Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the oooh-look-shiny dept.

Several sites are reporting, without reference to IBM's activities 70 years ago, that Microsoft's contact with ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is drawing fire online. The Computer Business Review includes a quote from Microsoft now missing from their press release:

"ICE's decision to accelerate IT modernization using Azure Government will help them innovate faster while reducing the burden of legacy IT. The agency is currently implementing transformative technologies for homeland security and public safety, and we're proud to support this work with our mission-critical cloud," he wrote.

KUOW radio writes on their web site that Microsoft is facing outrage their for blog post touting ICE contract:

As outrage grew online, a Microsoft employee quietly removed mention of ICE from the January press release this morning. Social media users noticed that, too. The company has since restored the press release's original language, and called its removal a "mistake."

After a little bit of conference swag gets handed out and a few advertising contracts^W^Wscholarships get handed out, this will all blow over and be forgotten.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Redundant) by physicsmajor on Wednesday June 20 2018, @01:34AM (3 children)

    by physicsmajor (1471) on Wednesday June 20 2018, @01:34AM (#695410)

    Actually we have almost always separated children from accompanying adults, because we have no documentation or way to determine if that's a loving father-daughter couple or a pimp with an underage sex slave.

    So I guess you're for child sex trafficking then?

    Far from unprecedented, we've had this as policy since the Clinton era, actually both Clintons and Obama ran on a hard stance on immigration.

    Don't believe what any shill is trying to sell, particularly on any major news network today. Look up the actual legislation and think about the situation. Everyone seems to think we have a crystal ball to know for sure what the situation is, where at the border it's almost always completely opaque. For the safety of us, our agents, and those in custody you have to start from a position of complete skepticism and build from there.

    Furthermore, when parents break federal law sometimes their kids are taken from them or they're forcibly separated by being placed in prison. But these people who deliberately as their very first act violate the very sanctity of the country's borders need to be given carte blanche? Think about that for a bit.

    Oh, you meant asylum seekers. Well, we don't know anything more about those people than the hypothetical human trafficer above. So reduced scrutiny means you are again advocating for human trafficking, yes?

    Or perhaps you haven't actually thought any of this through, thinking with your heart and what biased media said instead of your brain.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Redundant=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Redundant' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @11:22AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @11:22AM (#695538)

    because we have no documentation or way to determine if that's a loving father-daughter couple or a pimp with an underage sex slave

    You can still handle that in several ways.
    1. Assume they are lying (guilty) and separate immediately until you figure out the truth.
    2. Assume they are honest (innocent) and keep them locked up together until you figure out the truth.

    It seems strange that the U.S. in all it's law goes for option 2, but at the border it should suddenly be reversed to option 1?

  • (Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:14PM (1 child)

    by Taibhsear (1464) on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:14PM (#695613)

    because we have no documentation or way to determine if that's a loving father-daughter couple or a pimp with an underage sex slave.

    Do you seriously believe that? If so, welcome to the 19th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Wednesday June 20 2018, @08:31PM

      by physicsmajor (1471) on Wednesday June 20 2018, @08:31PM (#695767)

      Even in developed, first world countries the estimated rate of non-paternity is on the order of 10%.

      DNA tests, even if they were perfectly sensitive and specific (they are not, despite what most believe and TV shows imply), do not fully address this.