
Amazon is helping ICE track, detain and deport immigrants, report says - jchanimal
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-news-amazon-tech-companies-transforming-immigration-enforcement-20181023-story.html
======
sfcguyus
Doesn't the electric company help too? What about taxes, that also helps fund
ICE. Amazon doesn't pay its taxes so I suppose it's against ICE in a way too..

~~~
notafraudster
I assume you know that there is probably some continuum of culpability
between, say, being a cafeteria vendor that sells 7up to ICE employees and
being a technology company that provides surveillance technology or support to
ICE.

There is also a continuum in criticism between writing a relatively tame op-ed
complaining that a company supports ICE and, like, burning down their
headquarters.

And it's not like anyone is asking Amazon to scan S3 bucket registrations to
try to reject any from the US government; we're talking about high level,
mega-million dollar sales efforts, products specifically targeted for the
government surveillance audience, and company participation in training. So it
is very feasible for Amazon to make a choice to do or not do this stuff
without a lot of monitoring overhead.

I feel embarrassed articulating the above because it is so obvious, which
makes me wonder if the parent comment is really in good faith to begin with.

~~~
basic1
I'm not familiar with the ICE dog-whistle, what are they culpable for?

~~~
maccio92
According to the left, deporting illegal immigrants who are breaking the law
is a bad thing and we should therefore abolish ICE.

------
hkai
> The federal government increasingly relies on policing through tech
> innovations — including big data analysis and cloud-based storage

Ok.

------
lykr0n
Immigrants that are non-compliant with the law, aka people breaking the law.

~~~
notacoward
"They're illegal" is neither true nor sufficient.

ICE and CBP have also repeatedly detained, denied entry to, or generally
harassed people who are in _full compliance_ with immigration law. That has
included lawful applicants for asylum or refugee status, lawful permanent
residents, and even US citizens. That's all besides the fact that being legal
doesn't make something moral, consistent with national ideals, or economically
wise. Or that unnecessarily cruel enforcement of a law is still a crime in its
own right.

~~~
lykr0n
I made no comment about what they were doing. It's just the article goes to
great lengths to avoid saying that the people in question are breaking the
law.

I think there is merit to using Facial Rec and License Plate readers to try
and find people who are in violation of the law. The ethics and morals come
into retention of that data. Collect and retain facial information for future
use? Bad. Search for a known face in a crowd. Better.

And bad behavior of some is not a valid excuse for everyone. Police sometimes
kill innocent people, but that's not a reason to say the police shouldn't
carry guns. Tools can be abused, and that abuse needs to be aggressively
monitored and punished, but that's not an argument to not use something.

~~~
notacoward
> the article goes to great lengths to avoid saying that the people in
> question are breaking the law.

Or maybe they didn't "go to great lengths" to use that as an excuse. Really,
why is it even relevant? If an organization is doing wrong, no matter who
they're doing it to or whether they also do right sometimes, that alone is
sufficient to question support for them.

> Police sometimes kill innocent people, but that's not a reason to say the
> police shouldn't carry guns.

By the same token, very few immigrants are anything but innocent people
looking to live and contribute to the American Dream, so there's no reason to
preemptively exclude or bother them. There seems to be a bit of a double
standard here. Bad cops? It's just "a few bad apples" to handle case by case
after the fact (and half-heartedly in most cases). Immigrant criminals? Well,
better put up a wall and do "extreme vetting" before we let anyone through.

~~~
lykr0n
> Really, why is it even relevant? If an organization is doing wrong, no
> matter who they're doing it to or whether they also do right sometimes, that
> alone is sufficient to question support for them.

We put GPS trackers on convicted criminals. We limit the freedoms of people
convicted of crimes; can't buy guns, can't get certain kind of jobs, can't
vote in some places. We put out warrants for the arrest of people accused of
crimes in cases.

What's wrong? Using modern tools to catch criminals?

> By the same token, very few immigrants are anything but innocent people
> looking to live and contribute to the American Dream, so there's no reason
> to preemptively exclude or bother them.

Ok. But we live in a country of laws and rules. If I knock over a bank and
don't harm anyone- that's fine right? I'm just trying to provide for my
family. The bank has insurance. If I don't report my taxes, it doesn't harm
anyone. The government has enough money. Breaking the law doesn't harm anyone-
right?

> Bad cops? It's just "a few bad apples" to handle case by case after the fact
> (and half-hardheartedly in most cases). Immigrant criminals? Well, better
> put up a wall and do "extreme vetting" before we let anyone through.

We're putting body cameras on cops to stop abuses. We put cameras in cop cars
so we can make sure what they say happened happened.

If an Immigrant comes here without proper authorization, without a visa, or
stays on an expired visa; they are breaking the law. They have no inherent
right to immigrate here. Coming into any country is a courtesy extended by the
government of that country. If Japan doesn't want to issue a visa for whatever
reason, that is their right. You have no right to visit or move to Japan. If
they wish to do "extreme vetting", that is their right.

Cops has no inherent right to become a cop. They have to be hired, trained,
and maintain a standard. Sure, there are bad ones who are not punished for
their actions- and yes that is a double standard that needs to be fixed.

> Immigrant criminals? Well, better put up a wall and do "extreme vetting"
> before we let anyone through.

The stupid idea of a wall is to stop people from breaking the law. As I said
before, nobody has the right to immigrate to this country as they want. If
they ignore our laws and do so anyway, they should be removed- as they broke
the law.

~~~
notacoward
> we live in a country of laws and rules.

Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" one of those rules? And aren't "life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" supposed to be inalienable _human_
rights? Do you suppose the people who wrote that believed that these "self-
evident truths" only applied to people born in a country that didn't exist
yet?

> If an Immigrant comes here without proper authorization, without a visa, or
> stays on an expired visa

There you go again, pretending that ICE/CBP never bother anybody who's here
legally. That's just not reality, and the cases where they overstep their own
_legal_ bounds are the ones that are most relevant here. We are a country of
laws and rules, with nobody above those, right?

~~~
biglenny
In this thread, you seem to be equating the infrequent overstepping of legal
boundaries with an act that is fundamentally illegal, without exception.

~~~
notacoward
No, I'm saying that the "fundamentally illegal" act is irrelevant. The reason
people even care about AWS helping ICE is entirely about their abusive
behavior, not the proper discharge of their legitimate legal duties. Just like
#BlackLivesMatter isn't about police being professional as they apprehend
actual criminals and do other things to keep us all safe. Abuse is abuse, no
matter what surrounds it, and there should be zero tolerance for it.

~~~
biglenny
I think you'll find that most people who dislike ICE do so because they are
opposed to the acts they are designed to carry out (i.e., deportations). In
this very thread, you have declared opposition to deportations.

And regarding AWS, the technology will allow ICE to carry out it's job more
effectively (i.e., more deportations). This is clearly upsetting for some.

------
mscasts
> Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European
> countries.

But given the title, I assume "help" is providing tech resources just like to
anyone else?

~~~
Karunamon
Looks that way. Here's an archive:
[http://archive.is/s9aXG](http://archive.is/s9aXG)

The political slant of the author comes through loud and clear from the first
paragraph:

> _Amazon and other tech companies are raking in billions by selling services
> that aid President Trump’s deportation agenda, according to a report._

Some find and replace set to "non-partisan" would render that:

> _Amazon and other tech companies are profitably selling services that aid
> lawful immigration enforcement, according to a report._

Also telling is the (imo, blatantly dishonest) refusal to use the words
"illegal", "undocumented", etc, making it sound like ICE is attacking people
who crossed the border legally.

