Widespread use of the technology has raised alarms among privacy advocates and some former officials.
Read the original article
Comments
By mystraline 2026-01-055:53 By perihelions 2026-01-059:57 In the Civil Rights era, segregationist states' police would systematically[0] stop and fingerprint black people, without individualized suspicion, to see if they were in criminal fingerprint databases. There's nothing new under the sun. Biometrics are centuries old; the tech we're talking about here is merely evolutionary, not something qualitatively new and different in human terms. The debate we're revisiting, safetyism vs. liberty, is old and well-trodden. And of course the part where these degrading searches are clearly targeted at minorities based on their appearance and skin color is of no novelty whatsoever.
[0] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/721/ ("Davis v. Mississippi (1969)")
By KnuthIsGod 2026-01-055:178 reply When China did this, this was seen as a terrible violation of rights....
Now that we do this hundreds of times a day, it has become routine.
By FuturisticLover 2026-01-058:191 reply The US literary attacked a country and captured its leader. They always have a double standard.
By fiyec30375 2026-01-0511:121 reply Literary? Haha
By FuturisticLover 2026-01-0514:29 I can't even ask for forgiveness for this diabolical.
This is still not fully supported by law. It is becoming normalized indeed, especially by the current admin. Let's hope this is not going to become widely used or that it doesn't stay permanently, eg. it gets at least restricted to some type of crime by future administrations.
Not supported by law where? I’m unaware of any legal proscription of this practice in the USA, and the Journal article makes no such claims, either.
(IAAL but this is not my primary field of expertise, and this is not legal advice.)
There are many unresolved gray areas around what exactly the 4th amendment permits in the way of what United States v. Knotts called "dragnet-type law enforcement practices". Knotts suggested they might not be permitted, even if they were made up of permissible individual parts, but didn't elaborate. More recent case law has held, for example, that cell phone companies turning over large quantities of records is a 4th amendment search requiring a warrant, even if they do it voluntarily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States). Most other types of dragnets haven't been litigated enough to have solid caselaw on their boundaries afaik.
I don't know if it's likely a court will do anything about this particular program, but from what I've read I don't think 4th amendment scholars think this area is at all settled.
From what I understand, this isn’t so much a “dragnet” operation involving combing through mass quantities of records on demand; it’s more like “this person is in public in my field of view, and I want to know who they are.”
More importantly, though, the cases so far have focused on the investigative activity that follows once a suspect has been identified. Here, we’re talking about de-anonymization: identifying one or more individuals who occupy a public space. AFAIK, the Court has never established a reasonable expectation of privacy of one’s identity in public. That will be a steep hill to climb.
I don't have to identify myself to police where I live. That's why, in my opinion, this is an unreasonable use of technology. I'm not sure what qualifies under the fourteenth but force-ably identifying me when I don't want to be and not required to seems unreasonable.
By otterley 2026-01-0516:18 In the U.S., current law holds that for a law enforcement officer to stop and request identification, the officer needs at least some sort of articulable basis for doing so (Terry stop). The key word here, though, is “stop.” Electronic surveillance of a public space, though, involves stopping nobody. It’s not clear to me that passive identification involves either a “search” or “seizure” within the traditional meaning of the 4th Amendment. We’ll see what the courts think, though.
By reaperducer 2026-01-0523:361 reply Not supported by law where? I’m unaware of any legal proscription of this practice in the USA
Using facial recognition on people without their consent is illegal in a growing number of states.
Facebook lost a class-action lawsuit about this and I (and many other people) got a check for a little under $500.
By otterley 2026-01-064:29 It was a settlement, not a “loss” in any legal sense. It sets no legal precedent, and no future plaintiff can cite it.
> The settlement, announced Tuesday, does not act as an admission of guilt and Meta maintains no wrongdoing.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/07/30/texas-meta-facebook-...
While you are correct that some states do regulate facial recognition, all they can do is regulate their own law enforcement and private entities doing business there. They cannot regulate the federal government (ICE and CBP are federal agencies).
By b112 2026-01-058:10 Indeed.
And the latest admin is only a string in the ever increasing use of such tech.
It should be illegal, but people are deluded if they think it started here.
By netsharc 2026-01-056:15 Ah, what's good is law when the branch^W [after rereading about it, executive power is given to one] person tasked with executing laws is... lawless?
