alt.hn

5/11/2026 at 2:12:23 PM

ICE to Develop Own Smart Glasses to 'Supplement' Its Facial Recognition App

 https://www.404media.co/ice-plans-to-develop-own-smart-glasses-to-supplement-its-facial-recognition-app/

by SpyCoder77

5/11/2026 at 4:10:33 PM

Abolish ICE and DHS. Everyone who works as an ICE ERO agent should be prosecuted and/or barred from any and all future public service.

by cdrnsf

5/11/2026 at 5:20:52 PM

[dead]

by estimator7292

5/11/2026 at 4:50:13 PM

[dead]

by 4289076290867

5/12/2026 at 4:01:04 AM

[flagged]

by notepad0x90

5/11/2026 at 6:39:22 PM

[flagged]

by hosel

5/12/2026 at 3:16:40 AM

You must not be from around here. They are an untrained, reckless agency that violates the law left and right, entering homes without judicial warrants, ignoring the Constitution, and detaining or harming U.S. citizens. Their tactics are completely cruel. It blows my mind that I still find people who think they only detain 'illegal aliens.' They are trained to detain even those who are here legally and processing their papers the correct way, often waiting for them right outside the courts.

by pacomerh

5/11/2026 at 7:18:10 PM

Rampant civil rights violations and murder, for starters.

by cdrnsf

5/11/2026 at 9:11:09 PM

[flagged]

by Leonard_of_Q

5/11/2026 at 9:46:11 PM

It's much more important that government agents obey the law than it is that others do.

by hughw

5/11/2026 at 11:38:18 PM

Police are responsible for violations of the law, not immigration. This also requires due process.

And frankly, the per capita rates for crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants is much lower than for citizens. If these violations and murders are what we really care about, we should have an armed enforcement groups that only focuses on citizens.

But if that sounds absurd to you, then you’re starting to get it.

by edmundsauto

5/11/2026 at 9:27:09 PM

What about them? We're talking about ICE.

by krige

5/11/2026 at 7:02:16 PM

It's like a game to be the shittiest of the shittiest gov't official playing around with technology to surveillance state (and they never ever just do the right thing, they go all out on breaking the law because technology is fun)

by zghst

5/12/2026 at 4:05:37 AM

[flagged]

by notepad0x90

5/11/2026 at 4:21:55 PM

While it's theoretically possible that this technology could work effectively, given the people involved, this project is probably a complete bamboozle that will divert funds away from enforcing the deportation of immigrants.

In that light, it's probably a good thing.

by loudmax

5/11/2026 at 8:21:05 PM

> it's probably a good thing.

Nah, much like the app it’s all about plausible deniability. It’ll be crap… but they’ll just make it give positive matches to as many people as possible so they can be dragged off.

by afavour

5/11/2026 at 6:40:09 PM

You're overthinking it. They're going to give Meta a lot of money for the existing glasses to do the same thing but slap a stamp called 'secure' on them.

It's just some grift economy.

by cyanydeez

5/11/2026 at 4:26:15 PM

You mean like Trump's pool guy ruining the reflecting pool?

by JohnTHaller

5/11/2026 at 4:52:22 PM

An "emergency" no-bid contract awarded to a company with connections to Trump that has increased from $2 million to $15 million. And doesn't fix any underlying issues with the pool leaks.

Small potatoes compared to estimated $7 billion in insider trades made on oil and betting markets, front running announcements on the illegal Iran war. [0]

The corruption is sickening.

[0] https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/7-Billion-In-Perfectly...

by dashundchen

5/11/2026 at 7:18:54 PM

"$15M here, $15M there, and sooner or later you're talking about real money!"

by FireBeyond

5/12/2026 at 4:09:06 AM

It isn't, all that money they're asking for is a grift, you don't need tens of billions of dollars for ethnic cleansing, poorer countries and their dictators manage with much less. It makes ethnic cleansing a more profitable endeavor for these scum, and that money will go a long way for protecting them against the sheepish democrats that will use lawyers judges to go after them.

by notepad0x90

5/11/2026 at 3:07:45 PM

Orwell never even envisioned this form of state surveillance!

by canada_dry

5/11/2026 at 11:40:49 PM

Philip K Dick did at least, in A Scanner Darkly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scanner_Darkly

> When performing his work as an undercover agent, Arctor goes by the name "Fred" and wears a "scramble suit" that conceals his identity from other officers. Then he is able to sit in a police facility and observe his housemates through "holo-scanners", audio-visual surveillance devices that are placed throughout the house.

When will we need to start wearing "scramble suits"

by TranquilMarmot

5/12/2026 at 4:10:24 AM

yeah, you needed the tv's to watch you in his world, and even then humans needed to watch the feed, no AI/automated monitoring.

by notepad0x90

5/11/2026 at 2:56:32 PM

It's no secret they've been tracking people's faces as much as they can.

