your part and call the local police on these people too.

    2. Re:Good for you sir! by Hydrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tell that to the Native Americans. I think they would have agreed with you and you wouldn't be here either.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished.
    3. Re: Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is liberals want to aide in breaking the law and actively encourage it.

    4. Re:Good for you sir! by Quzak · · Score: 1

      Good thing that the Vikings were here long before the so called "Native Americans"

      --
      Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
    5. Re:Good for you sir! by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Yes! They can tell you what happens when you let the wrong people in.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    6. Re:Good for you sir! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Informative

      Vikings: a little more than 1,000 years ago.
      Native Americans: a little more than 15,000 years ago.

      No doubt they Vikings did arrive on these shores; but the continent was already long since populated.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *facepalm*

      The vikings were not here before the native Americans.

      The Norse exploration of North America began in the late 10th century AD when Norsemen explored and settled areas of the North Atlantic including the northeastern fringes of North America.[1]

      The Clovis culture is a prehistoric Paleo-Indian culture, named for distinct stone tools found in close association with Pleistocene fauna at Blackwater Locality No. 1 near Clovis, New Mexico, in the 1920s and 1930s. It appears around 11,500–11,000 uncalibrated radiocarbon years before present[1] at the end of the last glacial period, and is characterized by the manufacture of "Clovis points" and distinctive bone and ivory tools. Archaeologists' most precise determinations at present suggest this radiocarbon age is equal to roughly 13,200 to 12,900 calendar years ago. Clovis people are considered to be the ancestors of most of the indigenous cultures of the Americas.[2][3][4]

    8. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure on any given day you are a criminal too as you are breaking all sorts of laws you didn't know existed.

      Here's a silly concept, if a law isn't worth enforcing, abolish it. I know it contrasts with your "everyone is guilty once they offend me" model of the world, but some of us would prefer to have knowable and consistent expectations.

    9. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We pushed the uncivilized garbage out of the way and created a great country for you to live in.

    10. Re:Good for you sir! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Tell that to the Native Americans. I think they would have agreed with you and you wouldn't be here either.

      Tell that to the Clovis people. I think they would have agreed with you and the "native" Americans wouldn't be here either. Unless you think they were taken away by actual aliens...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't that bright, huh.

    12. Re:Good for you sir! by Oligonicella · · Score: 1, Troll

      call the local police on these people too

      Agreed. However, you have no idea if poster *does* report other illegal activity.

      laws you didn't know existed

      Heh. You negated your point. Illegal immigrants know it exists, hence all the sneaking over the border.

    13. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are agreeing with him?

    14. Re:Good for you sir! by StormReaver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, it IS that simple.

      It is rarely that simple. Let's follow a simple sequence of events, then you can respond:

      1) A Mexican family crosses into the country illegally: husband, wife, and three babies.

      2) The husband gets a job (for the sake of argument, let's even stipulate that he gets a job that would have otherwise gone to an American, since it ultimately doesn't matter).

      3) Twelve years pass until the family is caught. The three children are fully indoctrinated Americans in every sense of the word, except for legal citizenship. They identify with being American, as that's how they were raised. They are culturally entirely American.

      4) The parents have been paying their taxes, abiding by all the same laws American's abide by, and have behaved entirely as any loyal American. But now they face the prospect of deportation back to a land that even the parents find unfamiliar, and that, to the children, is completely foreign.

      Forcefully sending that family to Mexico is a cruel punishment, even though the parents violated our immigration laws. The children did nothing wrong, and there is no benefit to separating them from their parents. The parents should be given the naturalization test and allowed to stay, and the children granted retroactive citizenship.

      While we can't, and shouldn't, open our borders to unconstrained immigration, neither should we be so rigid as to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

    15. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conquest isn't illegal immigration, it's conquest.

      But go ahead and start settling illegals on reservation lands and see what happens, boyo.

    16. Re: Good for you sir! by reanjr · · Score: 0

      Jaywalking or selling cigarettes can be a capital offense if you're black, and is a citiation at most for a white person. That's consistency for you, there, right?

    17. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parking in forbidden places is, by definition, forbidden. It is not criminal. Ergo, Illegal != Criminal.

    18. Re: Good for you sir! by reanjr · · Score: 1

      In a racist society (all of them), laws are intrinsically racist. Every law must be weighed against its inevitable use a tool of oppression. Because of this, most laws are morally and ethically reprehensible and indefensible and should be ignored by all thinking persons, especially those of us with an aegis of white skin. By normalizing the breaking of the law, it makes it harder to justify its misapplication by police.

    19. Re:Good for you sir! by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Counterpoint: Illegal !=Criminal. Speeding is illegal, but it is not criminal. Littering is illegal, but it is not criminal. In many states, cannabis is illegal, but it is not criminal. Defamation is illegal, but it is not criminal. Same with libel and slander. And so on and so forth.

    20. Re:Good for you sir! by MBGMorden · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're not helping your cause there. Indeed, the Native Americans didn't (or rather, couldn't) prevent wholesale immigration into their lands, and as a result they were replaced.

      If anything their plight should be viewed as a cautionary tale AGAINST illegal immigration.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    21. Re:Good for you sir! by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Most underrated comment in the thread. The more laws we throw on the books, the more we'll have selective enforcement. The phrase "there aught to be a law!" is extremely dangerous.

    22. Re:Good for you sir! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who the heck is so ignorant that they don't know crossing an international border without permission is illegal?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    23. Re: Good for you sir! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Not if you are white and mentally ill and in Portland, OR. There it is called "ignoring police orders" and is worthy of summary street execution without a trial.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    24. Re:Good for you sir! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      If #3 were true, then they would have long since gone to the trouble to get documented.
      If #4 were true, then they would have long since gone to the trouble to get documented.

      After all, since 2003, it's been "Papers, Please" at every job I've ever gotten, and as a contractor up until recently, I have had a lot of them. I keep my birth certificate, driver's license, and social security card in my wallet.

      And that is as a natural born citizen.

      Stop pretending that bringing children across an international border isn't within the very definition of child abuse.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    25. Re:Good for you sir! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Funny, you have to go to court over it. If it isn't criminal, why does traffic court exist?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    26. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if they didn't know they were breaking the law. You have a ridiculous argument. This is especially true for the felons who have been deported at least once already. The first offense is a misdemeanor, all subsequent violations are in fact felonies.

    27. Re:Good for you sir! by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      As of the last reports I've seen, the US birth rate is well below the required birthrate for a sustainable population and has been for several years. People decry large families - but the small family or no family choice is a real problem for demographics in our country.

      If you want a growing economy and better funding for Social Security and the like, you need new people to buy and produce. That hasn't been happening of late. There are limits to the pyramid scheme that is Social Security that even more workers can't fix, but that is largely due to politicians promising more and more to those who are retired already.

      We need to welcome the immigrants. Should everyone be welcomed? Of course not. But unless there is a significant reason - incontrovertible proof of terrorism or something equally heinous, the position should be - come! And we should be especially welcoming of those who have been hurt by war that they had nothing to do with.

      Everyone now here is an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants. Get off your high horses.

    28. Re:Good for you sir! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Clovis weren't the first Americans:
      https://www.smithsonianmag.com...

      EIther way, early human populations were much smaller and probably not competing for space in the same way of later populations.

    29. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the people who were here before the Clovis people.

      Paleoarcheology is such a trip. Just when you think you've got things figured out, people find bits of usually-not-quite-conclusive evidence of yet another "wave" that preceded the one we thought was first.

      People might have been first got here about 17k years ago, but then again, it might have been about 22k years ago. Or 24k ago. Then there's the totally-nutty and probably wrong slight evidence of 130k, where you can't even be sure that if it happened, they would have been "anatomically modern."

      It's that nuts. At some point I decided I had to STFU about "whose first?" routines because it's just too easy to step in it.

      Everyone just assumes that genetic tests were done on natives and they were Sibertian, right? Well, yes. Except they were just an admixture of Siberians, and Japanese, and Polynesian, and .. oh, I don't wanna shock you with all the places it goes. At least the Solutrean thing hasn't been confirmed, thankfully.

    30. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with anything other than deportation is it encourages others to follow step. We would effectively be telling them they did nothing wrong. In the meantime Asian PhD students working at companies are getting deported and H1B visas being tied up for an eternity before rejection. This is a huge slap in the faces of all those waiting in line legally. The only sensible action is to be tough on illegal immigration, better on merit based immigration. It's about time we put an end to being simply born on US soil = US citizen.

    31. Re: Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is liberals want to aide in breaking the law and actively encourage it.

      Samuel Adams: brewer, patriot!

      And now he's a liberal too. Hmm. I have to admit, I didn't see this coming (*).

      Hey, I wonder if I've finally figured it out. Are all patriots liberal? Is being liberal one of the basic requirements of being a patriot?

      You know what someone (probably liberals) should do? They should start some kind of new political party. Call it the Tea Party. And it would be all about breaking/resisting/repealing stupid laws that do more harm to society than good. Save money. Save people. Let the Republicans all move back to Russia.

      (*) Actually, I did; I just didn't see it very well. Many a time I've been told the distinction is quite subtle between conservatives and "classic liberals" -- that they really aren't quite the same, no matter how similar they appear.

    32. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US birth rate has collapsed because wages have collapsed since the 1970s. Why? Because outsourcing and illegal immigration have flooded the job market with cheap labor! Remove the illegal aliens and end the offshoring tax incentives, and wages will soar, family rates will grow, and all this crap about needing immigrants will be revealed as the 1%er propaganda bullshit it always was. E-verify needs to be mandatory, and any employer caught with illegals needs to face staggering fines.

      Plantation owners imported African slaves because whites charged "too much" for their labor.
      Railroad tycoons imported Chinese workers because Americans charged "too much" for their labor.
      Factories imported Irish because Americans charged "too much" for their labor.
      Mexicans are just the latest flavor of wage-busting useful idiots.

    33. Re:Good for you sir! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      And they wiped out the previous population when they got here. Who were genetically distinct, related to an ethnic population in Northern Japan.

      Nothing new. If you were born here, you're native.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    34. Re:Good for you sir! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You can't immegrate into Canada with any misdemeanor conviction that could be considered a felony in Canada. DUI is an example.

      You don't build a strong economy by letting in deadwood and criminals.

      The end run is 'refugee status'. Which is why that's lied about so much. Canada (for example) regularly rejects refugee applications. Sends them _home_.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    35. Re:Good for you sir! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If only you could look at the actual laws illegals are breaking. It's _criminal_. Second time's a felony.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    36. Re:Good for you sir! by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2

      Tell that to the Native Americans. I think they would have agreed with you and you wouldn't be here either.

      This seems reasonable on the surface but how far back does it go? My understanding is that the people here when the Europeans arrived were not the earliest, or original, inhabitants. If you're familiar with Mexico you know that some are very indian while others are more European. Do we screen them all to see who stays and who goes? What's the criteria? As with so many slogans "Tell that to the Native Americans" is neither practical nor even what they would desire. I'd be perfectly willing to pull up stakes and move but I'm 100% sure that the native americans as a group have zero interest in gong back to stone age existence. Doubly so for those with casinos. Instead they imagine a scenario where they get to have their cake and eat it too.

    37. Re:Good for you sir! by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2

      Yes, it IS that simple.

      It is rarely that simple. Let's follow a simple sequence of events, then you can respond:

      1) A Mexican family crosses into the country illegally: husband, wife, and three babies.

      2) The husband gets a job (for the sake of argument, let's even stipulate that he gets a job that would have otherwise gone to an American, since it ultimately doesn't matter).

      3) Twelve years pass until the family is caught. The three children are fully indoctrinated Americans in every sense of the word, except for legal citizenship. They identify with being American, as that's how they were raised. They are culturally entirely American.

      4) The parents have been paying their taxes, abiding by all the same laws American's abide by, and have behaved entirely as any loyal American. But now they face the prospect of deportation back to a land that even the parents find unfamiliar, and that, to the children, is completely foreign.

      Forcefully sending that family to Mexico is a cruel punishment, even though the parents violated our immigration laws. The children did nothing wrong, and there is no benefit to separating them from their parents. The parents should be given the naturalization test and allowed to stay, and the children granted retroactive citizenship.

      While we can't, and shouldn't, open our borders to unconstrained immigration, neither should we be so rigid as to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

      Your narrative is completely sympathetic to the illegal immigrants yet doesn't account for the losses to actual citizens. For example class sizes were increased so their citizens children's education suffered. The children had to attend ESL classes at extra expense. Traffic and housing were slightly impacted for the worse. You may think these factors don't matter, and for sample size 1 it wouldn't, but when you have millions of illegals it adds up. Make immigration actually work for the existing citizens and they would embrace it.

