Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Adam Jensen]

Kemp's hoping to win his reelection legitimately by killing half the state.

Don't know why he feels that's necessary, why not just rig the election and erase the evidence like he did last time? Seems extra work trying to kill people.

[Elegiac]

So, I have a new angle for you as to where some of the resistance to mask wearing MIGHT be coming from in the administration.

Guess what folks? Millennials have at least one more industry murder left in them, because face masks are threatening the facial recognition software industry.

WHILE DOCTORS AND politicians still struggle to convince Americans to take the barest of precautions against Covid-19 by wearing a mask, the Department of Homeland Security has an opposite concern, according to an “intelligence note” found among the BlueLeaks trove of law enforcement documents: Masks are breaking police facial recognition.

The rapid global spread and persistent threat of the coronavirus has presented an obvious roadblock to facial recognition’s similar global expansion. Suddenly everyone is covering their faces. Even in ideal conditions, facial recognition technologies often struggle with accuracy and have a particularly dismal track record when it comes to identifying faces that aren’t white or male. Some municipalities, startled by the civil liberties implications of inaccurate and opaque software in the hands of unaccountable and overly aggressive police, have begun banning facial recognition software outright. But the global pandemic may have inadvertently provided a privacy fix of its own — or for police, a brand new crisis.

Homeland Security intelligence note dated May 22 expresses this law enforcement anxiety, as public health wisdom clashes with the prerogatives of local and federal police who increasingly rely on artificial intelligence tools. The bulletin, drafted by the DHS Intelligence Enterprise Counterterrorism Mission Center in conjunction with a variety of other agencies, including Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “examines the potential impacts that widespread use of protective masks could have on security operations that incorporate face recognition systems — such as video cameras, image processing hardware and software, and image recognition algorithms — to monitor public spaces during the ongoing Covid-19 public health emergency and in the months after the pandemic subsides.”

The Minnesota Fusion Center, a post-9/11 intelligence agency that is part of a controversial national network, distributed the notice on May 26, as protests were forming over the killing of George Floyd. In the weeks that followed, the center actively monitored the protests and pushed the narrative that law enforcement was under attack. Email logs included in the BlueLeaks archive show that the note was also sent to city and state government officials and private security officers in Colorado and, inexplicably, to a hospital and a community college.

Curiously, the bulletin fixates on a strange scenario: “violent adversaries” of U.S. law enforcement evading facial recognition by cynically exploiting the current public health guidelines about mask usage. “We assess violent extremists and other criminals who have historically maintained an interest in avoiding face recognition,” the bulletin reads, “are likely to opportunistically seize upon public safety measures recommending the wearing of face masks to hinder the effectiveness of face recognition systems in public spaces by security partners.” The notice concedes that “while we have no specific information that violent extremists or other criminals in the United States are using protective face coverings to conduct attacks, some of these entities have previously expressed interest in avoiding face recognition and promulgated simple instructions to conceal one’s identity, both prior to and during the current Covid-19 pandemic.” This claim is supported by a single reference to a member of an unnamed “white supremacist extremist online forum” who suggested attacks on critical infrastructure sites “while wearing a breathing mask to hide a perpetrators [sic] identity.” The only other evidence given is internet chatter from before the pandemic.

But the bulletin also reflects a broader surveillance angst: “Face Recognition Systems Likely to be Less Effective as Widespread Wear of Face Coverings for Public Safety Purposes Continue,” reads another header. Even if Homeland Security seems focused on hypothetical instances of violent terrorists using cloth masks to dodge smart cameras, the new public health status quo represents a clear threat to algorithmic policing: “We assess face recognition systems used to support security operations in public spaces will be less effective while widespread public use of facemasks, including partial and full face covering, is practiced by the public to limit the spread of Covid-19.” Even after mandatory mask orders are lifted, the bulletin frets, the newly epidemiologically aware American public is likely to keep wearing them, which would “continue to impact the effectiveness of face recognition systems.”

