US immigration enforcement used an AI-powered tool to scan social media posts "derogatory" to the US
www.techspot.com
The system, called Giant Oak Search Technology (GOST), ranks a person's social media scores from one to 100 based on what it thinks is relevant to the...

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

  • kromem@lemmy.worldEnglish
    72·
    1 year ago

    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.worldEnglish
      31·
      1 year ago

      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.worldEnglish
        2·
        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.