no_opinions

The suspicious thing isn't the tool/technology, it's the actor and what the world would be like if they ran the show.

This is a good reason why Chinese needs to democratize totally and switch things up.

The issue is, when you live in China and luck strikes out, there's no choice but to conform, or face suffering, which if Xinjiang is any measure, includes deprivation of liberty. Take pity on the one who has disagreement with the system in PRC.

I don't understand a government lasting long without elections by the people. I don't get their end game on the world stage. They remind me of Kefka from Final Fantasy VI, or team rocket in Pokemon, because news often planning some conspiracy or trap that'd backfire on them in the end.

> to track down an immigrant suspected of “unlawful reentry” into the country.

In other words - we don't know who they even are. Just that they're furtive and evading authorities.

The unlawful entry in itself is bad, but what exactly they're doing, which could range from a scheme to dodge customs fees, unfairly circumvent immigration procedures our democratically elected congress put into law, to drug running, to spying, to hurting people.

Every country identifies its entrants. Why are people so eager to make light of such a fair procedure?

There is a serious national security rationale backing identifying an "unlawful entrant" ASAP. I hope the law gives the government maximum authority and upgrades their tools so they can keep us safe.

I wish places like ACLU would be good examples and be candid. By the way they talk in this letter - it's not like they disagree with a law - it's like they're against the concept of the most basic principle of international travel: Getting your passport stamped.

They also don't have many social benefits, consumer representation or affordable housing.

If they had to pay US companies back for all the IP they've stolen / used without licensing, they'd be broke.

It would be great if there was world peace, happy families and spouses that stayed together forever, and no foreigners targeting your country.

People often forget that foreign governments are targeting USA and US persons abroad. There isn't another move left but to have surveillance tools and ingest a lot of data. If the advantage is lost, it will be someone else having it.

This also extends to military things. It'd be nice if we all cooperated as countries and built a space elevator. But that's a child's fantasy, in the end there's a power dilemma.

The thing with surveillance / war industry / etc. is there isn't a better alternative. It's not about being bullheaded and mean - it's about the very real threat of losing dominance and having foreign powers boss you around. This has happened to many countries throughout the history of civilization.

Instead of complaining about surveillance in intelligence, which likely doesn't relate to you, why not complain about "normal" civil liberties in a criminal law context - for instance, stricter rules around stored data. Other things include better social benefits, affordable housing, better representation as consumer (e.g. right to repair)?

I bet security will mean a lot more when the system being protected helps the common person more. :)

> The argument against it is basically that abuse of powerful surveillance technologies is inevitable precisely because the technology is so powerful.

What would be some examples of an abuse?

What would be some examples of a powerful surveillance technology?

For instance, what "surveillance technology" isn't already an internal diagnostic tool for day-to-day system administration for a telecom/service provider?

Only difference is who picks the target and them having oversight (likely having to provide a predicate/rationale). Why is this so bad?

If there's a lack of oversight, what rules and systems would you suggest to prevent abuse, as you define it?

What is the actual complaint they have about ICE?

Is it the immigration policy, the immigration court system? individual agents/employees?

Doesn't every country have a counterpart to ICE that handles immigration rules?

Are there any countries that allow people to come and go without identifying themselves and having permission?

How is requiring identification and a visa (authorization) human rights abuse? If that's the standard for human rights abuse, then how can we own/lease/operate a car, have a bank account, rent an apartment, have an email account, access the internet, and so on?

Isn't identification and permission justified merely for the sake of bureaucracy? How else would you be able to keep an email inbox and go back to it without someone saying its you, and/or the mail being lost?

Maybe immigration policies could be improved, what specifically is it that could be done better?

> Like with dumb-phone they can avoid cell-tower tracking

I don't think there's any kind of cell phone that can avoid being triangulated. I believe it has to do with call routing.

If that mechanism was completely removed, wouldn't there be no way for us to get phone calls, and calls would drop between towers.

Wouldn't a better way of exploring this be to begin at who is accessing the data and why? Businesses have a legitimate case to access their own information to provide a better experience, at the very least.

Also if it's a criminal / national security purpose, what's wrong with the idea of a big data / hay stack warrant, in certain circumstances? Isn't there some situations where it'd clearly make sense?

> The people that scoff at surveillance are an indicator that something is broken.

While there's probably always a case to improve things, when I read conversations on data privacy, I feel many don't want to draw nuance into the technical and legal specifics.

Regardless of society, isn't there always a certain kind of person, due to their upbringing, feels persecuted, though? Isn't there also a type of person who just raises a stink out of pure catharsis? Aren't they almost always ignorant of basics behind the law or technology of what they rant about, often both?

If it was really a sincere thing, why not go into details: e.g. For instance, GPS'ing a vehicle. State or federal law? What predicate / proof is needed? Is there a notification or redress? How long does it last? Any scoping/minimization? Is it supervised judicially or administratively?

While I think of it, maybe there's a reason these things are kept ambiguous, I guess in every country: I don't think people want organized criminal enterprises like mobsters, spies, drug lords, and terrorists gaming the system.

> State and corporate stalking must stop.

I don't think all government surveillance is the same. In most cases they seek authorization to access a private businesses data some how.

If someone is a "normal" consumer, a hospital patient, etc. I don't think the conversation is the same anymore. Wouldn't this be what most normal people care about?

> Your participation will never be disclosed from our side unless you publicize it on your own.

Blackmail / extortion / compromise trap right there. Don't email em, don't talk to em.

If you're an American and you go there, they have dirt on you and can threaten to reveal it if you don't play ball with them.

Shame on you, North Korea!

Also that feel when the only tech smarts you can get is cryptocurrency folks