So, basically we potentially have a situation where dumping so much money into creating a surveillance state that the profitability of the resulting institutions and industries is now actively proving an obstacle in the face of a public health crisis.

I was promised cybernetics in this dystopian future, cyberpunk.

[masterhorus8]

So, I have a new angle for you as to where some of the resistance to mask wearing MIGHT be coming from in the administration.

Guess what folks? Millennials have at least one more industry murder left in them, because face masks are threatening the facial recognition software industry.



So, basically we potentially have a situation where dumping so much money into creating a surveillance state that the profitability of the resulting institutions and industries is now actively proving an obstacle in the face of a public health crisis.

I was promised cybernetics in this dystopian future, cyberpunk.

Going full nerd here, but it just seems like the IRL equivalent of Truesight not being able to see through physical disguise checks...

[Elegiac]

Going full nerd here, but it just seems like the IRL equivalent of Truesight not being able to see through physical disguise checks...

Man it sure would be a shame if American culture suddenly normalized facial coverings when people are sick (which is very very regularly).

[masterhorus8]

Man it sure would be a shame if American culture suddenly normalized facial coverings when people are sick (which is very very regularly).

But what about my God-given bacteria and viruses that I have my personal freedoms to spread around as I please?!

(/s)

[Elegiac]

But what about my God-given bacteria and viruses that I have my personal freedoms to spread around as I please?!

(/s)

Mask up. And the devil laughs.

[Dontrike]

Many of the 32,000 New York deaths were preventable...deaths which were the direct result of Cuomo's incompetence when he signed an executive order that sent infected seniors back to their nursing homes to infect and kill the most vulnerable. Yeah, I agree...context matters.

BTW, if blue states are doing so well...how are things going in California?

It's amazing how it's impossible for you to criticize Trump for fucking up the Covid response, but you'll bring up Cuomo multiple times.

[Benggaul]

Oh my gosh. You guys. Trump finally did it. Finally made a fortune all on their own!
What? No. No, don't be fucking stupid. Not Donald. Mary!
Mary Trump’s memoir sells 950,000 on first day, setting a record for publisher

[Thepersona]

Mask up. And the devil laughs.

Best way to fuck up a dystopian multi million industry? just use a facemask and if asked, say you have the flu!

[pathora44]

So Trump and his Gestapo goons are openly defying the Supreme Court over their ruling that he ended DACA maliciously and without merit . He had 25 days from the ruling to try and create some kind of actual legal reason to kill DACA but they didn't. Yet now his goons are either not accepting DACA applications or are just sitting on them. Not only has this orange piece of shit openly disregarded almost 250 years of precedent and semblance of cooperation with Congress he is now defying the SC ruling. Any Trumpster fooling them self into thinking Trump isn't a wanna be dictator this shit slaps you in your faces with all the bullshit you bought over the years.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/despite-s...163436086.html

President Trump is venturing onto increasingly shaky legal ground as officials reject new applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, sidestepping a Supreme Court ruling reinstating DACA, legal experts and lawmakers say.

The court ruled last month that the Trump administration hadn't followed federal procedural law or justified terminating DACA in 2017, calling the rescission "arbitrary and capricious."

DACA grants protection from deportation to so-called Dreamers brought to the United States as children. The Obama-era program, which has bipartisan support, has given temporary relief to some 700,000 young immigrants, with nearly 200,000 DACA recipients in California.

The court did not decide on Trump's executive authority to rescind DACA, and offered the administration a road map for how to try to end it for good.

But despite threatening another attempt to shut down the program, the president hasn't tried. Monday — 25 days after the ruling — was the deadline for the administration to file for a rehearing, and it didn't.

But neither have officials moved to restore the program.

In 2017, then-Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions declared that DACA was unconstitutional. Lower courts issued orders that kept the program in place while the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court. The administration was then required to renew existing DACA cases, but has blocked tens of thousands from applying for DACA for the first time who became eligible when they turned 15.