    38. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The parents have been paying their taxes"
      How? Why? Sales tax and the like, sure but Fed & State income tax? If you not caught via either Rev. Service then you have little concern for a Mall license plate scanner.

      "The children did nothing wrong"
      Agreed, should be upset with parents for that.

    39. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did the husband get a job? Most likely by identity fraud. The husband committed most of these federal crimes: 1) use of a Social Security number not assigned to him; 2) unlawful use and possession of a fake social security card; 3) making a false claim of being a citizen or lawful permanent resident alien on an Immigration I-9 form; 4) possession of a fake permanent resident card to gain employment in the United States; 5) falsely claiming to be an United States citizen. If convicted of those crimes, an individual can spend several decades in federal prison.

      Meanwhile, the person's identity he assumed now has to live with a screwed up tax and credit record.

    40. Re:Good for you sir! by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Forcefully sending that family to Mexico is a cruel punishment, even though the parents violated our immigration laws. The children did nothing wrong, and there is no benefit to separating them from their parents. The parents should be given the naturalization test and allowed to stay, and the children granted retroactive citizenship.

      I agree the children did nothing wrong but the crimes of the parents should not grant the children citizenship. If the parents stole money and used it to buy a house would it be "cruel punishment" to remove the children from the house? The parents' "stole" citizenship and that does not mean the children get to benefit from it. If we allow children that were brought in illegally to retain this stolen citizenship then we are rewarding criminal behavior. It was not the government that imposed "cruel punishment" on the children, it was the parents. Had they stayed in the country they had citizenship then the children would not be in this situation. If the parents had immigrated legally then the children would not be in this situation.

      Let's look at this part specifically:

      The children did nothing wrong, and there is no benefit to separating them from their parents.

      I agree, the children should not be separated from the parents, they should be deported with the parents. Children born in the USA of illegal aliens should no longer be considered citizens of the USA. At least one parent should be a citizen, and I'd even consider that both parents should be citizens before the children be considered a citizen.

      If the parents wanted to be law abiding citizens then they are off to a bad start by being criminals in the USA for years. We don't typically allow criminals to take the naturalization exam. Those that committed a felony cannot be citizens, and multiple violations of immigration law is a felony. Gaining employment under false pretenses is a crime, perhaps a felony. To pay income taxes means having a social security number or tax identification number, and illegal aliens have neither. So either they weren't paying their taxes or they paid taxes under identity fraud. Again, the parents are likely felons and felons are not allowed to be naturalized.

      The parents should be punished and deported. Any "cruelty" that is imposed on the children for being deported or being separated from the parents because they were imprisoned was the fault of the parents. If we don't punish these people as spelled out in the law then we only encourage more law breaking.

      If the parents don't want to be separated from their children then the first thing they should do is NOT BREAK THE LAW! It's common knowledge that felons are separated from their children by going to prison. It's common knowledge that multiple violations of immigration law is a felony. Felons go to prison and therefore are separated from their children.

      Again, if they don't want to be separated from their children then they should not have broken the law. The government didn't separate the children from the parents, the parents separated THEMSELVES from their children by breaking the law.

      Don't give me this "think of the children" bullshit! If the parents thought of their children then they would not have this problem. Maybe the parents SHOULD be separated from the children. If they were careless enough to carry their children in the USA without documents, kept them from their homeland for over a decade, had them live under a lie for this time, then they are unfit parents.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    41. Re:Good for you sir! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      2) How did he get a job that can support himself, a wife, and 3 children?

      3) No one cares about your plea to emotion.

      4) How have they been paying taxes? Sales tax, sure. But other taxes require valid identification (drivers license, social security number, etc.). I know CA now lets you get a drivers license without being a citizen, but not every state is CA.

    42. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it isn't cruel punishment. They broke the law by entering illegally. They continued to break the law by taking a job. The punishment for that is quite clear: deportation. While I agree that the kids didn't do anything wrong, they can complain to mom and dad about putting them in that situation. The US is quite clear as to what's going to happen and it is both legal and moral.

    43. Re:Good for you sir! by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      For example class sizes were increased so their citizens children's education suffered.

      Class sizes will always be increasing. They have been increasing for many years, even in places where illegal immigration is essentially a non-issue. The same thing holds true for traffic and housing. None of that is relevant.

      I am sympathetic to illegal immigrants who have improved themselves, their families, and their communities after their arrivals.

      Don't forget the entire reason for my posting: to rebut the notion that all illegal immigration can be properly handled by simplistic reasoning. It's rarely simple.

    44. Re:Good for you sir! by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      If the parents stole money and used it to buy a house would it be "cruel punishment" to remove the children from the house? The parents' "stole" citizenship and that does not mean the children get to benefit from it.

      That's completely irrelevant. If the parents came here illegally while the woman was pregnant, and managed to stay within the U.S. border long enough to give birth, their child would automatically be a U.S. citizen (see the 14th Amendment). That applies even if the parents stole money, bought a house, gave birth in the U.S., and then got caught.

      Children born in the USA of illegal aliens should no longer be considered citizens of the USA. At least one parent should be a citizen, and I'd even consider that both parents should be citizens before the children be considered a citizen.

      Fortunately, our Constitution was amended by people with more wisdom and compassion than that.

    45. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4) The parents have been paying their taxes,

      why do people always argue that illegal immigrants pay taxes. They do not. They have no SSN, no tax ID. they do not pay taxes. period.

    46. Re:Good for you sir! by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      If #3 were true, then they would have long since gone to the trouble to get documented.

      And face the likelihood of being deported? It's much safer for them to just keep their heads down, do whatever they have to do to get by, and hope that our political leaders gain some wisdom as they age. Many of the postings in this thread are excellent proof that the illegal immigrants are choosing the smartest options under their circumstances.

    47. Re:Good for you sir! by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      2) How did he get a job that can support himself, a wife, and 3 children?

      Circumstances are wide and deep, and I (and everyone else) can't possibly imagine them all. It is also irrelevant to this discussion. Find the start of this thread to remind yourself of its reason.

      3) No one cares about your plea to emotion.

      Which is bizarre, because every single law ever created in every jurisdiction that has ever existed was done so to protect someone's emotions. Murder, rape, stealing, immigration, payroll, estate planning, family planning, taxes, etc. Every. Single. One.

    48. Re:Good for you sir! by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      For example class sizes were increased so their citizens children's education suffered.

      Class sizes will always be increasing. They have been increasing for many years, even in places where illegal immigration is essentially a non-issue. The same thing holds true for traffic and housing. None of that is relevant.

      I am sympathetic to illegal immigrants who have improved themselves, their families, and their communities after their arrivals.

      Don't forget the entire reason for my posting: to rebut the notion that all illegal immigration can be properly handled by simplistic reasoning. It's rarely simple.

      I think you're deliberately ignoring the impact of a few million extra people on traffic, schools, and such. We're literally talking millions of people. It is extremely relevant. Cavalierly waving it away as 'not relevant' is precisely why Trump won in 2016.

    49. Re:Good for you sir! by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      4) The parents have been paying their taxes,

      why do people always argue that illegal immigrants pay taxes. They do not. They have no SSN, no tax ID. they do not pay taxes. period.

      For the same reason they conflate legal immigrants with illegal immigrants - because they are willing to lie since they think the ends justifies the means. I've never heard a person be honest and clear about the numbers when they are advocating for mass illegal immigration. They grossly under estimate the amnesty numbers to make them more palatable, add in the taxes paid but not the costs to welfare and other government programs to make it seem like a win when in fact it's a huge loss, conflate legal immigrant crime statistics with illegal immigrant crimes to make it look lower. The number of lies illegal immigrant supporters use is amazing.

    50. Re:Good for you sir! by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, our Constitution was amended by people with more wisdom and compassion than that.

      Don't the people in the USA legally deserve some compassion? Without having gone through some vetting process we don't know if these illegal aliens have the best intentions in mind for the USA. Having entered illegally it would seem they might not have the best intentions.

      That's completely irrelevant. If the parents came here illegally while the woman was pregnant, and managed to stay within the U.S. border long enough to give birth, their child would automatically be a U.S. citizen (see the 14th Amendment). That applies even if the parents stole money, bought a house, gave birth in the U.S., and then got caught.

      That has been the standard in the past but that does not mean that has to be the standard in the future. A diplomat visiting the USA giving birth to a child does not grant the child citizenship, and neither does the child of a member of a foreign enemy invasion have automatic citizenship. There is already a standard for children being born here not being granted citizenship, apply that same standard to illegal aliens. Maybe the parents don't need to be citizens but at least need to be lawful residents. An alien in this nation should not automatically be allowed to claim citizenship for the child, especially those here unlawfully.

      As wise authors of the 14th Amendment they left "wiggle room" in that a person must be both born in and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the USA. An illegal alien is a subject of a foreign nation by the nature of being born of a citizen of another nation. That newborn child is a citizen of the same nation of the parent or parents. That child may have the right of residency, but that is distinct from being a citizen.

      What's happening is that our laws are being used against us. We are having people violate our immigration laws, and if they violate them to the point of having their child born here then they are rewarded by having their child gaining citizenship. They are violating our laws for the sole purpose of violating them again and continually. They have their anchor baby and with our "compassion" of not separating the parents from the child we reward the criminal behavior of the parents by allowing them to stay in the USA. Well, "compassion" does not require we reward criminal behavior. The child can stay with the parents, just not in the USA.

      Granting citizenship based only on being born inside the borders is actually quite rare throughout the world. We are not obligated to grant these children citizenship. There is a legal mechanism to not grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens and still be within the bounds of the 14th Amendment.

      I'd have more "compassion" for granting citizenship if this wasn't being abused to the level it has been. Again, we are not obligated to grant these children citizenship. By granting citizenship we are rewarding criminal behavior and we are having our "compassion" rewarded with waves of illegal aliens breaking our laws, imposing themselves on us, creating burdens for the border patrol, emergency rooms, public schools, and getting very little in return. If we stop rewarding this illegal behavior then we should see this anchor baby behavior end and the burdens we bear for this reduced.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    51. Re:Good for you sir! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      And face the likelihood of being deported?
       
      They made that decision when they crossed the border without permission.

      They're child abusers. They deserve to have their children taken away.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    52. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's even evidence people were crossing the seas 60K years ago...

    53. Re: Good for you sir! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What? Do you have a link for that?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    54. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parents have been paying their taxes, abiding by all the same laws American's abide by[...]

      All laws except for one.

    55. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sending them home is a cruel punishment? What moronic crap is this? This is what must and should be done.

    56. Re:Good for you sir! by WeezulDK · · Score: 1

      Here are the problems with your argument:
      1) Illegally entering the country is a crime. It all starts with this. Nothing you do, nothing you say, nothing you think, no amount of "but muh chillins!" feel-good argument will change the fact that you STARTED WITH A CRIMINAL ACT. This alone invalidates EVERY OTHER SINGLE ARGUMENT made.
      2) You're assuming that if they don't get caught, they have a right to be here. Again, fallacious argument. See point #1.
      3) I guarantee that a Mexican family illegally crossing the border 12 years later aren't calling themselves "American", they'll identify as "Mexican", or whatever flavor of liberal hyphenation or euphemism you want to foist on us, like "undocumented" or "immigrant". The problem is legally, they are aliens, and illegal status due to the fact they are not here with the permission or authorization of the US Government. Nothing you do or say will change that. See point #1.
      4) The husband working is already breaking ANOTHER set of laws regarding employment in the country, and those employing him are ALSO breaking the law. If you are here illegally, then everything you DO is now illegally done as well: working, living, voting, whatever... SEE POINT #1. (Are we sensing a pattern here yet?)
      5) I guarantee you the parents have NOT been paying the appropriate taxes any citizen or legal status national would be paying, or if they are attempting to do so, they're probably committing the crimes of forgery, identity theft, or misreprensenting themselves to the government in some way. So see point #1
      6) Just because they "identify" as American doesn't MAKE them American. As Tyler Durden says: "Sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken." Any argument in this vein is an argument trying to appeal to your better nature, when it should infuriate the listener, and if you're an actual law-abiding "came in the right way" immigrant, it should make you even MORE pissed off, because, they entered ILLEGALLY. So again... SEE POINT #1!
      7) Your statement about just giving them the test to become citizens is a slap in the face of everyone who comes here legally. It invalidates the rule of law, rewards illegal behavior, and is the equivalent of letting a bank robber go free with the money after being caught. It's not right, it provides NO deterrent to future incursions into the country, and quite simply, is not how this whole legal immigration thing works! So again, see point #1

      I swear, every time I see arguments like yours, it makes my blood boil that people are that weak-willed and cowardly that they can't actually stand up for the law and their country, for fear of being called a "racist" or a "bigot". It's not about race, it's not about bigotry (at least for those of us who want the law enforced). Maybe for the more liberal amongst the country who feel they can be so morally superior by having their own brown slaves working as their nannies or lawnscapers and warning them when "la migra" comes a'callin!

