
ICE Modified Its 'Risk Assessment' Software So It Always Recommends Detention - severine
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evk3kw/ice-modified-its-risk-assessment-software-so-it-automatically-recommends-detention
======
atonse
This is a perfect example of software engineers doing something extremely
unethical, and shouldn’t be able to hide behind “I was just following orders”

~~~
Amezarak
Well, this depends entirely on your ethics.

According to the article, the system previously involved intensive,
bureaucratic questioning of undocumented immigrants after which the system
would come to some kind of decision.

Since we're dealing with apprehended, undocumented immigrants, I would have no
problem whatsoever changing the software to recommend detention. It certainly
seems better than a semi-arbitrary decision no human can explain.

The whole idea of letting them go and setting a court date seems preposterous,
a waste of everyone's time and resources, and they aren't incentivized to go -
if they're willing to enter the country illegally, why would they not be
willing to miss a court date? It's just a circus, for show. The whole system
is broken - why detain these people at all? They should be deported, not
jailed and given a show trial.

You may disagree, and that's fair. I would argue that nations have borders and
nobody had a problem with this for centuries. You might argue the world is
changing, open borders are the only just and fair thing due to human welfare
concerns. But there is a reasonable debate to be had and it seems really glib
to dismiss the engineers who did this as people who should be on a nuremberg
trial.

~~~
atonse
I don't actually disagree too much with what you're saying (regarding
enforcing borders, etc).

But why have a sham scoring system if you're just going to rig it? That's
where the ethics come in. Because you bet your ass that they'd be using the
score of this system to justify what are essentially racially motivated
actions.

There are arguments to be said that if a lot of these people had a legal way
to enter and leave, they actually wouldn't stay the whole time. After all,
most people want to be in their homeland and with their culture, and not
always feel like second class citizens. But their need for jobs keeps them in
a place like here.

------
trhway
>"Final custody decisions are always made by ICE deportation officers."

ICE seems to be an exception here, isn't? IANAL, my understanding is that for
any person in US jurisdiction any decision on bond/custody is supposed to be
made by a judge. I mean at least Guantanamo is, by some sleight of hands (for
example US flagged vessels aren't while US flagged military base is?), somehow
outside US jurisdiction. It seems that ICE actions are also excluded. History
has been showing again and again that leaving the things unchecked in the hand
of executive power is naturally leading to the abuse of the power.

------
snuffop
Where is the proof before we get into any discussion on how this doesn't
matter. Immigrant or invader is the first question. immigrant has started the
process of LEGAL immigration. opposite is an invader Cause really how many
living in northern Mexico can afford to vacation in Texas

------
severine
Seems like this is being flagged out of the front page (and there's another
similar link from boingboing.net), is it for not being original reporting? In
that case, the linked article from Reuters is a good original source:

Trump’s catch-and-detain policy snares many who have long called U.S. home:
[https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-
immi...](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-immigration-
court/)

------
neo4sure
I saw another article where ice officers pulled kids by there hair to push
them into cells.

------
superkuh
The article seems to suggest the worst crime most were picked up for is
traffic violations. But illegal immigration is a serious crime in and of
itself. The crime that triggered them being caught hardly matters in this
context.

~~~
aplusbi
Unlawful presence (for example, overstaying a visa) is not a crime, and
improper entry (sneaking over the border) is a misdemeanor.[0]

0 - [https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-
immigra...](https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-
a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html)

~~~
Amezarak
Outside of the strict legal definition, it's a crime. This is pedantic and
legalistic. Yes, you're technically correct. But most people consider
violating the law to be a criminal act, and unlawful presence is breaking the
law even if it's civil and not criminal.

People point this out regularly. Everyone either knows, or doesn't care for
the reasons I just stated. It doesn't contribute anything to the conversation.

~~~
aplusbi
In the context of the parent comment I don't see how this is pedantic and
legalistic. superkah was suggesting that being an undocumented immigrant is a
serious enough crime to warrant detention. I am asserting that it is not based
on the fact that it is a civil crime, or at worst a misdemeanor.

~~~
Amezarak
Yes, but the "seriousness" of a crime is not determined by its specific legal
definition in the public consciousness, and nobody thinks that it is. For
example, few people would argue a small-time weed dealer copping to a felony
has committed a more serious crime than someone charged with misdemeanor
domestic assault.

~~~
mcphage
In that case, many people don’t consider it a serious crime at all.

~~~
Amezarak
That's exactly my point - that's the reason the issue is contentious in the
first place. Many people strongly believe it's a serious crime. Many people
strong believe there's absolutely nothing wrong with it and the law is unjust.
Most people believe something in between.

That's what makes the original comment so unsubstantive, and why I was so
critical of it. It doesn't persuade. It's not interesting. It doesn't provide
any new information - that same factoid is brought up in almost every
discussion about immigration. It sidesteps the whole issue to make a pointless
legal argument - very similar to when someone mentions that the First
Amendment only protects you government censorship. Yes, everyone knows that,
it's not what anyone is arguing about.

The reason I read HN is because many people with many different views write
great comments about technical issues. Sometimes we drift off into somewhat
less technical issues like this, but often the comment quality remains high.
And when it does, it's because we're not writing comments like that.

And to be perfectly fair, my response was clearly not articulated well and
_also_ fell into that category - whether I feel that way or not, that's what I
take downvotes (it's presently at -4, which I didn't even know was possible)
to mean. (Upvotes don't mean the converse, though!) I should have also done
better.

