Valley techies to protest outside Palantir – Trump adviser's creepy citizen database biz Silicon Valley engineers will protest outside the headquarters of data analytics firm Palantir Technologies Wednesday, demanding greater transparency over how its databases may be used by the incoming Trump Administration. "Palantir and Peter Thiel should be held accountable for potentially enabling Trump's efforts to deport …
If they are being fair, they should next protest outside Google, then Facebook, etc. Those are already really lacking transparency and in the case of Google, exploiting almost everyone using the Internet. Facebook's plans (inc their "free" Developing World Basic Access) are no better.
We don't know what exactly Trump is going to do. Certainly none of it sounds very good.
What about Google's subversion of Obama's Administration?
That's right, they are the GOOD PEOPLE. And everyone who isn't a Trump stooge knows he stated he wants to deport all three million Americans of the Muslim faith. Or if he didn't exactly say that, we all know he's thinking it, the monster.
At least that's the meme we are supposed to swallow, according this Kieren person.
"At least that's the meme we are supposed to swallow, according this Kieren person."
and you got 9 downvotes already! it's a badge of honor, yeah.
howler monkeys, at it again. shout down the opposition until they get tired of being shouted at. call them racists and "everyone-phobes", make outrageous claims, phony 'fake news' statistics, and try to shock people [who can't be shocked any MORE, news flash] into an emotional reaction, blah blah boring boring boring.
I can HARDLY WAIT until Trump takes on the office of President of the United States on Friday.
And anyone who is here LEGALLY isn't getting deported. ONLY the ILLEGAL ones will be deported, starting with the criminals. And don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way back to wherever you CAME FROM!
(that's my story, and I'm "schticking" with it, heh)
"We don't know what exactly Trump is going to do. Certainly none of it sounds very good."
If you're going to criticize Trump, at least be consistent. You say you don't know what he's planning, and in the same sentence you characterize those unknown plans as not very good. Somehow I get the impression you have based your opinion of him on a few lurid headlines.
I don't specifically object to Trump being criticized, but it needs to be more definite, okay?
Okay, folks, let's review Campaign Promises 101: campaign promises are pretty much lies, m'kay? Trump (and Clinton, for that matter) made lots of promises which they had little, if any, interest in actually fulfilling. Election rhetoric is made for the purpose of getting elected. Once the candidate gets elected, the rhetoric pretty much goes into the bin. Sure, Trump said some scary things, but what evidence do we have that he plans to implement them?
If you've been following Trump at all recently, you can see that he's changed his tune already, even before he gets inaugurated. He's moving towards the middle of the road, which is to be expected if he has any hope of working with the majority of Congress (yes, including Republicans, most of whom are not really all that far right). I doubt Trump ever had any intention or desire to deport every illegal in the U.S. There are certainly some (criminals) we could do without, but most immigrants are fine people, and the U.S. is richer for having them here, and most people know that, even Trump. So no, I don't expect some database leading to 3:00 AM raids by the Stasi on the homes of illegal immigrants in the U.S. And from the attendance numbers of this event, it seems most other folks don't expect it, either.
Since my ancestors INCLUDE the "Native American" population I can be politically incorrect and admit that the US Government conquered my ancestors, thus vacating any claim that I might have on their land.
I can also be politically incorrect and say that immigrants are those who came in after the founding of the United States with a legal visa and have yet to obtain citizenship. If they obtained citizenship then they are no longer immigrants, but CITIZENS. If they didn't come in legally, then they aren't immigrants they are trespassers.
Sometimes it is nice to be part of a "protected class", because I can say things that others think but cannot say :-)
I too am part Native American, 1/16th to be exact. But being (partly) of a proud race, I choose not to use this fact for self-aggrandizement, even if guilty paleface liberals want me to do so! Leave that sort of thing to Barrack Obama and Elizabeth Warren is what I say.
Still, a little preferential action once in a while would be nice...
It's not even remotely akin to blood libel, which has a very specific meaning, it's not some metaphor for things people dislike. Having said that, a quote in which Trump says he wants to deport people because of religion is not something i've seen or can find. Of all the questionable things he's said, it is quite possible this isn't one, and things he has said, which are open to question, have been squashed together into something that seems vaguely like something he might have said, which is not fair. [Also, he doesn't need the help.]
Mr Trump did state he wants to ban Muslim immigration from some places, without saying where: this is in various speeches, interviews and statements, plus a policy proposal on his website that has been available on an intermittent basis. (see this link for more on that). It appears Muslims from Scotland are safe (which will be good news to Bilal Abdullah, of course - something that proves the craziness of blanket bans based on religion plus origin).