      You guys are all like "meh, they got over the border, it's too hard to send them back so they should just stay" (See Point #1 above)

      NO! ... NO NO NO NO NO NO HELL FRICKIN' NO!!! You are NOT entitled to stay in the country if you entered illegally. GAME OVER, do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dollars, YOU LOSE! Crying about it or "think of the children" will NOT change the law or the consequences. They were COUNTING on pussies like you when they entered the country illegally!!!

      How about you put on your big boy pants, stop being such a god damn wimp, and be brave enough to say: "This is America, we have rules and laws that we all must follow. If you break the rules/laws, you will have to suffer the consequences. You broke our rules, you entered illegally, it doesn't matter if you and your children were here for 5 days or 5 years, GET THE HELL OUT and COME BACK IN THE RIGHT WAY!" It is not immoral to PUNISH the GUILTY. It is not CRUEL to punish the GUILTY. Deportation is the consequences of illegal entry. You broke the law. You have to pay the penalty, and the penalty is GTFO!

      How about you go back and do some actual reading of the laws of our northern and southern neighbors: They actually ENFORCE their immigration laws!

    57. Re:Good for you sir! by WeezulDK · · Score: 1

      Most Americans support your argument if you agree to use and support ONLY the word "LEGAL" or "DOCUMENTED" in front of every iteration of immigrant or "immigration" you utter in regards to people who would come here. People in this country who love the rule of law are NOT against LEGAL immigration or LEGAL immigrants... That's the difference.

    58. Re:Good for you sir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citizenship is not something you can "steal". There is an infinite amount of it. It's paramount to calling breathing on someone's property "stealing air".

  4. ICE, ICE baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ICE, ICE baby.

    A way to help get rid of criminals smuggling themselves into a country, but also protect privacy, perhaps there should be some middle party, or reverse flow of information - e.g. list of all LEGAL plates (without any personal information with them!) and if you spot a car NOT on then list, THEN you can call help to apprehend illegals.

    1. Re:ICE, ICE baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, license plate theft on the rise in CA.

  5. Re:Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for your work.

  6. Re: Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for doing your part. Illegals are illegal! They need to leave.

  7. Re:Same here by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think that's a great idea.

    I mean, those damned spacecraft really mess up my Wifi. You'd think an advanced civilization would have things cleaned up a bit.

    Thanks for the tip.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  8. Good thing malls are dying by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since malls are dying, I guess the problem will eventually solve itself. Thanks Amazon.

    1. Re:Good thing malls are dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since malls are dying, I guess the problem will eventually solve itself. Thanks Amazon.

      While repulsive, there is nothing to do other than accurately report on it. Maybe it will cause them to change. Now if they are violating a law that requires disclosure....

    2. Re:Good thing malls are dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tomorrow's headline: Amazon is forwarding addresses of customers with Spanish sounding surnames to ICE.

    3. Re:Good thing malls are dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a good thing to tell the Mall management.

    4. Re: Good thing malls are dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...until they start opening supermalls (that double as shipping warehouses) to go along with their new shipping startup and brick and mortar grocery stores and book stores.

    5. Re:Good thing malls are dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since malls are dying,

      Netcraft confirms it! Malls are dying.

    6. Re:Good thing malls are dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your Amazon/Uber/etc.. drivers will be using dashcams which will be reporting all the plates they see. These types of things only get used more and more. When was the last time you audited your free dashcam software? Your paid dashcam is likely doing it now or in the near future. Even GPS devices were reporting back your movements soon after they became popular.

      The software, processing power, and bandwidth are all cheaper than the commissions you can get for reporting someone and data mining for profiling purposes.

    7. Re:Good thing malls are dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't delude yourself, Amazon tracks you too.

      (Posting anonymously because already modded)

  9. East German Surveillance State has come by BoRegardless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here to the US.

    1. Re:East German Surveillance State has come by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry to disappoint, the East Germans were never this good.

    2. Re:East German Surveillance State has come by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      The East German secret police, the Stasi didn't have all the neat technology that the USA spooks have . . .

      . . . otherwise . . . the new Germany States, formerly East German States, would still be East Germany.

      Although the roles of the ICE and the Stasi are/were quite a bit different . . . the ICE is concerned about keeping non-citizens out of the country . . . the Stasi was concerned about keeping citizens in the country.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:East German Surveillance State has come by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Sorry to disappoint, the East Germans were never this good.

      Don't worry, all the East Germans have been deported by ICE.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:East German Surveillance State has come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actual the German wall fell due to a politician who misspoke (like a typo); he meant he was hoping in the future they could take down the wall, but he said and it was interpreted that the wall was being removed right now. Everyone went to the streets for this historic occasion and become part of history by taking down the wall.

      The soldiers guarding the wall had heard the rumours and it became a rather ambivalent situation where they could not in good conscious defend it aggressively.

    5. Re:East German Surveillance State has come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds dual purpose to me.

    6. Re:East German Surveillance State has come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The East German secret police, the Stasi didn't have all the neat technology that the USA spooks have . . .

      . . . otherwise . . . the new Germany States, formerly East German States, would still be East Germany.

      Although the roles of the ICE and the Stasi are/were quite a bit different . . . the ICE is concerned about keeping non-citizens out of the country . . . the Stasi was concerned about keeping citizens in the country.

      ICE is also concerned with keeping citizens in the country whenever they can. It make citizens easier to harass and controlled. Don't be fooled.

      The Trump wall is as much about keeping people out as it is about keeping people in. It's easier to abuse the citizenry when
                1: Most of the citizenry can't leave and
                2: No one from outside can come in to witness the harassment.

    7. Re:East German Surveillance State has come by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      They only lacked the modern technology. The Stasi had plenty of intention, cleverness, and effort.

      The Stasi created 'effing scent records on problematic people, just in case they might want to track you down with hounds some day. I am not kidding. You might sit on a bus seat one day. When you left the bus, a cloth would be place where it might absorb just a tiny tiny bit of that perspiration that leaked through your shirt. The cloth is popped into a sealed jar and carefully heat treated to stabilize the scent, labelled, filed on a shelf. Then two years later, when you run for it out of fear of arrest, your stored scent is pulled off the shelf to prime the tracking dogs.

      Of course, the movie The Circle shows us how actual canines are probably no longer necessary.

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Illegal Immigrants by sickre · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why defend Illegal Immigration?

    1. Re:Illegal Immigrants by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      Better question: Why so much grief, hatred, and outrage over a relative non-issue?

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    2. Re:Illegal Immigrants by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Better question: Why so much grief, hatred, and outrage over a relative non-issue?

      Yeah, the MSM says that so it must be true. Then why are human trafficking arrests at an all time high? Do you support human trafficking and child prostitution? Do you realize that gangs use unrelated adults to pose as parents to smuggle children across the border for the sex trade or slave labour? They are called coyotes.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    3. Re:Illegal Immigrants by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      Nope. The article makes a solid argument based on linked citations. That's why it's more reliable than other sources of news that do not. It names the specific claims made to justify that there is some emergency at the border that must be dealt with by extreme means and argues why they are false.

      Yeah, the "MSM" said something that doesn't jive with your world view. Tough shit. It doesn't mean it must be wrong.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
  12. Re:Same here by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    or speaks something that is not English

    I hope this is a joke- no one is that foolish. If you call every time you hear someone speaking a foreign language you're wasting ICE's time. Tourists, visas, legal immigrants... plenty of people don't speak English in this country for many legitimate reasons. Heck, sometimes I don't speak English.

    If you're reporting everyone that doesn't speak English- you'll pretty quickly find yourself in hot water with ICE for wasting their time.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  13. This is somehow abnormal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to America. Shopping centers have been sending plate info to federal agencies for years.
    FBI, for potential wanted criminals.
    Going to a gun show? Your plate numbers will be sent to BATFE and the FBI.
    And so on.
    This is just one more government agency. That they're doing their job, the job they were ordered to do during the Obama administration but never got around to doing. I hope they continue doing their jobs to their best of their ability and remove even more people violating the laws of our country.
    Coming to the United States of America isn't some sort of God-given universal right for everyone under the sun. We have borders for a reason--to keep out exactly the sort of criminals coming here. They aren't sending doctors, lawyers, and engineers up here--they're sending a mob of unemployed poor (so called "refugees" are more aptly named "economic migrants" who come here specifically to get on welfare) and criminals (MS13, to name one such group).
    There is a legal process to get into the country--and while it takes time and some money, it does work. If you do not go through the process of entering legally, you are here illegally--thus, an illegal alien. You have no protections or rights under the US Constitution, at all.
    Border Patrol's job is to patrol the borders and keep them out there. The job of ICE is to patrol the interior of the country, find them where they've gone to ground, and remove them.

  14. I donâ(TM)t see a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cops scan license plates all the time to find crooks. Stores use cameras. Casinos profile faces to stop card counters. No issue here, illegals are illegal and therefore crooks.

  15. Like I needed another excuse... by hyades1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does anybody believe only one real estate corporation is giving away or selling this kind of information? I don't have any legal problems, but I resent being spied on.

    So thanks for giving me one more good reason not to visit the US. I'll just spend my money right here in Canada, where at least some pathetic vestiges of actual freedom still survive.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Like I needed another excuse... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Just curious, is there a Canadian law or precedent that states that a third party cannot take and use a photograph from a public vantage point?

      My understanding from the 'photographer's rights" talk I heard decades ago (it's a bit hazy though) was that Canada was quite comparable to the US in terms of where you were allowed to take pictures from.

    2. Re:Like I needed another excuse... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      It isn't far off, but this kind of data gathering would put them in serious trouble with the Privacy Commissioner. It isn't taking the picture. It's how the information the picture contains is used.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    3. Re:Like I needed another excuse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just spend my money right here in Canada, where at least some pathetic vestiges of actual freedom still survive.

      Hey there -- careful!

      If you're Canadian, you can be jailed for online hate speech, and the definition of hate speech is rather dubious over there.

      Just be careful with all those freedoms, buddy.

    4. Re:Like I needed another excuse... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      My understanding from the US (in a past life as a photography geek) was that once you take a picture from a legal vantage point, both property rights and copyright vest in the photographer.

    5. Re:Like I needed another excuse... by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 1

      Up to a point, I believe that's true. But there are legal vantage points from which it is possible to take illegal photographs. I'm not sure what happens in such cases.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
  16. private property is not a public highway by aurizon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is no need to display your licence number when on private property, so a dash activated hinged flap could be used to hide plate data. They could snap plate data on the way into the mall, but that could involve placing the camera on someone else's private property - who might decline permission.
    That said, I do not mind plate scanners being use to find stolen cars or payment defaulted cars (3 months arrears minimum)

    1. Re:private property is not a public highway by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      There is no need to display your licence number when on private property, so a dash activated hinged flap could be used to hide plate data.

      Obscuring your plate may be illegal, and at best, not displaying a license plate may get your vehicle towed for abandonment. In California it's legal to cover your car, but illegal to obscure your license plate. People get around this by writing their license plate number on their cover. I don't think your cover will be much help if you write the plate number on it...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:private property is not a public highway by aurizon · · Score: 1

      Might be true about abandoned aspect, but usually cars need to collect dust?
      "California it's legal to cover your car, but illegal to obscure your license plate " on private property?

    3. Re:private property is not a public highway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd better paint your plate number on your garage door!

    4. Re:private property is not a public highway by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "California it's legal to cover your car, but illegal to obscure your license plate " on private property?

      In theory, a tow-away under these conditions requires a complaint from the property owner, and 72 hours to pass. In practice, the cops tow whatever they want. I lost my 1960 Dodge Dart because they tagged it on one block, I moved it, and then they towed it anyway. Santa Cruz PD committed grand theft auto against me, but I couldn't afford to fight it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:private property is not a public highway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would anybody be against removing people that are on the take?? bizarre!

    6. Re:private property is not a public highway by aurizon · · Score: 1

      Sounds like abuse. Did you get it back? Or did the fees and fines exceed the value?

    7. Re:private property is not a public highway by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      No need until the property owner has your car towed. Questionable whether you can even store a car on your own property without a plate since government can regulate down the smallest detail your use of what is really state-owned land.

