[SilverBirch]

If I'm reading this correctly, they're just straight up violating the law. They're sharing information with ICE under an obligation to share information of aliens, but they're actually sharing everyone's information in an effort to identify aliens. That seems like a pretty slam shut case if there were any mechanism to investigate and prosecute it.

[lrvick]

It has become quite clear in recent months that the the rule of law will not be enforced on the federal government or their allies.

[gorgoiler]

I heard a law professor on NPR a few nights back saying how, at the executive level, the rule of law is dead and has been for some time. They cited Jan 6 but recognised how politically divisive that example was, so also gave the failure to enforce the TikTok ban as a less partisan example.

If you take your hands off the wheel you can go a surprisingly long time before you crash. This hands-free period will have to come to an end at some point.

[ardme]

I remember a lot of stuff Bush did in the aftermath of 911 that was illegal. Anyone remember Snowden? And Obama did a drone strike on a US citizen. This has been going on a long time but maybe we used to play pretend better.

[sbarre]

> This has been going on a long time

This has been going on forever, everywhere.

Laws have always applied selectively, particularly when it comes to whatever group is responsible for enforcing them.

[bonsai_spool]

There are very clear differences, so I find your argument disingenuous at best. While the legality can be doubted for the examples you gave, those administrations released their legal rationale.

The TikTok rationale essentially came to ‘we want genz voters’

[andruby]

I agree.

> This hands-free period will have to come to an end at some point

What would that mean? Do you expect the government to put their hands back on the wheel, does the US "crash" and become a dictatorship and/or does it lead to WW3?

[augusto-moura]

It might take some time to end though, executive power without laws is very close to dictatorships, and some dictatorships take a long time to dissolve (if they dissolve at all). They might not even have an end. As an example, look at Russia, from an empire to a dictatorship to an oligarchy. It never seemed full democracy and there's no hope of it changing in the next decade. There's a lot of speculation on what will happen at the end of Trumps presidency

[Quarrelsome]

If we are to learn from the brutal Soviet sanctioned forced deportations of the Baltic nations following world war 2, then justice will come but it will take time.

Once the Baltic nations gained independence they tried everyone involved in the administration of those orders, which took place without trial or oversight and often resulted in the replacement families being deported if the actual tagets could not be found.

Ofc Stalin or any of the power brokers at the time were long dead, so instead it was a parade of lower level admin workers, all who were elderly in their 80s or 90s and who at that time were young, simply doing the bidding of their employers.

The lesson: don't be a bag holder for people who will die before you leaving you to hold the responsibility for their crimes.

[rwmj]

Selectively ... Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

[megous]

It's pretty clear for decades. When exactly did some higher up in the US gov end up in jail for ordering eg. mass killings abroad, or colluding with others that engaged in mass crimes like initiating wars and conflicts.

US will not lock up a single asshole who helps kill thousands of people abroad (not even inconvenience them with a simple court appearance to have to justify themselves), but it sure can lock up thousands on flimsiest justifications like FTA in court because of whatever, or technical parole violations, or driving on suspended license, basically for failures to navigate bureaucracy while poor.

I'll believe in rule of law when at least shits who materially support mass killings of children will start getting locked up. But alas, no. No such thing.

Until then it's all just bullshit that normal people have to submit to, and ruling class gets to excuse itself from with endless lawyering, exceptions, and nonsense, while it's clear they're still just scum psychos doing scum psycho things.

[thomaspinchone]

it's been quite clear for about 50 years now

[delecti]

Maybe, but there was also clearly an inflection point just over 12 months ago, and another 8 years prior.

[mrexcess]

For me it was when Eric Holder, the Attorney General under President Obama, straight-up ignored a Congressional subpoena. Maybe the actual event happened earlier than that, but in that moment I marked "rule of law" as a dead letter.

[filoeleven]

2000 election decided by the Supreme Court here. Will never forget the phrase "hanging chads."

[netsharc]

Yeah, power to execute laws is given to the executive branch. Power of the executive is bestowed upon... one person.

From https://archive.is/E6zXj :

> But, as Chayes studied the graft of the Karzai government, she concluded that it was anything but benign. Many in the political élite were not merely stealing reconstruction money but expropriating farmland from other Afghans. Warlords could hoodwink U.S. special forces into dispatching their adversaries by feeding the Americans intelligence tips about supposed Taliban ties. Many of those who made money from the largesse of the international community enjoyed a sideline in the drug trade. Afghanistan is often described as a “failed state,” but, in light of the outright thievery on display, Chayes began to reassess the problem. This wasn’t a situation in which the Afghan government was earnestly trying, but failing, to serve its people. The government was actually succeeding, albeit at “another objective altogether”—the enrichment of its own members.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Power of the executive is bestowed upon... one person

This is the unitary executive theory. It’s a novel Constitutional theory that even this SCOTUS seems reluctant to honestly embrace.

[TSiege]

They are not reluctant

[JumpCrisscross]

> They are not reluctant

Read the Fed case transcripts.

[JumpCrisscross]

> I'm reading this correctly, they're just straight up violating the law

HHS says “under the Immigration and Nationality Act, ‘any information in any records kept by any department or agency of the government as to the identity and location of aliens in the US shall be made available to’ immigration authorities.” If that’s true, they’re following the law.

[globalise83]

Key part of what you wrote: "as to the identity and location of aliens" - so whatever claim they have to access health information applies to aliens. The big question is: are they harvesting citizens' health records illegally as part of this effort, and if so, when do those responsible see jail time?