In the wake of the court's ruling in June, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency — which administers DACA — is still rejecting first-time applications, or is confirming receipt of the new applications but then not acting on them, according to lawyers.

Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer, associate clinical professor at Cornell Law School and an immigration attorney, said USCIS is sending these new applicants notices saying the agency is "not accepting initial filings."

Meanwhile, other USCIS employees say they've received no guidance on the Supreme Court ruling or new DACA applications. The agency did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.

The White House's refusal to either act or restart the program sets up a potential showdown with the court with little precedent, says Muneer Ahmad, clinical professor at Yale Law School, who was involved in a New York-based DACA suit against the administration.

"The longer the administration refuses to accept and adjudicate new applications and declines to issue a new rescission order," said Ahmad, "the more of a legal concern that becomes."

The White House declined to respond to requests for comment Thursday, and the Justice Department did not immediately respond.

Immediately after the court ruled, Trump and his officials rejected the decision as "politically charged."

“The Supreme Court asked us to resubmit on DACA, nothing was lost or won,” Trump tweeted, trying to reframe the high-profile defeat on immigration, his signature campaign issue.

The administration's refusal to process first-timeDACA applications, advocates and lawmakers say, flies in the face of widespread legal opinion — including from Trump's supporters and former officials — that slow-rolling the restart of the program violates the court's order.

On Tuesday, Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Dick Durbin of Illinois, as well as 31 other senators, wrote to the acting Homeland Security secretary demanding the department "immediately comply" with the court's ruling and "fully reinstate DACA protections, as the Court’s decision unequivocally requires."

The administration has eschewed traditional policymaking and repeatedly sought to end-run Congress with immigration orders. Yet the president's comments in recent days have only added to the confusion.

Last Friday in an interview with Telemundo, he contradicted himself, saying he would be issuing an executive order on DACA, then saying instead he would sign a bill that would "give [Dreamers] a road to citizenship." The White House followed up with a statement saying Trump supports a legislative solution for DACA, potentially including citizenship, but not "amnesty."

Then on Tuesday in a Rose Garden news conference, Trump said he's working on DACA "because we want to make people happy."

"We'll be taking care of people from DACA in a very Republican way," he said. "I've spoken to many Republicans, and some would like to leave it out, but, really, they understand that it's the right thing to do."

Yet, in a statement published the day after the Supreme Court ruling, the USCIS deputy director for policy, Joseph Edlow, said that the decision "merely delays the President’s lawful ability to end the illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals amnesty program."

In early July, Democratic senators wrote to Ken Cuccinelli, the acting deputy Homeland Security secretary, demanding that USCIS take down the statement from its website, including the "egregiously false claim" that the Supreme Court ruling "has no basis in law" which they wrote "can only be read as a threat that USCIS will not comply with the Court’s order." Cuccinelli has not responded, said Maria McElwain, a spokeswoman for Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), one of the letter's authors. The statement remains on the agency's site.

"We should not need to tell you that defying the Supreme Court is completely unacceptable," the senators wrote.

According to historians, a president defying the court has little precedent.

Only a few cases come close. President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to try to foil a potential takeover of Maryland's government by Confederates, and when Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that only Congress could suspend the writ, Lincoln defied the court, scholars say (others dispute that reading.)

Before that, when the court sided with Native Americans in Georgia against white settlers who tried to kick them off their lands, President Andrew Jackson — infamous in his ruthless treatment of Native Americans — showed no eagerness to threaten the state into compliance, according to the historical record. But he ultimately acknowledged the court's authority.

With Congress eager to avoid the long-festering issue of immigration reform, the ultimate decision on DACA may come on election day.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, Trump's Democratic opponent, has pledged to make DACA permanent on "Day 1" of his potential administration, and to shield their families from removal as well.