    8. Re:private property is not a public highway by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Sounds like abuse.

      Abuse is SCPD's middle name. The first time I was ever pulled over was on Mission St. (hwy 1) in Santa Cruz. I was pulled over for literally nothing, just a suspicious-looking-car check. Couldn't see the lights because on that part of Mission St., there's a ton of streetlights, and my rear window was covered in condensation so the result was that there was light flashing before me even before they got behind me. Then they both approached from the same side of the vehicle at the same time because they were incompetents (anyone who's played Police Quest knows better) and they both pointed their guns at my face, with fingers on triggers. As a member of a gun-owning family, I knew that you don't point guns at anything you don't plan to shoot, and you don't put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire.

      Did you get it back? Or did the fees and fines exceed the value?

      I couldn't even afford to go to court over it. Good-bye, car! That was a gift from my father, too.

      Cops act like shitlords, then wonder why people don't trust them, or even hate them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:private property is not a public highway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually shopping centers are considered public in some sense. Petitioners use this argument when asked to leave the premises. In 1979 the California Supreme Court said that the free speech provisions of the California constitution — which are more expansive than those of the federal constitution — protect “reasonably exercised” speech and petitioning activities in privately owned shopping centers. Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal. 3d 899, 910 (1979).

    10. Re:private property is not a public highway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might be true about abandoned aspect, but usually cars need to collect dust?

      it's their property and they can tow any vehicle they want to, whenever they want to

    11. Re:private property is not a public highway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In civilized places, if you aim a gun you don't plan to fire, you're gone, out of there, not employed anymore, etc. Too bad California is just as much of a sh**hole as Florida.

  17. So, "immigrants"? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My wife is an immigrant, is she at risk?

    [Irvine Company] is putting not only immigrants at risk

    No, they're not endangering anybody, which is the implication. They're making it more likely that ILLEGAL immigrants will be caught. There's a choice that they can make, which is not enter the country illegally.

    I have friends who are illegal immigrants. It's difficult and I don't blame them for being here. But they know the risk that they take by even being here, and they've decided it's worth it for their kids to grow up here instead of the home country (which is a complete shithole, not the fault of the US).

    The left will only continue to hurt themselves by trying to conflate legal immigration with illegal immigration. "Immigrants" don't have anything to worry about unless they're also "illegal".

    1. Re: So, "immigrants"? by cdwiegand · · Score: 1

      Right up until that company gets hacked. Then the data on where you go and where you shop is out. Data that doesnt need be collected in the first place for their business.

      They may, as privately held properties, have the right to collect the data, for now, but by doing so they incur extra liability if they inadvertently leak that data about their customers. Not necessarily legal liability, but PR liability. Just because someone is legal doesnâ(TM)t mean one should do it, or that it has no consequences.

      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
    2. Re:So, "immigrants"? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My wife is an immigrant, is she at risk?

      Yes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit dragnets catch people that are legal immigrants too. Its easy to find stories of even citizens being 'caught' and deported. There are no need for dragnets, especially on private property. What does the mall have to gain by calling the cops on its customers?

    4. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      My wife is an immigrant, is she at risk?

      "Immigrants" don't have anything to worry about unless they're also "illegal".

      For now that's true; however we've seen how nationalistic and bigotry have led to problems in other countries. Be it early 20th century Zimbabwe, or 1930's Germany, or... modern day Israel. Being a legal immigrant isn't always a guarantee that things won't eventually go pear-shaped if a worrying trend of nationalism or bigotry is left unchecked. You never know when overzealous action against illegals will change to outright hostility to all imigrants Especially if you're tracking a database of immigrant movements (even legal ones).

      We have over 2000 years of history where immigrants have suddenly been turned on by their hosts. Earliest example I can think of is before the Pontic wars when Mithridates decided there were too many Romans living in his lands and had them all killed one night.

      You could probably find dozens of examples throughout history of times when anti-immigrant sentiment suddenly resulted in a reverse of status of peoples settled in a region (frequently there originally with the blessing of the government). Fortunately, I think there are too many stable people in the US to allow this to happen now- but put a few more people like Trump in positions of power and you could find legal immigrants having their legal status reversed.

      Technically, any legal infraction is reason enough to allow someone to have their legal status revoked. In today's surveillance state, it wouldn't be hard to get anyone booked on some obscure law.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    5. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trouble with this logic is that although it is factually very accurate, it ignores the human condition.

      If you give an illegal the choice between losing their children, being sent home and potentially killed, v.s., living an illegal lifestyle, you're creating a desperate underclass in society.

      So when you get in a fender bender with an illegal driver without insurance, a license and carrying no ID, remember, if you insist on calling the police, they might need to kill you.

      Great society you're striving for.

    6. Re:So, "immigrants"? by RedK · · Score: 4, Informative

      Technically, any legal infraction is reason enough to allow someone to have their legal status revoked.

      This is false. In the US, for one, only Naturlized citizens can see their citizenship revoked. That means if you're born here, you have birthright citizenship and can never be made to be non-citizen. There's 4 specific things that can lead to "Denaturalization" :

      - Lying on your citizenship application.
      - Refusing to conform to a congressional subpoena
      - Joining a subversive group within 5 years of being naturalized (Think ISIS, Al-Qaeda)
      - Dishonorable military discharge.

      A simply felony or misdemeanor ? Nope. You are either grossly misinformed or fear mongering all over this discussion. Which is it ?

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    7. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      There've been stories out lately about citizens getting rounded up and children separated, and attempts to denaturalize citizens. I haven't had the chance to look into the veracity of these claims, but if my spouse was an immigrant I'd be more motivated.

    8. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except there is no due process to actually decide if detainee are illegal or not. Neither legal representation nor interpreters are required during a deportation hearing. It's entirely possible for a legal immigrant who doesn't have proper documentation on his/her person to be deported. Welcome to the world where we must all have our "papers" all the time.

    9. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny because you people always say "they'd never target me and mine!" and then inevitable they DO target you and yours and you come crying "I never saw this coming!" It's been a pretty common theme this past year, one would think you'd have learned better by now.

    10. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only one side is trying to confuse legal and illegal immigration and it isn't the Republicans. Republicans are crystal clear on the difference between the two and they support legal immigration. Always have.

    11. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See poster above who reports all people speaking any language other than English to ICE. If you believe legal immigrants won't be caught in the net and often be detained and treated as second class you're wrong.

    12. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 0

      Technically, any legal infraction is reason enough to allow someone to have their legal status revoked.

      This is false. In the US, for one, only Naturlized citizens can see their citizenship revoked.

      I wasn't talking about citizens- plenty of people are here legally who do not have citizenship status.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    13. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Holi · · Score: 1

      So you are OK with the state watching your every movement with no probable cause?

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    14. Re:So, "immigrants"? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is false. In the US, for one, only Naturlized citizens can see their citizenship revoked.

      This is false. In the US, for one, your citizenship can be revoked for treasonous acts, or serving in the armed forces of a foreign nation.

      You are either grossly misinformed or fear mongering all over this discussion.

      You are grossly misinformed, and there's no alternative.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My great-grandfather was an immigrant. Can he be postumously reported to the Icemen? He was a draft dodger, too (German), so can he be reported to the Neo-Nazis? Should I be worried?

    16. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My wife is an immigrant, is she at risk?

      [Irvine Company] is putting not only immigrants at risk

      No, they're not endangering anybody, which is the implication. They're making it more likely that ILLEGAL immigrants will be caught. There's a choice that they can make, which is not enter the country illegally.

      Legal immigrants? Hell, these days even American citizens are at risk, and not just from the government. Besides the 92 year old Mexican man legally in the country to visit his children and had a woman beat him up with a brick, there was a woman recently in Illinois who was accosted for wearing a Puerto Rico shirt and was told to go back to her country. People don't even know (or care) that Puerto Ricans are American citizens. The current administration is trying to foster a climate where if you are Latino you are default not a US citizen. That doesn't end well.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    17. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Technically, any legal infraction is reason enough to allow someone to have their legal status revoked.

      This is false. In the US, for one, only Naturlized citizens can see their citizenship revoked. That means if you're born here, you have birthright citizenship and can never be made to be non-citizen.

      That's just FUD/populist/nationalist-driven Constitutional Amendment away. The Supreme Court ruled that citizenship cannot be taken away except under specific circumstances. A sufficiently stacked Supreme Court that would be willing to overturn or expand that ruling could be created within only 2-3 decades given the right circumstances. It wouldn't even have to be on a racial basis; simply expanding the definition of treason to what is considered "renouncing citizenship" would suffice. Is it likely to happen? No. But it is plausible. And remember, even citizenship didn't protect Japanese-Americans from being herded up during WWII.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    18. Re:So, "immigrants"? by RedK · · Score: 2

      I did state as much in my post. Did you fail to read beyond the first sentence before you interjected ?

      Do you have "RedK deranagement syndrome" my orange dot friend ? What did I ever do to you anyway.

      I am not misinformed, as you have provided no extra information that I did not provide myself. You're only proving me right here.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    19. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current administration is trying to foster a climate where if you are Latino you are default not a US citizen. That doesn't end well.

      No, it's the media conflating illegal and legal immigrants. The administration has only been against illegal immigration, yet the media is constantly acting as though anyone seemingly 'foreign' is being rounded up.

    20. Re: So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, but that risk has nothing to do with "immigrants"

    21. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no; but the problem has nothing to do with "immigrants"

    22. Re:So, "immigrants"? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Similar thing happening in the UK, but we see that lots of legal immigrants get caught up in the net and it is almost impossible for them to fight it because doing so is expensive and requires evidence that they may not have read access to and because the immigration system is designed to discourage immigration.

      For that reason I wouldn't be happy with my wife living in the UK even if she went through the immigration process and obtained all the necessary rights to live there.

      And that's even before we start talking about if it is better to have a surveillance state or a path for illegal immigrants to legalize their status.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might be even more motivated if your spouse was an "Illegal Immigrant" just as if you would be as nervous if She/He had stolen a car and you were aware of it.

    24. Re:So, "immigrants"? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They have decisions to make, live with green card laws or get naturalized. Consequences of that decision are their problem, not ours.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    25. Re:So, "immigrants"? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      I thought the current solution of letting drug cartels walk all over us was going just fine !

      So some people addicted to some drugs or get shot or killed ... we should just accept that as the new normal.

      Everytime I hear "new normal" I think, "Ah, mediocrity is so relaxing and refreshing !"

    26. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      They have decisions to make, live with green card laws or get naturalized. Consequences of that decision are their problem, not ours.

      You miss the point of, in a surveillance state, everyone is a criminal.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    27. Re:So, "immigrants"? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is false. In the US, for one, only Naturlized citizens can see their citizenship revoked.

      This is false. In the US, for one, your citizenship can be revoked for treasonous acts, or serving in the armed forces of a foreign nation.

      I did state as much in my post. Did you fail to read beyond the first sentence before you interjected ?

      Really? Let's go back and look at that post.

      Technically, any legal infraction is reason enough to allow someone to have their legal status revoked.

      This is false. In the US, for one, only Naturlized citizens can see their citizenship revoked. That means if you're born here, you have birthright citizenship and can never be made to be non-citizen.

      WHAT YOU SAID: "if you're born here, you have birthright citizenship and can never be made to be non-citizen." But that is wholly false, and we are currently talking about natural citizens having their citizenship revoked.

      You have no idea what you are talking about, you have no idea what the rest of us are talking about, and you doubled down on your ignorance.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:So, "immigrants"? by swb · · Score: 2

      You're right, but given the left's newspeak of "undocumented immigrants" and the relentless portrayal of any kind of immigration enforcement as inherently racist it certainly seems like whatever the opposite of "the current administration" is pushing exactly the opposite narrative, that if you are Latino you have a default right to be in the US.

      It seems to me that you can't even really advocate for any kind of immigration reform that includes any semblance of immigration enforcement without being seen as racist or advocating for a police state.

    29. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and I'm sure there's probably people in the administration who would consider going several generations back. also if there's no due process it's their word regardless.

    30. Re:So, "immigrants"? by RedK · · Score: 1

      WHAT YOU SAID: "if you're born here, you have birthright citizenship and can never be made to be non-citizen." But that is wholly false, and we are currently talking about natural citizens having their citizenship revoked.

      How is it false ?

      Birthright citizenship cannot be revoked, only naturalized citizens can be denaturalized. Otherwise, cite the statute. Again : exactly what I said in my initial post.

      You have no idea what you are talking about

      I was replying to someone who claimed "any legal infraction" was enough to cause revocation of citizenship.

      So maybe next time, instead of being mad at me for reasons unknown (why did you even foe me ? again : what the heck have I done to you ?), try reading the context.

      And when you say "false" try not repeating word for word what I said.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    31. Re:So, "immigrants"? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How is it false ?
      Birthright citizenship cannot be revoked,

      Read the link I provided, genius. It absolutely can be. You are wholly, completely, and in all other ways wrong.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:So, "immigrants"? by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

      In 6 years of ICE arrests, that's something like 150k/yr average = 900,000 arrests. 1400 mistakes.
      0.15% error rate...that's between 4-5 sigma.