The notion that future administrations won't be offshots of the current regime (again, why do you think laws regarding democracy, like fair elections, will be upheld?) is also too hopeful.
Happy new year!
By SlightlyLeftPad 2026-01-055:52 It won’t be restricted until the people push against it to a point where it becomes too politically expensive to not restrict.
By wslh 2026-01-058:02 Law is expensive.
By servo_sausage 2026-01-058:096 reply China is already doing abominable things; how people react to additional surveillance is always related to what the state is actually doing with that information.
So a system that supports the abduction of polital rivals (an actual human rights violation) is not the same as a system that supports the lawful arrest of someone breaking a law that's accepted as part of a democracy.
I also think the scale of investment plays a part, the investment in surveillance in China is absurd. Its a significant number of people (per capita) that do nothing but monitor people. These new systems are rather cheap; so much so that they feel a whole lot more inevitable.
By vkou 2026-01-058:24 > is not the same as a system that supports the lawful arrest
That is not the system that the US has had since 2025, and the executive has made it very clear that it is not the system that it wants the US to have.
Meanwhile, SCOTUS has made it very clear that nothing this executive does will have any consequences for it.
Rule of law is a fairy tale when ICE can snag anyone they want off the street and throw them into some CECOT torture pit.
Rule of law is a fairy tale when the executive disregards direct judicial orders.
By heavyset_go 2026-01-058:291 reply Democracy is when you get abducted and sent to CECOT because some shitty AI face app said so
By mindslight 2026-01-0516:47 Democracy is when the useful idiots cheer on the abductions/renditions with full-throated support, relishing in the spectacular human suffering of others as if two wrongs make a right. But those pounds of flesh are merely being chummed at them by the same exact corporate-government propagandists that shipped their jobs to China in the first place, now promising naked fascism as a way of somehow putting things right when it's really just the next step of the ongoing destruction of their country. But I'm sure when they start to wake up to the grave error they've made (ten+ years too late), their egos will protect themselves with cognitive dissonance while the machine throws them some new scapegoats to distract themselves with.
ICE does not care about "lawful arrests". Like common, that is not their thing.
By fiyec30375 2026-01-0511:141 reply [flagged]
By metalman 2026-01-0512:00 comming through the door with a throw away account to monitor and disparage someones reputation under the increadably dubious cover of maintaining "standards" as a self appointed gramer/spelling enforcement officer. conventions are strictly a tool used by entrenched beurocracys to discredit voices that wont, or cant, conform to there little tedious "rules", and fully weaponised in situations where someone is to be detained and held against there will.The standard method bieng to choose one specific statement, taken out of context, to diagnose a person, and justify further action, for "saftey"
but our discussion centers on this whole process bieng automated and rendered down to an image, likely begining with a pantone # for skin tone
errors be fucking damned eh!
By oulipo2 2026-01-058:34 That's a totally wrong way to think about it, akin to "I have nothing to hide so why not let the government look into all my communications"
> abduction of political rivals
Couldn’t have timed it better, we just pulled off the most high profile abduction of a geopolitical rival in history.
By JumpCrisscross 2026-01-058:38 > we just pulled off the most high profile abduction of a geopolitical rival in history
We literally did the same thing in 1989 [1]. Russia planned to do it to Zelensky when they first invaded.
None of this makes it okay. But it's hyperbolic to say it's unprecedented, even in U.S. history.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...
In both systems the law is being carefully followed to support inhumane goals
Unfortunately ICE has somewhat broad powers that allow them to enforce Federal laws that local LEOs cannot get away with.
This should be challenged in a court.
Some say unfortunate, others say fortunate. It's a luxury belief to want to let people walk across the border and have no repercussions. Enforce the border, get all the illegals out.
Everyone in this country regardless of their status is still guaranteed due process by the Constitution. The Venezuelans and Abrego Garcia sent to CECOT was done without due process and in violation of a Federal Judge's orders. Not to mention CECOT is a horrible prison.
I think it's cruel and inhuman to deport people already here unless they're engaged in criminal activities. Most of them are hard working people who gave up everything to flee bad circumstances in their home countries. We're a nation of immigrants.
