57 pointsby jaredwiener5 hours ago9 comments
  • simianwords44 minutes ago
    Its a bit strange why a single newsworthy incident with the ICE has GDM's attention in this manner? There has been no interaction between ICE and Google other than a single agent trying to enter and then leave.
  • Ancalagon3 hours ago
    Great job Sundar, way to stand on the wrong stage.
  • 4 hours ago
    undefined
  • im3w1l4 hours ago
    > Google’s head of security and risk operations responded to [a message about an incident] to clarify what had happened. They noted that an “officer arrived at reception without notice” and that the agent was “not granted entry because they did not have a warrant and promptly left.”

    This seems like a very reasonable way to handle it.

    Edit: Disclosure: I'm not an American.

    • mullingitover2 hours ago
      There was a recent secret internal ICE memo stating that they determined they were free to essentially engage in unconstitutional home invasions[1]. If they decided to batter down the doors at Google there is nothing stopping them.

      The only thing keeping them in check is the courts, and that practically operates in geologic timeframes compared to the rate they are breaking laws.

      [1] https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-...

      • watwut2 minutes ago
        > The only thing keeping them in check is the courts, and that practically operates in geologic timeframes compared to the rate they are breaking laws.

        There are years of precedent and common practice that makes police and police like entities basically unreachable by law. Between qualified immunity, presumption of regularity and generally all the roadblock and convoluted technical rules supreme court placed between possible judgement and police ... courts can do only so much.

      • stopbulying2 hours ago
        "Immigration officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge’s warrant, memo says": https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-...

        Search and Seizure > United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure

        Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...

      • an hour ago
        undefined
      • mc322 hours ago
        That’s where they will use an “administrative warrant” to arrest someone with a final order of removal.

        So not citizens’ houses but one where someone is in the country illegally with a final order of removal.

        • teklaan hour ago
          Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property.

          If they find a illegal immigrant on public streets, they can be detained, but still cannot enter a private residence (even if occupied by an illegal immigrant) as it would violate the 4th amendment.

          • dragonwriteran hour ago
            > Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property.

            Even an actual judicial arrest warrant doesn't (legally) allow them to enter private party on suspicion that the target might be there. Search is a separate thing from seizure, and you need a judicial search warrant to search a private residence or the non-public areas of a business for a person, no matter what authority you might have to arrest them should you find them.

            • mc32an hour ago
              That makes sense. But that raises a separate unrelated question; how do bailbondsmen seem to be able to take their targets in, are they violating the law or are criminals gullible or something else?
              • dragonwriter36 minutes ago
                Bail agents can usually enter the home of the subject without additional consent due to clauses in the contract of the bail bond, but not (without the owners consent) homes owned by third parties even if the target is present.

                Criminals are also frequently gullible.

                And bail agents are fairly notorious as a group for having a less than scrupulous attention to legal restrictions.

                So, a mix of things, really.

              • dbarlett29 minutes ago
                A single paragraph in Taylor v. Taintor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v._Taintor
    • pavel_lishin4 hours ago
      Telling the police to come back with a warrant sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't.

      And these guys aren't the police.

      • motbus33 hours ago
        Why did he go there without a warranty in the first place? Was he following someone who entered the building? Would that be weird similar to the weird mustached guy from the 40s?
        • Refreeze52243 hours ago
          ICE has been going around without judicial, as opposed to administrative, warrants, relying on threats and coercion to be let in and to arrest people. That's what this probably is.
          • moralestapiaan hour ago
            The story doesn't make sense, tbh ...

            One single guy. What was he supposed to do after they let him in? Just start asking people about their legal status? I doubt Google has many illegal immigrants working there ... I doubt there's even one.

            Then this guy finds them, allegedly, does he just arrests them and take them out the building? All by himself? With all the cameras and phones on the planet recording it? Inside Google, from all places?

            It just doesn't make sense.

            From the article:

            >Google’s top brass—including CEO Sundar Pichai and DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis—have remained silent on Pretti’s killing even inside the company, sources say.

            Why would they, though?

            • pavel_lishin30 minutes ago
              But consider: they're all really fucking stupid.
            • xp84an hour ago
              I agree, I don't need to hear my CEO's opinions on whatever controversy is big today. Run the company, focus on that.
              • pavel_lishin30 minutes ago
                I'd like to hear my CEO say that he won't allow goons into the building to drag me away to a concentration camp.
                • moralestapia21 minutes ago
                  There's not much a CEO can do about that ... (nor it should).
                  • watwuta minute ago
                    CEO are among the few people who can actually do something about that.
      • amanaplanacanal3 hours ago
        The thing is, they are required to have a warrant, but I don't believe they are required to show you the warrant. In which case what exactly should they do?
        • throw_away_80802 hours ago
          Not a lawyer, but I think this is common knowledge: They are required to not only show it but provide a copy of the warrant on request. Furthermore the warrants are scoped, if the warrant specifies searching for firearms and the search your hard drive it can't be used in court unless you verbally allow it. Don't resist, but don't consent.
      • 3 hours ago
        undefined
  • dpc0505054 hours ago
    https://archive.is/GYoyc to get around the paywall
  • juliusceasar3 hours ago
    USA has turned into Iran and Israel. Murdering innocent people and lying about it.
    • rambojohnsonan hour ago
      100%
    • mc322 hours ago
      Yah like Ruby Ridge, Phila MOVE, Malheur, etc…
  • tokyobreakfast4 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • knowitnone32 hours ago
    I don't believe Google would is hiring illegal immigrants.
    • kingstnapan hour ago
      The two people recently killed in Minneapolis were both US citizens.
      • xp84an hour ago
        True, buuuuut, they were also citizens taking it upon themselves to go and get involved with law enforcement activity, creating a chaotic environment deliberately in order to try to make a political point. Let's stipulate that they had great ethical reasons and good intentions to do this - I don't want to debate that.

        But these people allegedly asking for "protection from ICE" at work however are being hyperbolic. Their workplace isn't a place where immigrants are being pursued in the first place, and even if ICE were to come there, they don't have to choose to try to "be a hero" and insert themselves into an arrest that might happen. If they want safety, they can stay at their desks and work. If they're illegally here themselves, they can't expect their employer that they are lying to, to bend over backwards to "protect" them.

        Honestly, I think escalating a situation that is not life-or-death, like ICE detaining people they suspect of violating immigration status, to a degree where people can die, is irresponsible. Way more people die from forklift accidents every day than are actually wrongfully deported, yet people are throwing themselves into the path of officers to "defend" random people they almost definitely know less about than the person arresting them does. So far I haven't heard of ICE hurting any actual immigrants in custody, just "heroes" who think they have a duty to "defend." The only logically consistent position with this categorical "defense" stance would be that borders shouldn't exist.

  • 3 hours ago
    undefined