      4 sigma is pretty damned good considering the imprecision of the process.

      So no, his immigrant wife isn't in any realistic jeopardy.

      In your reference, I find it amusing how they keep calling out "the person repeatedly insisted they were an American citizen"...my guess is that ICE agents hear that in something like 75% of the arrests. It means nearly nothing.

      --
      -Styopa
    33. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Violence isnt cool, but dont act like this is the administration's fault.

      Prior to Trump getting into office, there were people getting their asses kicked for wearing the MAGA hat. Lefties were staging violent protests, fighting cops and damaging property.

      There are these things called videos and the internet has them. For free.

    34. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our system to hold illegal immigrants accountable for, you know, being here illegally, isnt perfect, but I only hear people complaining and not offering alternative solutions.

      Guess what? We have ~12 million illegal immigrants in the US. The US population is about 330m. So approx. 1 in 28 people are here illegally. FUCK THAT.

      So which do I care about more? My and your license plate getting photographed, or actually going something about the crazy illegal immigration here? Gee, I fucking wonder.

      Get practical.

    35. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did state as much in my post. Did you fail to read beyond the first sentence before you interjected ?

      RedK said:

      This is false.

      I'll be damned, you did say your post was wrong in the first sentence. I thought you were referring to the person you were replying to.

    36. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      The current administration is trying to foster a climate where if you are Latino you are default not a US citizen.

      How?

    37. Re:So, "immigrants"? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      So what?

      Green card holders could get sent to jail, then deported. The rest of us can just get sent to jail. To many unenforced laws is a separate issue.

      Green card holders can become naturalized after a few years, it's their choice.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    38. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The things drinkypoo listed applies even if you were born in the USA, so yes, it is possible for anyone to lose their citizenship. You stated the opposite in your post.

    39. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show us on the doll where the brown person touched you.

    40. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current administration is trying to foster a climate where if you are Latino you are default not a US citizen.

      Get your news from TV much? There's no truth in that but what's been beaten into people's heads. Latinos are quickly becoming the majority in many southern states and quite a few that I know would call you a moron for such statements.

    41. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>>I am not misinformed,

      I tend to agree with you--I think you are delusional.

      drinky poo quoted a statement of yours, then rebuked it with proof. Your response was to pretend like he did neither of those things.

      Seriously, reread your post, then his. It's not a long drawn out hard to follow discussion.

  18. Re: Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So basically you are reporting to ICE many legal immigrants and temporary residents too. How does that help?, or youâ(TM)re just against any immigration and take pleasure on making any immigrants life hard?
    BTW, by giving information like this without any hard data of peopleâ(TM)s legal status youâ(TM)re just making ICE work harder too, they probably ignore many real reports due to the amount of noise they have from reports like yours.

  19. Abolish ice? Morons.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Democrats who want to abolish ICE are literally handing Donald Trump his reelection on a silver platter.

    Let's not enforce any border laws and let's see how that turns out. Idiots.

    1. Re:Abolish ice? Morons.. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 0

      Somebody loves licking boots...

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Abolish ice? Morons.. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Democrats who want to abolish ICE are literally handing Donald Trump his reelection on a silver platter.

      Let's not enforce any border laws and let's see how that turns out. Idiots.

      I'm not a Trump supporter, and I'm merely a centrist, but I agree that it is a foolish platform to take.

      I'm against excessive and invasive persecution and hunting for illegals. I'm not blind to the fact that we need to limit illegal immigration. My main concern is that a lot of anti-immigration is down to bigotry and nationalistic sentiment that can escalate; and has rapidly escalated many many times in many many countries throughout history. It doesn't take long to get into some McCarthyistic witch hunt for immigrants, and start finding reasons to mark legal immigrants as criminals for obscure rules and start deporting them.

      It's not ICE that I oppose- ICE Is important. It's the racist sentiment behind a lot of the actions of some of the laws that I oppose. It is the nationalism that could escalate dangerously that I oppose. The more fervent the head-hunting for illegals, the more likely that legal immigrants get caught up in this- either accidentally or deliberately. Already, there are plenty of stories of legal aliens being arrested and detained for months because they're mistaken as illegals.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Abolish ice? Morons.. by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Most of the "serious" proposals I've seen to abolish ICE would devolve its enforcement powers to other agencies who handled these things before ICE was created. Nominally, this would purge the personnel complicit in the unsavory activities.

    4. Re:Abolish ice? Morons.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12340270&cid=56930626

    5. Re:Abolish ice? Morons.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The aggressive tactics are only coming into play because the passive method is a joke and everyone south of the US knows it. The current aggression is being reported back down south of the border and is absolutely having an impact on the ridiculous flow of brazen border crossers. So effectively, it's serving as a deterrent where very little existed prior. Seeking political asylum by walking through several other countries to get here is bullshit. It's economic migration without following the laws of the destination nation and it needs to stop.

    6. Re:Abolish ice? Morons.. by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "there are plenty of stories of legal aliens being arrested and detained for months because they're mistaken as illegals."

      There are also instances of _native born_ citizens being arrested and even deported because they're mistaken as illegals.

      There are also at least 2 cases of ICE having detained and separated children from _citizen_ families that are currently winding their way through the federal court system and it's not working out well for ICE, with repeated rulings of contempt being entered against them (then again, no ICE officials are being jailed for contempt, which is what actually needs to happen in order to wake them up)

      This kind of stuff has echoes of another country in the 1930s up to the point where the judiciary got purged.

  20. Re:Same here by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The best t-shirt I ever saw said something like this (probably not verbatim):

    Se vi parolas du lingvojn, vi estas dulingva.
    Se vi parolas tri lingvojn vi estas trilingva.
    Se vi parolas unu lingvon vi estas usona

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  21. How do they identify illegals with license plate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are license plates linked to illegal immigrants somehow? How do they even do that? Do illegals buy cars under their names and register with DMV with illegal license plates and shop at malls in Irvine?

  22. Re: Same here by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless you are a criminal, ICE really doesn't have any standing to hassle you if you have a Green Card. If you are a criminal, then you are by law subject to potential deportation.

    Once you have become an actual immigrant, and are no longer "just visiting", then ICE no longer has any jurisdiction over you.

    Data collection, aggregation, and distribution has been a thing for a long time now. It really has nothing to do with the tribal partisan hysteria du jour.

    It's much like the INS in this regard.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  23. Re:Same here by Jason+Levine · · Score: 0

    So basically anytime you see someone who is Latino or is speaking Spanish, you assume they're an illegal alien and report them to ICE? Because citizens have to look like you and speak English to be citizens?

    Also, since when did the Slashdot crowd become fans of big government and surveillance?

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  24. Why link to theweek? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    It's nice that the link to the actual story on eff.org is linked from the summary, but the fact is that the post on theweek added absolutely zero information to the story, and the eff.org link is the only one we need.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  25. blacken it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I'll paint my license plate black in protest

  26. Slowness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you are a bit slow on the uptake. Imagine if *everyone* constantly reported everyone who looks like a foreign national to ICE.

    Think about it a bit.

    1. Re:Slowness by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      I think you are a bit slow on the uptake. Imagine if *everyone* constantly reported everyone who looks like a foreign national to ICE.

      Think about it a bit.

      My instincts thought it read like a joke... but this is Slashdot and you never know- there is a lot of stupidity and racism on this forum, you can never be sure.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  27. Re: Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be seriously choking on that bullshit. Great again? When all of the illegals are gone, your problems are still there and then you will have no one else to blame but your âgreat wasnâ(TM)t MY implementation of greatâ(TM).

  28. Police scan plates at hotels at night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police have been scanning plates for years, so if you're on the run, back in to a parking space (and take off that front plate if you have one).

    RRK

    1. Re:Police scan plates at hotels at night by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Along roads too. Some agency also takes images of drivers and passengers. Some even have the ability to collect voice prints in and out of the USA.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  29. Re:Same here by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    A lot of the time I go into a store, people are speaking Spanish. Some of them probably are illegal, but many aren't. Including the cashier/teller who speaks it right back to them.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  30. Re:How do they identify illegals with license plat by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    If it were any other state, I would be less sure. California seems highly permissive and tolerant of illegals. That might actually work to the benefit of ICE here. Instead of being more underground, illegals might be more out in the open and easier to identify.

    Also, ICE may be aware of the offending cars regardless of what shenanigans may have occurred to register them. That's really the explanation that makes most sense.

    "Fishing" through this data probably is not terribly feasible.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  31. Re:Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heard a variant on that jokHeard a variant on that joke before, but had never seen it in Esperanto.e before, but had never seen it in Esperanto.

  32. Crap country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every day I wake up I thank God for having left US and go put my money somewhere else, in other better and blessed places.

    What a country US, suppressing freedom and still misleading its citizens into thinking they have any. Good luck with that.

  33. Re:How do they identify illegals with license plat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a DL or anything regarded for a vehicle purchases in CA is extremely easy since they don't want to tell anyone no

  34. Not putting "immigrants" at risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't putting "immigrants" at risk. It is putting "criminals" at risk of being caught and held accountable for their crimes, as they should be.

  35. Re: Same here by RedK · · Score: 1

    > if you have a Green Card.

    If you have a green card, you're not an illegal alien.

    Thus this topic is not about you.

    Why do some of you try so hard to conflate legal immigrants with illegal immigrants so much ?

    --
    "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
    Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
  36. Re:Same here by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

    I saw what you did there you big goof.

  37. Re:Same here by i286NiNJA · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He's a troll. Look at his comment history.
    At least he's doing it right.

  38. In Europe, this would be a felony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must not share this kind of data with anyone. Period.

  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  40. Re:Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thanks, I am now to going to use a voice synthesizer and burner numbers to bombard ICE with an overwhelming amount of false information.

    Your move fascist pig

  41. Re:Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geez, clipboard fail, but you get the idea.

  42. Re:I don't see the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No you are wrong. The ACLU says it is putting ALL immigrants at risk not just Illegal Aliens- see right there >> "[Irvine Company] is putting not only immigrants at risk, but"

    Getting really tired of lazy people dropping the illegal part off of Immigrant .

  43. Re:How do they identify illegals with license plat by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The entire history of the name discovered starts and stops in CA with that license plate. Every other part on illegal migrants interaction with the USA state/federal gov goes back to that illegal migrants document in CA.
    Kind of stands out as a pattern to every other citizen and person in the USA legally.
    Real people have a passport, visa, insurance, education, tax. That of a citizen, starts legally as a non citizen allowed to be in the USA.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  44. Re:Same here by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    lots of ppl in America do not speak english.
    While I believe in enforcing our laws (including the ones about presidents that are traitors or businesses that hire illegal), you are accomplishing little to nothing.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  45. Re:Same here by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Heard a variant on that jokHeard a variant on that joke before, but had never seen it in Esperanto.e before, but had never seen it in Esperanto.

    Yeah, I have too; seeing it in Esperanto, in America was more amusing though knowing that 99.9% of the people who saw the t-shirt would have no idea of what it said.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  46. Suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about while all you libs help them break the law just let them live with you. Give them free reign in your homes, access to your cars, get them vacinated on YOUR dime, etc. Quit dumping the costs of your decision on the rest of us. Pay their way through college...come on. How committed are you to this felony?? Put your money, home, family etc on the line. You are the real coward...

  47. Re:Same here by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    I wonder if anyone would report someone wearing that as an illegal alien. LOL!

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  48. Re:Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ive been sending license plate data to ICE for about a year now. Every time I see someone who doesn't look like a citizen or speaks something that is not English, I then forward everything possible to ICE. You should too.

    Remember folks: See something say something

    If you would like to report illegal aliens, please call Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at 1-866-DHS-2ICE (347-2423). They will need to know names, locations (either work place or residence) and any other specific information you can provide. For more information, please visit www.ice.gov.

    You're a piece of human shit.

  49. Lawless EFF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "[Irvine Company] is putting not only immigrants at risk...

    Illegal immigrants. The "risk" being deportation which is the legal penalty for entering this country illegally, i.e. the appropriate response. The implication from their statement is that the EFF is seemingly in favor of lawlessness.

  50. Doesn't hurt my feelings as much as MS-13 does. by ScentCone · · Score: 0

    Of course most malls are really suffering, especially those that haven't moved towards food and entertainment as anchor activities. But some have special problems. One of ours, in the DC 'burbs, has essentially become an MS-13 clubhouse. Those remaining shoppers inclined to actually set foot in a mall to shop completely avoid the place during long periods of the evening, because the gang presence is so tangible. Rampant crimes including much worse than just property theft. The county police have essentially turned the mall into a substation, and that's only scratched the surface of the problem. To the extent that ICE can be aware that one of the repeat criminal deportees they're trying to once again lay hands on is routinely setting up shop in a particular stronghold, great. The local PD doesn't like to mix it up with those clowns because MS-13 knows where they live, where their kids go to school, etc. Bring on the feds to sweep.