In November, Biden said in a statement following the court's ruling that "we will reject the President who tried to rip so many of our family members, friends, and coworkers out of our lives.”

[Zaydin]

Trump has unmarked stormtroopers invading Portland and kidnapping American citizens and dragging them into unmarked cars/vans.

[Elegiac]

Trump has unmarked stormtroopers invading Portland and kidnapping American citizens and dragging them into unmarked cars/vans.

Call me crazy but isn't being approached by someone without a badge with clear intent to harm you Stand Your Ground territory?

[Zaydin]

Call me crazy but isn't being approached by someone without a badge with clear intent to harm you Stand Your Ground territory?

You would think so, considering they don't have anything identifying them as federal agents.

[Elegiac]

You would think so, considering they don't have anything identifying them as federal agents.

K, I'd better not hear any complaints from the usual suspects when a protester actually decides to exercise their rights when accosted by these clowns.

[Thepersona]

K, I'd better not hear any complaints from the usual suspects when a protester actually decides to exercise their rights when accosted by these clowns.

That would be weird. What would the Trumpsters say to a person exercising their rights and unloading 10-15 rounds of .223 or 7.62 onto the bodies of these bastards?
Would they stay on their side, as a person who fought tiranny, or would they treat them as a terrorist?

[Kaleredar]

That would be weird. What would the Trumpsters say to a person exercising their rights and unloading 10-15 rounds of .223 or 7.62 onto the bodies of these bastards?
Would they stay on their side, as a person who fought tiranny, or would they treat them as a terrorist?

It's always the same tired nonsense from them.

A right-wing nutjob holes up in a place with firearms in a stand off with federal agents, à la the Bundies? "They were exercising their rights to protest against an unfair system! They should go free!"

A minority or non-right wing person is accosted by law enforcement (probably for a lot less than carrying a firearm?) "They should have yielded, they shouldn't have done anything wrong. They were told to move and didn't move; they had it coming to them."

You can literally find evidence of this from Cruor, in the coronavirus thread, who basically said the peaceful protestors that Trump had tear gassed deserved to be tear gassed because they were "an inconvenience" and "didn't move when told to."

[Nastard]

Ever get the feeling Trump hates masks because then his orange spray color would rub off on one and, in his eyes, make him look foolish in the media? Yep, America is at the point where thousands of people will die so a literal clown can retain his vanity while the rest of us loses our sanity.

[Dontrike]

Yeah...Trump should have given all available ventilators to NY because they wanted to "prepare for the worse" (which never happened)....and screw all the people in other States that so desperately needed them. Got it.

Considering Trump was stealing supplies from states it definitely was a "screw all...people."

- - - Updated - - -

Trump was a ton more right than Cuomo. Tell me something...what should have Trump have done regarding Cuomo's ridiculous request?

Right with what exactly? Being gone by April? Democrat hoax? Heat will kill it? Injecting disinfectant? Huffing bleach? Pushing an untested drug? Downplaying it for months? Saying everyone can get a test? Saying it'll be gone in no time?

Which was it again?

- - - Updated - - -

You apparently don't know what he was talking about. Have you bought a dishwasher lately? The cleaning cycles are ridiculously long due to mandated water usage requirements.

Because people need their dishes done ASAP? No one fucking cares that it takes a dishwasher an hour or three hours to clean the dishes just as long as they are clean.

[Twdft]

Trump has unmarked stormtroopers invading Portland and kidnapping American citizens and dragging them into unmarked cars/vans.

I guess they wore brown shirts, no?

[Paranoid Android]

Trump has unmarked stormtroopers invading Portland and kidnapping American citizens and dragging them into unmarked cars/vans.

In the world irony and projections, conservatives would have the largest brain aneurysm right now, if this happened under Obama. Don't get me wrong any President doing this is scary and appalling. Yet, no peep from the the people who swear every times a Dem is in office that the government is literally going to snatch you up.