You want the border secure, fine (I would prefer immigration reform since we have a large country and tons of economic opportunity migrants fulfill). But don't be so cruel as to support what ICE is doing to hard working people who have established lives here. Most of them are not criminals.
Unfortunately for them they are technically criminals by entering illegally. They all knew they were taking a calculated risk by coming here, some made it, some did not.
Agreed on the reform, we are in a pendulum stage now where the previous admin let too many in without reform (The first 3 years) and how it's gone too far the other way.
By heavyset_go 2026-01-084:432 reply Overstay and unlawful presence are civil offenses, not criminal. Vast majority of undocumented people overstay visas and entered legally.
Asylum seekers are being abducted and deported to countries they have no ties to. It's perfectly legal to cross borders without inspection to seek asylum.
By hwguy45 2026-01-0814:56 They are still deportable crimes. You cannot walk into a country and never leave just "because".
And no, the vast majority are not overstays. Less than half are overstays that came here legally [0]. So 58% crossed the border illegally.
Asylum seekers have been coached on what to say to claim asylum. Few are seeking asylum at all. The system is obviously being abused when these people vacation back to their home country that was so "dangerous" they claimed asylum.
By mlrtime 2026-01-1013:13 Again, this is the purpose of ICE with broad Federal powers.
Why didn't the previous administrations change it? Perhaps next time they will?
By hwguy45 2026-01-0815:07 This is suicidal empathy. Mercy for the guilty is cruelty for the innocent.
I think it's cruel and inhumane to let millions unvetted into our neighborhoods, schools, and communities.
It means less jobs for American young people. It means loss of culture and shared spaces. It means your kids can't play with their neighbors because they don't speak the same language.
It's weakness and we need to stop rationalizing it.
Would you want these people as your neighbor? Not speaking English? How about your whole town?
It's cruel. The modern left does not care about Americans, only the foreigners who can't build a safe and prosperous country of their own.
By hwguy45 2026-01-074:06 [flagged]
By pandaman 2026-01-0523:46 You believe laws were not followed in the case of deportations and seem to be angry about that but simultaneously you want the laws, that demand deportations of illegal aliens, to not be followed. Do you notice any irrationality with this position?
By kingkawn 2026-01-0516:21 I admit I didn’t expect this pushback against America’s corrupt current regime which is obviously morally bankrupt. But, by the letter of the law and the function of the court system they are acting with complete impunity within what they have been permitted to do to the detriment of people everywhere.
By lostlogin 2026-01-058:34 > In both systems the law is being carefully followed to support inhumane goals
I’m not sure it is though, there are plenty of headlines about judicial orders being disregarded. This last few weeks it has been the required release of the Epstein papers, though that has been railroaded by a conveniently timed attack on a neighbour.
There are plenty of other examples.
Why do we need to give free stuff to every person that wades across the southern border?
What is our legal or moral obligation to eviscerate our already-limited social safety net for outsiders who, by and large, do not contribute to them?
You are free to die on the cross and spend your income this way, but how is it "humane" to use violence (taxes) to reappropriate the fruits of my labor for your special interests?
By Hikikomori 2026-01-0520:15 US foreign "policy" is part of why you call them shitholes, then you wonder why they come there.
Bc these immigrants as a whole contribute more to the federal state and local tax base than they take out, it’s super simple. I guess you don’t like the economy.
Another artful legal vs. illegal conflation - citation needed. I have no doubt in my mind folks coming in on H-1B and O-1 visas contribute more than they take out: nobody is disputing that.
When an illegal immigrant making $2/hr under the table cuts his hand off at a meat packing plant, who pays the hospital bill? How many tax dollars does this one incident wipe out?
By goatlover 2026-01-0518:02 Vastly less than the tax dollars for all the foreign military interventions including the latest adventure in Venezuela, if you're really worried about wasting tax dollars.
A universal healthcare system would cover everyone in the country when it's needed. The US is a massive, highly developed economy, no reason we couldn't fund that.
Let me quote the CEO of ycombinator.
>You're thinking Chinese surveillance
>US-based surveillance helps victims and prevents more victims
https://xcancel.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955
American capitalists are ideologically driven hypocrites.
By aurareturn 2026-01-0511:15 Are we allowed to criticize Garry Tan here?
By JumpCrisscross 2026-01-058:391 reply > When China did this, this was seen as a terrible violation of rights
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" [1].