    Of course, the Democrats thinks we should get rid of ICE, because arresting guys like that is something Trump thinks is good, and therefore it must be opposed no matter what.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Doesn't hurt my feelings as much as MS-13 does. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Of course, the Democrats thinks we should get rid of ICE, because arresting guys like that is something Trump thinks is good, and therefore it must be opposed no matter what.

      You don't need ICE to fight gang violence. We already have laws which address it. We already have law enforcement agencies which are at least as competent as ICE, not that this is saying much. A person who entered the country illegally can already be deported for felonies, and naturalized citizens can already be denaturalized and deported if they join a terrorist organization. MS-13 could end up named as one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Doesn't hurt my feelings as much as MS-13 does. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      We already have laws which address it.

      Right. And lefty jurisdictions are busy establishing policies that prevent those laws from being enforced. Lefty politicians are calling for the very agency that enforces those laws to be "abolished," and for people who violate those laws to be given sanctuary, free legal services, housing, protection from prosecution, etc.

      Yes, a person who's here illegally CAN be deported for committing felonies. At which point thousands and thousands of them routinely, and literally just walk right back across the border, over and over again - just the way that liberal politicians like it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Doesn't hurt my feelings as much as MS-13 does. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we should have gang violence dealt with by ICE instead of by law enforcement? What about the gangs that are legal immigrants? What about gangs formed of people who were born in the USA and are natural citizens?

      ICE shouldn't be in the business of breaking up gangs. They're fucking immigration and customs enforcement, not the US Army. Empowering them to handle gang violence is ludicrous.

    4. Re:Doesn't hurt my feelings as much as MS-13 does. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      You don't need ICE to fight gang violence. We already have laws which address it.

      Right. And lefty jurisdictions are busy establishing policies that prevent those laws from being enforced.

      No, no they are not. Nobody is trying to establish policies that will prevent laws against gang violence from being enforced. So that's a lie.

      Lefty politicians are calling for the very agency that enforces those laws to be "abolished,"

      ICE is violating its mandate by abusing people outside of that mandate. If it cannot stick to what it is supposed to be doing, then yes, it should be abolished.

      and for people who violate those laws to be given sanctuary, free legal services, housing, protection from prosecution, etc.

      "Free legal services" are a constitutional right. It's called due process, and if you are against due process, you are the same kind of traitor as Trump. Protection from prosecution is for non-violent crimes, not violent ones, you pathetic FUD-spreader. "Sanctuary city" doesn't mean permission to commit crimes. It means a city where the police won't help ICE violate their mandate.

      Yes, a person who's here illegally CAN be deported for committing felonies. At which point thousands and thousands of them routinely, and literally just walk right back across the border, over and over again

      First, why do those people want to walk over the border? Answer, their country is shit, at least in part because we have been shitting on it. The war on some drugs, exporting guns to their country and in some cases placing them directly in the hands of criminals like we did in Mexico, coups and other interference in their governments... we did that. If we don't want a bunch of refugees coming across our southern border, we should stop shitting on their home nations. We don't have shitloads of Canadians streaming over our northern border, it's not an inherent property. It's something we've created.

      Second, ICE deports a lot of people to Mexico whether they're Mexican or not. Mexico doesn't want them, so they don't imprison them either. So they just come back. That's also our fault, but it's directly ICE's fault. Once deported, these people are also more likely to have to cross the border on foot, because they've already spent all their money getting across the border some other way.

      just the way that liberal politicians like it.

      Liberals, politicians or not, would like our policies to change away from shitting on those countries, so that their people don't want to come here any more because their own country is viable. Barring that, we want to treat the people harmed by our nation's policies (and actions) like humans, because that's what humans do. What do people do on your home planet?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Doesn't hurt my feelings as much as MS-13 does. by RedK · · Score: 1

      You don't need ICE to fight gang violence. We already have laws which address it.

      And who enforces those laws and deports criminals and illegal aliens ?

      ICE.

      Laws need enforcement. Enforcement requires enforcers. Don't confuse the laws with who enforces them.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    6. Re:Doesn't hurt my feelings as much as MS-13 does. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      No, no they are not. Nobody is trying to establish policies that will prevent laws against gang violence from being enforced. So that's a lie.

      Quit trying to be slippery. You know exactly what's going on here.

      And, really, you think that rampant corruption and gang violence in El Salvador is the fault of the US? No, it's not. It's classic third world shit, as seen in countries all around the world. Someone making money smuggling money and people across our borders isn't "being hurt by our policies," they're being hurt when they get busted breaking the law.

      Your eagerness to conflate genuine refugees, legal immigrants, and those who criminally cross the border means you have zero credibility on this entire topic.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:Doesn't hurt my feelings as much as MS-13 does. by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      ICE shouldn't be in the business of breaking up gangs.

      That's not their mission, but it is a happy byproduct of their work when large numbers of people in certain especially violent international gangs happen to be in the country illegally. How are you not clear on this? A county cop can't kick an illegal alien career criminal out of the country. ICE can.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:Doesn't hurt my feelings as much as MS-13 does. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You don't need ICE to fight gang violence. We already have laws which address it.

      Right. And lefty jurisdictions are busy establishing policies that prevent those laws from being enforced.

      No, no they are not. Nobody is trying to establish policies that will prevent laws against gang violence from being enforced. So that's a lie.

      Quit trying to be slippery. You know exactly what's going on here.

      Yes, I do. I know exactly what's going on here: you're talking shit. You said that "lefty jurisdictions are busy establishing policies that prevent" (your quote) "laws which address" (my quote, to which you were replying) "gang violence" (also from my quote, to which you replied.) But that's not happening. If that wasn't what you meant, you should have said something else.

      And, really, you think that rampant corruption and gang violence in El Salvador is the fault of the US?

      Yes.

      Your eagerness to conflate genuine refugees, legal immigrants, and those who criminally cross the border means you have zero credibility on this entire topic.

      Your eagerness to create differences between those people who do not exist proves that you are unwilling to consider reality.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  51. Re:Same here by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    I am just licking boots because I'm a spineless twat.

    FTFY

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  52. so NOW you "care"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they lobby to put cameras on garbage trucks, try to get cameras on "gig economy" vehicles, to track plates for years. they snag plates and tell you its all about making sure your State gets every possible drop of sweet, sweet license renewal fees to pay for "your" social guilt. So you ignore the surveillance failures. Then when they start tracking every legal but currently politically "inconvenient" activity like gun range attendees, and admit to giving that to every law enforcement agency possible, they tell you it's "to track stolen cars" and "find illegal guns" you accept it because it's "your" politician who pushed for the revenue generator and you would never admit to anything wrong in your cult of personality politics, plus you enjoy the intimidation of your opponents.

    But now someone says, hey, it's being sent to find actual lawbreakers! ones your guilty white heart thinks it needs to "save". so NOW you complain about it, create a hashtag movement, and perhaps the wealthiest among you decide to have your pet politician to put a restriction on just sending this to ICE, and you'll all sit back and pat yourselves on the back, while tacitly allowing the abuses you find convenient to continue.

  53. Are you Anglo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then what are you doing in our land? Please self deport yourself to Europe, where you people belong.

    Signed,

    An Indigenous Native of the Americas

    1. Re:Are you Anglo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then what are you doing in our land? Please self deport yourself to Europe, where you people belong.

      Signed,

      An Indigenous Native of the Americas

      "our land" you mean the land you sold for beads and pelts... or lost via conflict. You should get to know your own people/history better before trying to speak for them. Your own tribes had no problem taking land from each other via conflict and war, until you decide that you can play the victim.

  54. Blatantly Illegal Under GDPR by InsightfulPlusTwo · · Score: 2

    If this were an online activity, it would be blatantly illegal under the GDPR, because it: 1) Collects permanent, personal identifying data (license plate number) 2) Does not allow the user to opt out 3) Is not relevant to providing the user with a service (shopping) 4) Retains the data indefinitely. Should they be allowed to do this just because it is private property? Websites are privately owned too, but they are required to comply with GDPR.

    --
    I felt bad for the man who had no signature, until I met a man who had no comment.
    1. Re:Blatantly Illegal Under GDPR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is happening in Orange County, USA, not the EU. GDPR is irrelevant.

    2. Re:Blatantly Illegal Under GDPR by raburton · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure the GDPR applies everywhere personal data is collected, not just online.

    3. Re:Blatantly Illegal Under GDPR by mysidia · · Score: 0

      If this were an online activity, it would be blatantly illegal under the GDPR

      Basic response from any US company to the GPDR folks

      Both ICE and malls in California do their business in the US; all the business transactions with these customers whose data is processed occur in the US. GDPR is European law, and companies' activities within US jurisdiction are not subject to European law --- even if the customer were a European national allowed to drive in the US.

    4. Re:Blatantly Illegal Under GDPR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GDPR is not the law in the United States. Dumbass.

    5. Re:Blatantly Illegal Under GDPR by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Basic response [imgur.com] from any US company to the GPDR folks"

      Except that California (as of about 10 days ago) now has a GDPR law too.

    6. Re:Blatantly Illegal Under GDPR by mysidia · · Score: 1

      California doesn't have a GPDR: California has a new privacy act.
      It doesn't offer the same protections as the GPDR does; however.

  55. Re:Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is he a traitor? You're just an idiot.

  56. They signed a contract with the government? by Holi · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't that make them agents of the state and make the blanket surveillance a 4th amendment issue?

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    1. Re:They signed a contract with the government? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that make them agents of the state

      No, because ICE have not specially commissioned the malls to run a surveillance operation ---- the malls already run surveillance systems, likely including the plate recognition feature - for their own internal security purposes, and the data is not related to a business transaction with a customer.
        If the data is available for sale to the public, then ICE can purchase access

      Law Enforcement has at least the same ability as private companies and private individuals to contract with a mall for access to databases made from their surveillance footage.

    2. Re:They signed a contract with the government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up!

    3. Re:They signed a contract with the government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cops don't need a warrant to surveil someone in public. It's not illegal. Just creepy AF.

      Welcum to 'Murica.

  57. putting ILLEGAL immigrants at risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why is this concept so hard to understand!

  58. Re:Same here by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    I wonder if anyone would report someone wearing that as an illegal alien. LOL!

    Deport them back to Esperanta-Lando!

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  59. Will shopping online save you? by mysidia · · Score: 3

    And they wonder why some of us prefer to shop online.

    What makes you think the Delivery truck or person/drone walking up your driveway isn't equipped with a camera equipped with GPS, and/or footage won't be submitted to license plate recognition software, and shared with any Law Enforcement agency willing to pay for access to the shared database of License Plate/GPS locations?

    Shoot... if ICE is willing to pay enough revenue for license plate data, they could probably convince Meter readers working for the Gas and Power companies to don a camera for a little extra $$$ on the side.

    1. Re:Will shopping online save you? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Would all created US documents used by an illegal migrant link back to a document in CA?
      The origin story of other normal federal documents would not link to any database going back before that one CA issued.
      Driving in CA at a set date becomes the document to build a list of other later "legal" US documents on for an illegal migrant.
      The patterns of citizens and people legally in the USA documents is different federally and in that state.
      Building CC use, bank, tax, utility bills ect around one CA document type from a set decade at a later date in CA stands out.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Will shopping online save you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think the Delivery truck or person/drone walking up your driveway isn't equipped with a camera equipped with GPS, and/or footage won't be submitted to license plate recognition software, and shared with any Law Enforcement agency willing to pay for access to the shared database of License Plate/GPS locations?

      What makes you think the car is parked in the driveway, instead of safely closed in the garage?

    3. Re:Will shopping online save you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most utilities don't have meter readers anymore. They send that usage data over encrypted RF remotely. Look up AMI.

    4. Re:Will shopping online save you? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Would all created US documents used by an illegal migrant link back to a document in CA?

      All the states want their tax money and to ensure drivers are properly insured and licensed -- so unless the vehicle was stolen
      then whoever's driving it had to REGISTER it: which requires providing some identifying paperwork including an address.

      In short.... the license plate links through official databases to a bunch of info.