He has also talked - extremely inconsistently - about deporting illegal immigrants and undocumented aliens, and at one point merely said "criminals" would be deported, which is a bit rough on someone who steals a car or writes a bad check.
Of all the questionable things he's said, it is quite possible this isn't one, and things he has said, which are open to question, have been squashed together into something that seems vaguely like something he might have said, which is not fair.
You'll find this is true of most of the questionable things he's reported as having said. Which is confusing, because he said so many actually bad things that could have been reported instead.
I see, so the part of the press which is antagonistic towards Trump (most of them) eschewed reporting actual words Trump uttered that are "bad" in favor of underhanded mashups composed of various other things he said. Please explain to me why they would avoid powerful evidence against Trump's candidacy and just make up stuff instead?
The answer is that they couldn't, just like you didn't actually provide those "bad" things you mentioned. The truth is those bad things are only bad in the ears of Democrats and their fellow travelers. The rest of us have waited all our lives to hear a politician utter them. You know full well that if you try to present those ideas as bad, I and others will forcefully point out that more than half the country likes those ideas. That's what got Trump elected. Well, that and Hillary's extreme corruption.
Your mind-reading skills need work.
I can't be bothered to cite examples because 1) I've got no horse in the race and never did have. 2) I wouldn't want to boost Clinton's career, 3) "Politician says nasty shit" is not news.
As for why they didn't use the real examples, probably something about laziness.
I wish I could do something to help that poor woman in Scotland that has stood up to "my little trump" for the last 7 years or so. According to online sources she has been denigrated by one of his businesses and had her water supply cut off by them be ause it crosses their land.
The bloke is an odious, evil and disgusting slob; he deserves no respect.
So, let me get this straight...
People are protesting about a system which has the potential to be used to find those who are living illegally in the US and deport them?
Does anyone else see how insane this is? You have people who are knowingly violating the law and you want to protest the Feds for doing their jobs?
As others have pointed out... Google also has the potential do the same thing. In fact they could probably do a better job of finding people since they pretty much track and own every web site out there.
It's not hard to understand. The Democrats are the Party of Freebies, thus the poor tend to vote for them a lot. And no one is poorer than illegal alie... excuse me, undocumented migrants. So the Dems are determined not to enforce our laws about immigration because that way they get more voters in future.
Of course they also need to get those gate crashers sworn in as Demo... (oops, there I go again) ..I mean as American citizens, so they can legally vote.
Heck, some Dems aren't even willing to wait that long, and oppose any attempt to make voters prove who they are, and they also give illegals driver's licenses. Sure makes it easier for the illegals to vote with the help of a major party, don't it?
Who is this "They" you speak of? It seems to me that whenever people are being categorized by race or religion, It is a Leftist doing it. Rightists would prefer that everyone be treated the same no matter what, but it's the Left who insist a level playing field is actually unfair and must be biased (by them) which always ends up slamming doors in the faces of the majority groups, creating resentment and reaction, not to mention damaging victim mentalities in minority groups.
And the Left loves that, because then they feel able to point at the majority and scream words like "racist!" and "exploiter!". Leftists can't allow races and religions to exist in harmony, because then there would be no 'disadvantaged' minorities to save from the big bad majority.
As for the Muslims, they should be treated exactly like everyone else. Any culture that commits the vast majority of murderous terrorism against defenseless human beings (mostly other Muslims I might add) needs to be held to account by the rest of humanity. The fact that the Muslims are a minority is no shield against these charges.
Let the Muslims clean up their own house and the rest of us will stop thinking and saying what we do about them. If they don't, they are bringing discrimination down upon their own heads, and righteously so.
I find myself in the strange situation of being extremely anti- Comrade Chump and his BFF Pretty boy Putin, and simulatneously agreeing with Bombastic Bob and Big John that illegal aliens shouldn't feel they have a right to remain where they are. Generally there are two good ways to take up residence in a different country - emigrate there legally, or apply for refugee status in the desired country and then apply for citizenship. Granted, I'd be inclined to think that if a country hasn't made an effort to deport an illegal alien after a certain set amount of time (I dunno - ten years, maybe?) then the relevant state should probably lose the right to continue to treat them as illegal aliens and citizenship should be granted, unless perhaps the individual has committed major crimes.
I also agree with AC and Aristotles SADH - personally, I wouldn't want to even visit the USA, let alone live in a country full of so many intolerant religious bigots armed with guns
its true that people deserve the leaders they get.
reading some of these comments, i'm not surprised trump was elected. there seems to be little concern that a system is being proposed to identify free, innocent citizens on the basis of their faith, and keep track of them, in a way separate from the rest of the citizenry.
if that doesn't worry you then good luck to you, I say. Good luck to all of us.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