Beijing showed the way. We followed their path. Both are at fault.
[1] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
> Beijing showed the way. We followed their path.
lol, just like China invented social credit scores which are for social control and definitely not like US credit scores which are just good business sense
Edit: to be clear I am saying this from a US centric viewpoint. China is catching up but they’ve been behind us for over a century tech wise and the US has been really good at pioneering new forms of injustice. I’m laughing at the idea that we were trailing behind them on learning new for handling their population
By JumpCrisscross 2026-01-0510:212 reply > like China invented social credit scores which are for social control and definitely not like US credit scores which are just good business sense
…yes. You don’t get your credit score dinged because you tweeted something naughty. You can be a felon with perfect credit.
You should read up on China's credit score. There are a lot of misinformations about it online. In effect, it does little more than the US credit scores that inspired it.
By JumpCrisscross 2026-01-0518:542 reply > You should read up on China's credit score
I could really say the same to you. Emphasizing original sources, not summaries.
> In effect, it does little more than the US credit scores that inspired it
“Little more” does a lot of heavy lifting here.
The nuclear bomb was inspired by the explosive power of TNT.
I’m often not a fan of the Chinese government’s practices, but I think the parent is right here personally. I think Wikipedia does a nice job discussing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit_system#Misconcep...
By lovich 2026-01-0520:54 Thank you.
It is infuriating to see my fellow countrymen criticize another system so heavily, when we are living under a largely similar system.
Especially after finding out that the current credit score system was only adopted in 1989, so it’s just another yoke millennials and younger have to live with, that our forefathers got to start their adult life without having to deal with
By tomjakubowski 2026-01-083:08 Would you share an example of a Chinese citizen's social credit score having been dinged because they posted something naughty online?
Brah, some employers in the US check your credit score to make sure you are trustworthy enough.
Your credit score can be checked in multiple other situations that have nothing to do with you taking on debt, but still somehow your debt factors into the decision.
If you think there is no social control as part of this system, then you are just blind to the system you grew up in
By JumpCrisscross 2026-01-0518:551 reply > some employers in the US check your credit score to make sure you are trustworthy enough
Sure. They’re evaluating your creditworthiness. What they’re not measuring is your political coherence or social “goodness.”
The closest thing we have to a social score is a criminal record.
By lovich 2026-01-0519:03 Does the chinese system go farther than the US one in control? yes
Does the US system that gets used to influence your behavior also social control? yes
By mizzao 2026-01-064:20 Yep, it's converging to the same system...
In China government is controlled by chosen members of the ruling party who become wealthy through it;
In the US the government is controlled by billionaires who become powerful through it.
Neither is a "government by the people" nor a "democratic people's republic" and both are enacting more and more similar policies.
>"When China did this, this was seen as a terrible violation of rights.... Now that we do this hundreds of times a day, it has become routine."
Normally questions like this would be labeled as whataboutism, false equivalence etc. One rule for thee, another one for me.
Personally I think we (The West) are heading to disaster. I really missed older times before 9/11
By expedition32 2026-01-0512:09 America is not the West. There are a lot of things wrong in my country but we don't worship Jesus nor billionaires.
By fc417fc802 2026-01-059:351 reply How is pointing out this inconsistency whataboutism? It might be reasonable to ask if it's a strawman since it seems reasonable to wonder if perhaps the people against what the Chinese are doing might also be against what ICE is doing.
Regardless, it's quite relevant to point out that at this point two of the world's superpowers are actively engaging in this. Claiming that the technology won't be used this way - that people are just fearmongering - clearly doesn't hold water. (Not that it ever did, but now we've got concrete evidence.)
By FpUser 2026-01-0516:17 >"How is pointing out this inconsistency whataboutism? "
It is not, I said it is usually labeled as one here
By aurareturn 2026-01-058:42
This is the default response whenever HN commentators have no other way to say "china bad".whataboutism
By golemiprague 2026-01-056:501 reply But china is safe and clean and nice, so it might be worth it. Anyway we got no privacy anymore, cameras are everywhere and we all captured on someone hard disk, so might as well take advantage of the benefits that comes with this technology
By thrance 2026-01-0512:40 China is not "safe, clean and nice" for everybody.