    5. Re:Will shopping online save you? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The timeline is the tell. That start data begins with the request by an illegal migrant for a needed real CA id. Every new document used then follows that easy to get 'real' CA ID.
      Re "some identifying paperwork including an address"
      The illegal migrant is already in the USA illegally so creating some paperwork including an address is just a way to get more documents from a gov CA.
      Paperwork turns into a type of useful photo ID in CA due to a gov not doing more work to see if the paperwork presented is correct and that of a US citizen, person in the US legally.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  60. Just curious... by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

    Being kind of ignorant about these things but how does one go about getting a state issued licensed place without establishing identity? how is it possible to establish identity without establishing place of birth and legal citizenship status?

    Sounds like a neat trick to know, just in case I ever need it.

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    1. Re:Just curious... by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      I guess that should probably read 'legal residency status'. When it comes to that most states require some kind of insurance, don't the insurance companies require you prove you live in the area?

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    2. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In CA you can get a driver's license while being an illegal immigrant.
      Also in CA, you are registered to vote upon getting a driver's license. But of course no illegals ever vote in CA, lols.

      CA, making the case for the electoral college better than anyone on FOX News could ever hope to do.

    3. Re:Just curious... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      State politics offers a privacy law and just hands out a state document as needed.
      From that one document many more can be requested. Finally building an entire fictional set of issued documents and photo ID for an illegal migrant.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Just curious... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      A government pretends to ask about the live in the area part.
      An illegal migrant offers documents to totally show some connection to the state at that time.
      Some computer work later and its real photo ID time.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Just curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my question exactly, how can this help ICE, since you shouldn't not get a valid car without being a citizen.

      So the only thing I can think why ICE wants this information, is so they can sell it to other TLAs in return for funding or favours. The other TLAs can then skirt the law by not having to get a warrant because the information was gathered from inter-agency-sharing.

      In pretty much the same way that 5-eyes works, they each spy on each other citizens then share that information to each other, therefor no agency illegally spies on their own citizens.

    6. Re: Just curious... by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      So I looked up getting a ca drivers license. Assuming having one gets you a car tag like most states. They require 1 residency document. Your lease will do, it must have your first and last name on it. So the only thing you really need to get a driver's liscense issued in any name you like w your picture on it is a lease. Not saying anything actual apt. Just the paper w the agreement and a name you claim is yours.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
  61. Re: Same here by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    > if you have a Green Card.

    If you have a green card, you're not an illegal alien.

    Thus this topic is not about you.

    Why do some of you try so hard to conflate legal immigrants with illegal immigrants so much ?

    Because when law enforcement get overzealous- a lot of legal immigrants end up arrested if they can't immediately prove their immigration status.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  62. Re:Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even as Poe's Law goes, this one's a toughie.

  63. Re:Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyplace in the World ......99.9% of the people who saw the t-shirt would have no idea of what it said.

    There, FIFY

  64. Re:Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Womp womp ;)

  65. Putting immigrants at risk lol.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They put themselves at risk when they decided to come here illegally

  66. Re: Same here by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

    "Born in East LA" is a comedy, not a documentary

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  67. Where else can we draw the line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My position is similar; if you're choosing to go out into public for an elective activity (not compelled by the government, e.g. going to court) then you're willfully broadcasting every pixel that you show and every thing that you do. And if you're concerned about that, you can take countermeasures, though it can be inconvenient.

    I think it's important to draw the line between private and public correctly, because as soon as things cross over into private, we need to defend ourselves zealously and not after having massively undermined our credibility on privacy. When things get to the point where I'm complaining, I want to be taken seriously instead of being accused of crying wolf yet again for the 400th time. That's why I have to take the above position, which extends to the Internet too (if you're sending plaintext over the internet, you have no reasonable expectation that someone isn't reading it, and indeed, it's much more reasonable to predict that some unknown person will read it).

    But...

    One of the most popular of the "countermeasures" that I mentioned above is a form of security-through-obscurity, where people think of themselves as anonymous simply because they aren't doing anything to attract attention. And make no mistake, this countermeasure's effectiveness is eroding. Who would have guessed 20 years ago (much less 220 years ago) that there would be financial incentive for enterprising young chaps to actively go out and figure out what everyone is up to, even when those people who are behaving in a "boring" manner?

    Mall wants parking lot surveillance to deter car crime so that people remain willing to go to the mall. So they hire someone do to that. That someone realizes they are acquiring information worth selling, whether it's to law enforcement, marketing, or whatever. There's obviously a market for this mundane information.

    That wasn't the case when the Bill of Rights was being written. Had it been the case, would the founders have cared?

    I think they would have. The fourth amendment was written when the town square wasn't private, but really, nearly anywhere else was, as long as you looked around and determined that nobody was peeking. You should be able to fuck in some random forest, as long as you do a quick modest look-around first.

    If we're going to extend privacy expectations to certain public areas, though, I don't know how to do it in a rational manner where we don't undermine the whole thing. This is someone else's parking lot that we're talking about here. It's theirs, and they didn't try to deceive you into believing it's a private place. The cameras are almost certainly visible and I wouldn't be surprised if there are even signs calling attention to the cameras. It's really hard to credibly accuse them of acting in bad faith, even if it's a bit dickish that your car's occupants might start getting more targeted ads, or get pointed out to LE, or whatever.

    These parking lots are much more town square-like than it is forest-like. Can someone make a case for people-not-attracting-attention in parking lots (and on roads?) being protected without totally ruining privacy by foolhardily trying to extend it to the town square?

    Because if you ever say someone shouting in the town square deserves privacy, that's total bullshit and I can't let you attack privacy like that. We need to be able to see and discuss truly public things, if for no other reason than to criticize our government. (And there are actually plenty of other reasons we all want that.) So someone, persuade me that the parking lot isn't truly public.

  68. Re: Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our problem IS the illegals. It will literally be gone when they are gone.

  69. Re: Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would stop if there were no longer people here illegally.

    How can you be so fucking stupid?

  70. Re:I don't see the problem by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I don't know how it is in the people's socialist republic of California,

    If you want to talk about issues relating to motor vehicles, you probably should. We have the most drivers, the most vehicles, the second-most miles of road, and the most road miles traveled by vehicles per year.

    It's not a RIGHT, but a privilege, and has restrictions.

    It ought to be a right since the federal government aided the auto companies in shutting down useful and even profitable public transportation systems.

    Plus, unless you came here LEGALLY, you are NOT an immigrant, you are an ILLEGAL ALIEN and should be stopped, arrested and deported.

    Illegal immigrants contribute substantially to America's economy. We need them here to do the jobs that Americans don't want to do, until the robots are capable of doing those jobs. Then the elite won't need the immigrants or you, and you will be momentarily embarrassed that you've been jerking them off all your life, and then you will be dead.

    But, in the people's socialist republic of California, there are NO laws.

    The people's socialist republic of California operates at a surplus, which is a good thing, because we are one of the states that gets raped hardest for tax money. Meanwhile, Missouri is one of the states which provides the least return on investment. In short, we here in commiefornia are footing the bill for your lifestyle. But go ahead and cry your white snowflake tears about brown people who contribute more to the nation than you do...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  71. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  72. Re:Same here by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    That's fine, ICE probably tagged you as "that nutjob who calls in every single brown person" early on, and now puts your calls on speaker phone for everyone at the office to laugh at while miming funny actions. Your tying up of the phone lines is more likely preventing actually "helpful" information from coming in at this point.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  73. immigrants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "putting not only immigrants at risk"

    Truthfully, "putting not only law breaking illegal entrants at risk"

  74. Re:Same here by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    The trouble is that these traits are what define "greatness" to about a quarter to a third of Americans.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  75. This is GOOD news!!! by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

    All those people worried about the arrival of the surveillance state can relax.

    It's already here.

  76. "Why some of us" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You mean the people who are here ILLEGALLY, breaking the law?

    You all know ICE only deals with immigration enforcement, right?

    The thing that baffles me is, who on earth assumed the entire federal government wasn't getting mall video feeds for years now anyway?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:"Why some of us" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Vigilant shares data with hundreds of law enforcement agencies, insurance companies, and debt collectors"

      This story has little to do with the ICE in fact. Also, it could be trivial enough for that data to leak. If criminals would somehow want to access this data they could pose as a debt collector or get hired by one, or some company or agency among hundreds will get hacked. If it doesn't just get sold at ten cents a plate.

  77. Uh-huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody can walk up to your car and take a picture of your license plate. I'm pretty sure the DMV and your insurance company also have it on file, and your insurance company may very well have offered that info to third parties. The parking lot security cameras probably also recorded it. This is the biggest nothing burger of the day, if it's even true. Yawn. I've lived in border states my entire life. The number of people I've seen being dragged out of homes is zero.

    Another home run, SlashDot. /s

  78. Re:Same here by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Esperanto is a non-evolved, made up language that should be banished.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  79. Re: Same here by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2

    It will take a few generations, but now that we're banning abortion, I'm sure the American people can make up the lack of population.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  80. Re:Same here by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    You should too.

    Ok, I'll bite: Why? What would I get out of this?

    Will you pay me?

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  81. Stop Breaking The Law! by Zorro · · Score: 1

    It is easy. Try it!

  82. Re: Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speak English in America, or you might get deported.

  83. So, if you're brown just don't go to the mall. by karlandtanya · · Score: 1

    Oh, wait--this is not a deterrent. This is part of legitimate law enforcement and won't be abused.
    Certainly not an intimidation tactic to get the "undesirable" element off of Irvine Company's properties.

    BTW, didja hear Trump's answer to the federal kidnapping program?
    “Tell people not to come to our country illegally,” Trump told reporters. “That’s the solution.

    But, again, it's not a deterrent. Believe me.

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  84. Re:Same here by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Esperanto is a non-evolved, made up language that should be banished.

    There are a couple of former world leaders who agreed with you. Hitler and Stalin both imprisoned people for speaking Esperanto.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  85. Re: Same here by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    You misspelled "instruction manual".

  86. Risk? by slapout · · Score: 0

    " is putting not only immigrants at risk"

    How is this putting immigrants at risk?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  87. Probably to help catch sex trafficking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Young American girls are snatched up from malls by, you guessed it, people who are not legally here more often than not for the purpose of forcing them into the sex trade. Coastal areas are prime places to do this because they can easily placed on ships and moved to another country. But libs don't care, they want more rights for non-citizens because it's the only way they can get votes.

  88. We should all call ICE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that I actually believe you, but you gave me an idea. We should all call ICE and flood them with false information, just for the fun of making them waste their time and to counter assholes like you.

  89. You don't live by your wits, do you? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    Someone steals something. Cops or vigilantes shoot you in the face, even though you had nothing to do with the crime at all. And while they're digging the bullet out of your brain, it occurs to you: don't steal, problem solved!

    Let me guess how you figured this out.. the bullet is still in there, isn't it?

    What other problems have you supplied good solutions to? I think someone needs to double-check your work, just in case...

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  90. Taking the drivers picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Americana at Brand in Glendale CA takes the driver's picture when the driver takes the parking ticket when entering the mall parking lot.

  91. That's ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does this have any impact on immigrants? Oh, you mean immigrants who broke the law to come here. It puts them at risk. I suppose you give no thought or regard to the risk posed by those who choose to ignore our laws. How about the overburdened social systems, the veterans who can't get help because the state is broke, the uninsured motorists who drink and drive and turn right around and buy another $500 car? Some of us have had our fill of this nonsense. We're sick of the lack of respect for our country.

  92. Drinkypoo must be a bigot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, no they are not. Nobody is trying to establish policies that will prevent laws against gang violence from being enforced. So that's a lie.

    Pelosi is. She is one of the top 2 people in the DNC and no one in the DNC is opposing her.
    Pelosi is also running on reversing Trump tax cuts, which have put black unemployment at historic record lows. She knows this will hurt blacks.

    So your DNC leader appears to be a racist bigot that hates blacks, and supports MS-13 murders over US citizens. Kate Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal with a long record in Pelosi's district. He is not in jail, not deported, and faces no legal consequences at all. I have yet to hear Pelosi say anything about how wrong this in, in fact she has opposed laws that would prevent it from happening again.

    So you lied, once again. Its trivial to prove you lied as well. You can't even pass it off as some mayor of a tiny city, its the #2 of the DNC doing it.

    DNC hats blacks and US citizens. They have basically declared war on US citizens. I'm not sure what it would take for you to not support them, but I guess if you too are a bigot, it makes sense.

  93. Ever-present Collaborators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am very understanding of companies who receive court orders to provide data to the government. There are very steep penalties for failure to comply and legal costs for challenging a request.

    These companies who willing join the state surveillance apparatus are a different matter entirely. Corporate data aggregation is bad enough on its, but spying for profit is simply degenerate.

    These people are scum, and I would boycott them if I did any business with them in the first place.

  94. Re:Same here by starless · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I have too; seeing it in Esperanto, in America was more amusing though knowing that 99.9% of the people who saw the t-shirt would have no idea of what it said.

