Inside ICE’s Database for Finding ‘Derogatory’ Online Speech
Inside ICE’s Database for Finding ‘Derogatory’ Online Speech
Thumbs up, or thumbs down: that's the option presented to analysts when the tool Giant Oak Search Technology surfaces content from social media and other sources for ICE to scrutinize.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has used a system called Giant Oak Search Technology (GOST) to help the agency scrutinize social media posts, determine if they are “derogatory” to the U.S., and then use that information as part of immigration enforcement, according to a new cache of documents reviewed by 404 Media.
The documents peel back the curtain on a powerful system, both in a technological and a policy sense—how information is processed and used to decide who is allowed to remain in the country and who is not.
...
DHS has used GOST since 2014, according to a page of the user guide. In turn, ICE has paid Giant Oak Inc., the company behind the system, in excess of $10 million since 2017, according to public procurement records. A Giant Oak and DHS contract ended in August 2022, according to the records. Records also show Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the State Department, the Air Force, and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service which is part of the U.S. Treasury have all paid for Giant Oak services over the last nearly ten years.
You're viewing a single thread.
$10M since 2017, that sounds like chump change in terms of government spending.
And btw, what's wrong with it? If you have been posting inflammatory shit about the country you are trying to immograte to, shouldn't that be considered a red flag? Would you like a human to review these posts instead, an even harder black box to critique?
The founders said freedom of speech was a god given right. Every penny spent was wasted.
Free speech does not mean that one's speech won't draw attention. And looking at social media has been something which has been considered in the wake of attacks. It doesn't seem to crazy to say, "if you're applying for a visa to enter the US and your social media is full of "Death to America" or the like, maybe you shouldn't get a visa". Or, imagine some right-wing nut-job going off about how liberal teachers are brainwashing children and they should all be gunned down. That sort of thing probably should prompt a bit of scrutiny.
It's a tough balancing act. We ask the DHS and it's subsidiaries to detect and prevent attacks on US soil. And that's an important goal and they need to be able to look critically and people entering the US to do that job. At the same time, it's very easy for this sort of thing to fall into racism and ignore actual warning signs. Personally, I see it as less of a problem that they DHS et. al. are looking into social media and would worry more about the lack of transparency and oversight. Any such system needs a very strong set of policies and procedures on how investigations are started, conducted and determinations made. All those records need to then be handed off to a different agency, outside the chain of command of the DHS for review and adverse actions, if there is abuse. And I'd place a very large bet on that last bit not happening.
Right wing partisans in the government refuse to enforce rule of law when their own guys warrant intervention by law enforcement so your argument(s) fails the instant it makes contact with reality. You said we should scrutinize but they already refused to do it. Why is more money and more authority going to change that? It won't, and even if it did, it's unconstitutional.