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.

379 of 677 comments (clear)

  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: 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    17. 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.
    18. 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??

    19. 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.'"
    20. 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.

    21. 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.

    22. 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.

    23. 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.

    24. 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
    25. 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.
    26. 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
    27. 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!"

    28. 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.
    29. 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.
    30. 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.
    31. 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.
    32. 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.
    33. 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.

    34. 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.

    35. 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.
    36. 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
    37. 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.
    38. 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.
    39. 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.
    40. Re:Invading privacy? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

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

    41. 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.
    42. 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.
    43. Re:Invading privacy? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

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

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

      So your saying a shoot-out is the answer?

    45. 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.'"
    46. 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.

    47. 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?

    48. 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
    49. 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.'"
    50. 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.

    51. 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.'"
    52. 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.

    53. 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.

    54. 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??

    55. 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.)

    56. 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.

    57. 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.

    58. 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.

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

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

    60. 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.

    61. 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.

    62. 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.

    63. 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
    64. 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'
    65. 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...

    66. 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

    67. 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'
    68. 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.
    69. 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.
    70. 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
    71. 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.

    72. 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.

    73. 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.

    74. 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.

    75. 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.

    76. 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.

    77. 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

    78. 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.

    79. 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.
    80. 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.
    81. 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.
    82. 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.
    83. 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.
    84. 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.
    85. 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.
    86. Re:Invading privacy? by bob4u2c · · Score: 1

      Facebook already has this covered.

    87. 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.
    88. 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.
    89. 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.
    90. 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.
    91. 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.
    92. 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.
    93. 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.

    94. 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.

    95. 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.

    96. 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.

    97. 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?

    98. 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.

    99. 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.

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

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

    101. 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.
    102. 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.
    103. 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.
    104. 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.
    105. 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.

    106. 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?

    107. 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.

    108. 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.

    109. 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.

    110. 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.

    111. 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).

    112. 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.

    113. 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.
    114. 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.

    115. 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".

    116. 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!
    117. 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!
    118. 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!
    119. 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.

    120. 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!
    121. 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.

    122. 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.
    123. 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.

    124. 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'
    125. 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.

    126. 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.
    127. 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.
    128. 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.
    129. 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.
    130. 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.
    131. 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.
    132. 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.
    133. 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.
    134. 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.

    135. 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

    136. 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.
    137. 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?

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

      I continue to write CONgress critters

      Are you surprised they don't take you seriously?

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

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

    140. 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.
    141. 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.
    142. 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.'"
    143. 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.'"
    144. Re:Invading privacy? by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

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

    145. 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.
    146. Re:Invading privacy? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

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

    147. 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.
    148. 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.'"
    149. 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.'"
    150. 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.

    151. 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.
    152. 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.
    153. 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.
    154. 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.
    155. 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.
    156. 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.
    157. 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.
    158. 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.

    159. 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.

    160. 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.
    161. 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'
    162. 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.'"
    163. 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.

    164. 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!
    165. 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.
    166. 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.
    167. 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.
    168. 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.
    169. 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.
    170. 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.
    171. 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.
    172. 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.

    173. 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.

    174. 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.

    175. 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.

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

      Without jobs they will have to find other means of earning some cash...

    177. 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.

    178. 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.
    179. 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.

    180. 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.

    181. 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.
    182. Re: Invading privacy? by greenzrx · · Score: 1

      The first time it's a misdemeanor, the second time it's a felony.

    183. 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.

    184. 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'
    185. 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.

    186. 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.

    187. 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.
    188. 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.

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

      Is that a kind of practise for when you remove all the poor people too?

    190. 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.
    191. 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.

    192. 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.
    193. 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.
    194. 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.
    195. 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?

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

      Why indeed?

      "Cha ching"

    197. 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.
    198. 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.
  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 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
    3. 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.
    4. 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
    5. Re:Good by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's my point.

    6. Re:Good by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      It *is* legal to immigrate.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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
    14. 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
    15. 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
    16. 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
    17. 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
    18. 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
    19. 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'
    20. 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.

  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 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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
    5. 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.'"
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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
    11. 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.

    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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'
    19. 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'
    20. 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'
    21. 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.

    22. 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.

    23. 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.
    24. 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.

    25. 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.

    26. 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.

    27. 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.

    28. 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.

    29. 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.

    30. 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.

    31. 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.
    32. 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.
    33. 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."
    34. 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!

    35. 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.

  4. 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!
  5. Good thing malls are dying by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since malls are dying, I guess the problem will eventually solve itself. Thanks Amazon.

  6. 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 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.

  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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 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.

    4. 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.
  11. 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 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.'"
    4. 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?

    5. 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.

    6. 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.'"
  12. 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 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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.'"
    7. 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?

    8. 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
    9. 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
    10. 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
    11. 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
    12. 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'
    13. 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 !"

    14. 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
    15. 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.'"
    16. 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.

    17. 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
    18. 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.'"
    19. 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
    20. 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?

    21. 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'
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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.'"
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Re:Same here by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

    I saw what you did there you big goof.

  21. Re:Same here by i286NiNJA · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He's a troll. Look at his comment history.
    At least he's doing it right.

  22. 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"
  23. 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.
  24. 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"
  25. 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. 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 raburton · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure the GDPR applies everywhere personal data is collected, not just online.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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
  32. 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 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.

    3. 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"
  33. 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 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"
    3. 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"
    4. 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.
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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.'"
  37. 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.'"
  38. 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.
  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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.

  43. "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
  44. 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.'"
  45. 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
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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
  49. Stop Breaking The Law! by Zorro · · Score: 1

    It is easy. Try it!

  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Re: Same here by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    You misspelled "instruction manual".

  53. 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
  54. 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.
  55. 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.
  56. 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.

  57. 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
  58. 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.

  59. 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.

  60. 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.
  61. 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.
  62. 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.

  63. 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.

  64. 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.'"
  65. 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.

  66. 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?

  67. 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.

  68. 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.

  69. 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.

  70. 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?

  71. 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.

  72. 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?

  73. 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.

  74. 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.

  75. 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.