    I presume anybody who has any exposure to a romance language (e.g. Spanish) would know, which is a lot of people.
    It's pretty clear to me with my limited knowledge of French.

  95. license plates are publicly displayed by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    So theoretically it's public information. IANAL but it seems legal.

    I don't think the laws have really caught up with technology, as it is now possible to infer private information through careful collection of public data.

    Also your average person doesn't give a shit about personal privacy, and will continue to shop at malls that do this. As long as we behave like we're OK with it, it will continue to occur.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  96. I Would Say Boycott ... by Improbus · · Score: 1

    but who goes to shopping malls now days? Just another reason not go to the mall. FTP.

  97. Re:Same here by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

    Lol. Just because you can't speak another language, doesn't mean rest of us Americans don't speak. Please keep your bigotry to yourself.

    It's common sense to have the nation speak a common language, not bigotry. Please keep your name calling to yourself.

  98. Re: Same here by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    Speak English in America, or you might get deported.

    What if you speak Cherokee?

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  99. Re:Same here by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    The intelligence world in America and Europe have listened to ppl in his admin (possibly him) cutting deals with russian spies.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  100. From the original submission: by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    And they wonder why some of us prefer to shop online.

    I'd like to point out: you're tracked even more so when you shop online. At least shopping in person, you can pay cash and have no tracking of your purchase.

  101. Re: Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ICE has deported citizens, people born in the United States. This is not an anomaly, ICE detains citizens for deportation several hundred times a year. Because you are not afforded a lawyer during a deportation hearing, the onus is on you to prove you are a citizen. Good luck when you are locked up in a detention facility far from home.

    We had an incident a few months back were ICE stopped two citizens because they were speaking Spanish.

  102. My EFF membership died today by sbrown123 · · Score: 1

    ""[Irvine Company] is putting not only immigrants at risk, but invading the privacy of its customers by allowing a third-party to hold onto their data indefinitely,"

    That makes absolutely no sense. EFF has gone full retard. Immigrants are just fine. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, which are very different, may get arrested but that is just a part of them breaking the law they have to deal with daily.

    1. Re:My EFF membership died today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, plenty of legal immigrants an citizens are getting harassed in all of this, too.

  103. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL. How the left tries to spin everything as evil. So let's assume that you're license plate is scanned and set to ICE. But then it is disguarded as you aren't here illegally Some invasion. You give away more information just reading this posting. You probably don't know that the next time you drive your car ANYWHERE that someone is scanning your plates and recording it. Both government and non-government. I won't spend my time educating the foolish. Go back to F-book and cry a river about your privacy there. Or better yet, use an Android device and NOT change all of the places that Google defaults the DNS servers to 8.8.8.8 so that they know all about you.

  104. Spouse robbed in a mall. Police need prospects. by jclaer · · Score: 1

    Robbed at knife point. Don't you want the police to have a list of prospects?

  105. Re: Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do some of you try so hard to conflate legal immigrants with illegal immigrants so much ?

    Beats the hell out of me, since this abuse is so overshadowed by the fact that most of the victims are US citizens. Everyone's license plate is being scanned at these malls and sent to the government, aren't they? Surely the mall has no clue about the residential status of each registered owner (which might be the driver or at least one of the passenger).

    It's pretty nutty that people are even bothering to bring up immigrants at all. I'm not saying immigrants should be denied justice, but holy shit. I don't care if you're a legal immigrant or an illegal one, you will fucking get in line behind US citizens when it's time to stone the people to death who got caught doing this. We get first throw. I hope the president decides to bomb ICE back to the stone age, as a lesson to anyone else who ever targets America like this.

  106. Re: Same here by jittles · · Score: 1

    Unless you are a criminal, ICE really doesn't have any standing to hassle you

    Do you follow the news at all? ICE agents harass people on a regular basis, whether they are US citizens or not. They can stop you and search your vehicle at any time if you’re within a certain distance of any border (including the entire east and west coast), as well as a certain distance of an international airport. They can stop and search something like 95% of the US population at any time under the current rules that they operate under. Even the ACLU talks about it though they erroneously omit international airports as a port of entry.

  107. Most data collection done by bail and repo guys by drnb · · Score: 1

    ... the solution is to not shop there, encourage others to do the same, and let stores know why you won't shop there ...

    Not its not. Most harvesting of license plate data is done by bail and repo guys. They have been cruising parking lots for many years now collecting data and selling it to these private brokers. This will happen in any parking lot. Anywhere has the possibility of logging.

  108. Mentioning ICE was just for clickbait by drnb · · Score: 1

    Mentioning ICE was just for clickbait. The system evolved out of private industry, specifically bail and repo guys recording plates, a central database emerging, bail and repo and then the government all subscribing to it. Local and state PD have been subscribing to the private database for a long time, various feds too, ICE is quite a small part of its use.

  109. This happens frequently at gun shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Law enforcement has been known to cruise the parking lot at gun shows and copy down license plate numbers. Targetting citizens engaged in a completely lawful activity. The usual crowd of "civil liberty" organizations didn't make a peep about it.

    It seems that most people don't mind an authoritarian government, as long as it's pointed at someone they don't like.

  110. poison the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Print up a bunch of signs with actual license plate images on them, and plant them around town, so those cars appear to be all over.

    Also, I wonder if the scanners are programmed to avoid a buffer overflow attack? A 200-character plate number might be a fun experiment

  111. Immigrants at risk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or is it Illegals that are at risk? My grandfather was a legal immigrant. Don't put him in the same category as those who come to this country illegally.

  112. Re:Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Objection, assuming facts not in evidence.

    And whats with the collective punishment thing, didn't that go out of style?

  113. Mall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will never visit one again for the rest of my life.

  114. Driver licenses/plates are immoral dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People will often excuse government mandated plates as being some sort of necessity for safety reasons all the while failing to recognize that was never the intended purpose of drivers licenses in the first place nor has it rid our roads of dangerous drivers. License plates are similarly stupid for a variety of reasons even if they once had a useful function. You see in the case of drivers licenses all you have done is checked that a person is capable of passing a simple driving test rather than checked how well they actually drive in the real world. Accidents are the result of inexperience and/or people being stupid not for a lack of ability. China has much stricter driving tests and yet the number of really poor drivers on the roads is significantly greater. Texting while driving, not paying attention, etc. A driving test won't keep unsafe drivers off the road. Increasing the driving age also doesn't work because you simply end up with older inexperienced drivers. Now you can say we have fewer accidents, which may be true, but we also have fewer drivers on the road as a result, which also they fail to take into account. People who are stupid or misleading buy into this idea we just need to raise the driving age and this results in ever increasing age before young people are permitted to drive.

    License plates are equally stupid in an era where there are automatic number plate recognition systems from a privacy perspective. But what I consider to be the danger here is not private entities- but rather it opens a future government to abusing the citizenry. I do think the population at large has a right to film in public, but I don't think the government necessarily has the right to monitor the public at large. Nor does the government retain a significant justification over the vehicle theft argument when there are non-governmental solutions available to these problems. From GPS monitoring devices to anti-theft systems. The right of all people to travel anywhere they choose within is also compromised as the majority of the country is not reachable by any sort of public transit system or even via walking or other means. The protections and rights are not exclusive to a select group of people who have the money, means, and desire to comply with arbitrary court rulings and laws. The rights of everyone are suppose to be above the laws passed and safety should never be an acceptable excuse to negate those rights.

  115. It seems like you want it to be down to bigotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a lot of anti-immigration is down to bigotry

    Wrong. Here in Colorado, an illegal immigrant recently started a large wildfire. It turns out JesperJorgensen is from Denmark and has lily-white skin. That doesn't matter one bit to the anti-illegal-immigrant crowd; we want him gone just as badly as if he were a non-white person. Race/ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

    Some people constantly promote the false narrative that the anti-illegal-immigrant crowd is a bunch of racists; they hate cases like JesperJorgensen's, which prove that it's not about race at all.

  116. Re: Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are punishing those involved. These ppl were seen and heard dealing criminally with Russians.

  117. I was born in California... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and I say if you are looking for illegal aliens, there are much better places to look for them than malls.

  118. Re: Same here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure they have...

    http://fidelitydiary.com/email-indias-selfie-obsession-hits-new-low-as-man-takes-picture-in-front-of-dying-road-accident-victims/

  119. Building the snitch state.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...just like any Soviet country where anybody might be a rat, even your neighbor or your kids. And it didn't matter if the allegations were true. It's already starting to work the same way here in the US.

  120. California has the evil digital license plate GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's amazingly evil. The guy who made that must have a tracking motive from the Gov or some where else.

    The 2010's will be known for humans using technology for evil and causing all citizens to cower and become un-creative.

  121. Oh, golly, criminals are complaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, we have a ton of illegals in CA, and now they don't want to be found. Of course, since the dawn of time, criminals have wanted to do their illegal acts without consequence. CA is as close to the criminal nirvana as anywhere, but there are limits. There is no privacy when you are in public, and checking your license is find. I hope a ton of illegals are found and captured.

  122. The TOS.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone bother reading the posted TOS of the Mall's parking lot? It specifically says that while on the lot any gathered data is property of the mall and by using the lot you agree to let them monetize it however they see fit.

    lol

  123. Good by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Mexican woman hit my Son's truck, it was FIVE DAYS OLD in the parking lot. $95,000 truck. Pulled that no english shit on him, he called the cops. No license, no documents, not a US Citizen, no insurance, nothing. Where it was hit was in Virginia in one of those sanctuary places. They should have taken her to jail like they did when an illegal hit my car two decades ago not far from where this happened. I never saw a dime from that one either. At least she was deported. The estimate for this repair is $5,400. She hit him with a Lincoln Navigator and they let her go. We're sure she'll never show up again.

    Why are we putting up with this? So Democrats can get a few more votes? Another friend of mine was sliced up by MS13. They used a machete. No one seems to know who did it. This is insanity. They don't care about us, do whatever they want and they're getting away with it. They're turning the US into a third world country. Wake up people, if you want the US to still be the US, we must send these people back. Otherwise you can look forward to vandalism, crime, rape, murder. When it happens to your friends, your wife, don't say you weren't warned. The real bad ones aren't from Mexico by the way. They're from war torn places in South America below Mexico. They think the guy that sliced up my friend was from Guatemala. Still at large. They grew up with people being killed all around them. They think they should do the same thing here.

    Child trafficking, sex trafficking, etc. Just let it happen?

  124. I wonder... by side.road · · Score: 1

    I'm no lawyer, but I wonder, what if you make up a custom license plate frame, copyright it or trademark it or whatever, then when they snag a picture of your plate and the frame is in it, and that picture is then sold for profit. . . Kind of like doing up a video for YouTube and forgetting that you have your favorite radio station on in the background.

  125. never too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's still never too late to do the right thing.

  126. Licence plate data. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America, land of the free......

  127. GDPR issues (california style) by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    GDPR-using countries have repeatedly ruled that license plates are personally identifying information.

    California now has its own version of GDPR.

    A quick summary of the rules is that PII-type data is only used for purposes relevant to the business operation, is not retained longer than necessary and is NOT passed to 3rd parties without explicit _written_ consent - signs at the parking entrance don't cut it.

    Who wants to buy some popcorn shares?

  128. Re:Spouse robbed in a mall. Police need prospects. by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    Straw man.

    At that point law enforcement can request the footage - and will need to, in order to trace paths and see _which_ vehicles are involved (if any, the perp may have arrived/left on foot) and what the registrations are. Only then do they have cause to lookup the registration.

    "Collect the usual suspects" is fine if you live in a stratified, biased plutocracy with an aggressive paramiltary police force working on the presumption that "XYZ done it" before they even set foot out of the police station door, don't actually care about catching the actual perpetrator and are prone to doling out extrajudicial executions like some south american shithole of old. But then again if you live in the USA the evidence is increasingly clear that's exactly the kind of society that you do live in, just with a slightly shinier veneer than most.

  129. Re:How do they identify illegals with license plat by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    "California seems highly permissive and tolerant of illegals"

    California (and a number of other states) used to be part of Mexico until it was forcibly taken by the USA in a war that Mexico didn't start. It was Mexican for a LOT longer than it's been part of the USA and it has a widespread Mexican heritage.

    Bear that in mind when you start talking about "illegal migrants". There's a prevailing view amongst many that the label should be applied to the WASPs.

  130. Search warrant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Law enforcement must get a search warrant?

    Some plaintiff customer could get a restraining order?
       

  131. New outrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I already had simmering discontent about government overreach. No surprise about ICE and other law enforcement. Headline makes a big deal about ICE but I just assumed it is already happening. My new outrage is about debt collectors and insurance agencies.