[JumpCrisscross]

> are they harvesting citizens' health records illegally as part of this effort, and if so, when do those responsible see jail time?

I’m honestly curious if this would be a Privacy Act or HIPAA violation. The article seems to be unsure on this.

[creshal]

They're unsure because a lot depends on the legal status of children born to non-citizen parents in the US after a executive order tried to revoke birthright citizenship: https://www.bmj.com/content/390/bmj.r1538

If that EO was legal, then sharing the data is, too. If it wasn't, then it's probably a privacy violation, but the CMS isn't allowed to make that call themselves, they have to rely on court decisions for it. And challenging EOs is not trivial.

[bonsai_spool]

I’m also unsure, but I haven’t understood HIPAA to constrain governmental actions. It’s a short law so I will review it (not a lawyer all the same).

[reenorap]

I thought undocumented migrants weren’t allowed to use Medicare or Medicaid. How is that data useful to track them down, then?

[JumpCrisscross]

HHS is broader than CMMS. Someone who was formerly legal could now be illegal. But more prominently, Miller and Noem have focused on illegally deporting pending asylum cases to juice their numbers. Those folks may show up in HHS (and IRS) data.

[reenorap]

I’m against using health data to benefit ICE but what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. There needs to be a critical mass of data for it to be useful to Palantir. If they are passing Medicare and Medicaid data, does that mean that undocumented migrants are getting Medicare and Medicaid?

[JumpCrisscross]

> If they are passing Medicare and Medicaid data

It’s not. Palantir “receives peoples’ addresses from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)” [1]. That’s broader than Medicare or Medicaid.

If you’re on a legal visa and have to get a prescription filled, I think you’ll wind up in those data. (Same if you are legally on Medicare with a spouse who overstayed their visa.)

> does that mean that undocumented migrants are getting Medicare and Medicaid?

Not necessarily. As I said, these data are broader than CMMS. And the targets of the current ICE are not undocumented migrants. (I live in Wyoming, near the Idaho border. The farm workers are fine.)

[1] https://www.404media.co/elite-the-palantir-app-ice-uses-to-f...

[reenorap]

I think it's pretty clear they are using Medicare and Medicaid data. They both fall under the umbrella of HHS so it would technically be correct to say they got data from HHS, but it seems like it's specifically Medicare and Medicaid data.

“Several federal laws authorise the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to make certain information available to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),”

> > does that mean that undocumented migrants are getting Medicare and Medicaid? > Not necessarily.

Not necessarily, but probably. I was told explicitly that undocumented migrants weren't getting Medicare and Medicaid services, but at this point, I don't know who to believe.

[sgarland]

If you go to an emergency room at a hospital which accepts Medicare (so, essentially all of them), you will be screened, and if in danger, medically stabilized (modulo difficult pregnancies in some states with anti-abortion laws, unfortunately).

I assume if you then fill paperwork out, they’d have your data - though I’m not sure why you’d agree to fill it out if you know you can’t pay, and that you’re just going to be discharged.

[ardme]

Great question. I thought that only citizens could access public healthcare benefits.

[ClarityJones]

I'm open to either conclusion, but what law / right do you think is being violated?

As a general rule, the first amendment protects the right to say, e.g. "John Doe lives at 123 Main St." John may not like that people know that, but that doesn't generally limit other peoples' right to speak freely.

[SilverBirch]

It's right there in the article, there are specific federal laws authorizing them to make specific information available - for example, they can make any record kept about the identity or location of aliens available. Right, that's a specific limitation on what they can share, even the HHS spokesperson made clear they don't share information on US citizens and permanent lawful residents. But then the article goes on to reveal that ICE has all the personal data of every person receiving Medicaid.

If the law says you can share aliens information, but not Americans information, and then you do share Americans information I think you're probably breaking the law, and at the very least there should be a process to find out what the basis is for you doing it. Normally these things would be decided by a court.

[snarf21]

"If a cop follows you for 500 miles, you're going to get a ticket". - Warren Buffet

'Show me the man, I’ll find you the crime'. - Lavrentiy Beria (Stalin secret police)

[juujian]

> if there were any mechanism to investigate and prosecute it.

If only there was an independent Judikative or something idk...

[drstewart]

Where did you read they're sharing everyone's information?

[hakrgrl]

You are not reading this right.

> There is no data sharing agreement between CMS and DHS on “US citizens and lawful permanent residents,” they added.

[JumpCrisscross]

Which doesn’t quite say those data weren’t shared.

[lawn]

Please stop using the word alien to refer to humans.

It's dehumanizing and it leads to a path where you can justify humiliating, torturing, and murdering other humans. Which is already happening with ICE.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Please stop using the word alien to refer to humans

It’s the legally-correct term.

For what it’s worth, I’m a naturalized American. When I was doing my citizenship paperwork, I found the term fun. The word doesn’t dehumanize. Murdering people does.

[lawn]

Genocide starts with separating people into them and us, and this process starts with words.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Genocide starts with separating people into them and us

This is an unsubstantiated slippery slope. We can categorize people, even sort them by desirability for some purpose, without resorting to dehumanization much less genocide. (Citizenship and immigration necessitate an us-them delineation. So do team sports, families and like club memberships. Us and them are fine. Us versus them is dangerous.)

[lawn]

It's not enough by itself of course, but in the US it's very much a "us versus them" if you haven't noticed.