this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
341 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

59311 readers
5315 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

US immigration enforcement used an AI-powered tool to scan social media posts "derogatory" to the US | "The government should not be using algorithms to scrutinize our social media posts"::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] markr@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The government should not be scrutinizing anyone’s social media outside of a criminal investigation with a warrant.

[–] jimbolauski@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Public posts have no expectation of privacy.

[–] redwall_hp@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's a world of difference between witnessing something in public and following someone around, making note of everything they say and do "in public." We call the latter "stalking" when an individual does it.

[–] jimbolauski@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Looking at someone’s post history != following a person around.

Further following someone around is not stalking there has to be an action that would make someone fear being harmed.

[–] Substance_P@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not just public posts, private messaging apps are also scrutinized.

[–] jimbolauski@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The AI system searches public posts, it's not able to read DMs, it doesn't have login credentials.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Though they do reserve the ability to seize, crack and search your phone within the Constitution Free Zone (one hundred miles of any US border) and will then search all your internet activity for wrongdoing. Dunno if that is treated with AI searching.

[–] Substance_P@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Arr gotcha, I was referring to searching devices generally.

[–] Darkenfolk@dormi.zone 6 points 1 year ago

On the other hand, if you don't want to be scrutinized by everyone don't put your whole life online for everyone to see and judge.

Nobody is going to respect your privacy if you do not respect your own privacy.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Hahahaha.

'Warrant' for public data.

"A regular 4th amendment violation right here! Everyone look - the government is looking at my Instagram without a warrant!"

Please. At this point the NSA has probably already developed their own internal LLM based on illegally collected communications intercepts combined with many other data sources and is using that to aid in parallel construction efforts.

But no, let's worry about whether what you post on Instagram should need a warrant, because somehow you have an expectation of privacy for the things you publicly post on the Internet...

Lemmy is hilarious sometimes.

Fun fact: The US government is allowed to read any emails in cloud storage older than 6 months old without a warrant.

[–] Adalast@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The issue I see is less a 4th amendment than a 1st. Any "derogatory" language has long since been upheld as protected, so any action they took based on the information would 100% be illegal. Yes, the CIA/NSA has actually stated that they love social media because we are all just surveilling ourselves for them. That is them, not ICE. ICE has no business tracking people's social media.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Technically until they have successfully immigrated there's limited first amendment rights.

As the supreme court has found over and over, given there is no inherent legal right to enter the country, there is no infringement of rights to discriminate who can and can't enter based on political speech. For prior cases if you are interested, see:

  • Exclusion of a British anarchist was at issue in Turner v. Williams (1904).
  • Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952) concerned deportation of communists.
  • Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) examined denial of a travel visa to a Marxist.

So while ethically you may feel it's an infringement of the principles of the first amendment, it is not currently seen that way legally and hasn't for a long while.