The morning of Pretti I was on Lyndale and there were two men wearing "press" jackets with DLSRs taking pictures of people's faces in the crowd. They were eventually recognized and yelled out, but it was quite an unnerving feeling.

by PhunkyPhil

5/11/2026 at 3:03:35 PM

Perfect addition to any self-respecting Junior Stasi outfit ...

by LightBug1

5/11/2026 at 2:41:10 PM

Your tax dollars, hard at work.

by josefritzishere

5/11/2026 at 2:54:27 PM

protection money

by brianjlogan

5/11/2026 at 5:15:04 PM

How is anyone reading this article? I hit a paywall and didn't see how to read the whole thing.

by apparent

5/11/2026 at 6:56:30 PM

You could pay. 404 does stirling work.

by bcraven

5/11/2026 at 8:15:03 PM

Why does 404 Media tend to get auto-banned on HN?

by JumpCrisscross

5/12/2026 at 3:40:40 AM

I was surprised at the volume of comments given that it's paywalled. It made me wonder if others had actually read the article or were just commenting on the headline.

by apparent

5/12/2026 at 6:08:55 AM

Can always read the archive version that's often posted in the comments

by tjbrock

5/12/2026 at 4:08:29 PM

Yes I know...it is not posted in this thread. In light of that, I am wondering if this conversation is happening amongst people who did not actually read the article.

by apparent

5/12/2026 at 4:13:19 AM

but then my bank and everyone watching my payment activity (yes, it is monitored and sold, and resold many times over) will know. Can I use crypto payment? Can I purchase crypto without all the legal hassle? can I pay in cash for some credit or token i can spend online anonymously? Nah..that'd make too much sense. With news paper all I needed was a few cents to purchase one, until the payment hassle is that simple, this isn't a good suggestion.

by notepad0x90

5/11/2026 at 3:13:01 PM

This smells like a way to funnel money to someone. There's no way a small number of "Smart Glasses" will be cheap, and the warlord(s) in charge can spec it in ways to increase costs, funnelling even more money to that someone. Classic US grifting from the government, in my judgement. We should find out who made this decision, and it will be interesting to see who gets the contract(s) for it. As we've seen with DoD acquisition, even a failed program can keep the money spigot open for years, too.

by bediger4000

5/11/2026 at 4:08:12 PM

I think it's both, they hope it helps them surveil better, they don't really mind if it doesn't or doesn't to the extent of it's cost, cause the right people still got paid.

This is pretty much all federal government now.

by jrochkind1

5/11/2026 at 3:55:39 PM

This was my thought as well, a good excuse for a slush fund.

by puppycodes

5/11/2026 at 4:09:12 PM

The good excuse for the slush fund was $75 billion in supplementary funding Congress approved for ICE with no particular reason or budget. At this point all of ICE is a good excuse for a slush fund.

by jrochkind1

5/11/2026 at 5:07:21 PM

[dead]

by nine_zeros

5/11/2026 at 4:00:50 PM

[flagged]

by Sh0000reZ

5/11/2026 at 2:43:57 PM

But aren't they still resisting wearing body cameras?

by tokai

5/11/2026 at 2:52:35 PM

These will probably not count as body cams for some reason, so will be subject to different regulations, or none at all.

by tencentshill

5/11/2026 at 7:28:06 PM

Or just outright avoiding it. When Michael Reinhoel was shot in Lacey, WA, a few minutes away from me (and I was actually a paramedic at the time, on duty, but not dispatched to this), by the US Marshals, there was a distinct oddity that no-one really picked up on.

> A U.S. Marshals Service spokesperson said the task force attempted to arrest Reinoehl, and officers shot him after he produced a gun and fled on foot. The team included officers from the Pierce County Sheriff's Department

Wait, Pierce County? That County's border is miles away from unincorporated Lacey, and the "center" is effectively 30 miles (Lacey is a tri-city with Olympia and Tumwater, and Pierce County's seat is Tacoma). Why PCSO, and not Thurston County SO?

Well, the other agencies involved (like the WA DOC, which was an odd inclusion) don't (or didn't, this was 2020) wear bodycams. TCSO... does. PCSO... doesn't.

There was already a belief that he would not survive an encounter with LE, but without commenting on that, it's odd that you'd choose not to involve the agency who would ordinarily be responsible for that geographic area, just to use one from the next county.

So no bodycam footage of his final moments exists.

by FireBeyond

5/11/2026 at 4:27:58 PM

Resisting body cameras. Wearing masks to avoid responsibility. Being moved to other locations after murdering US citizens. Etc

by JohnTHaller

5/11/2026 at 3:31:18 PM

That's not what was happening. Anti-ICE activists are now against body cameras.

> https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body...

But when Democrats are back in power, they'll be for it. They'll issue these these exact same smart glasses, from this same vendor, to all law enforcement as the way to "Eliminate Trump's ICE."

by pessimizer

5/11/2026 at 3:38:44 PM

It helps when the source you include supports the claims you make of it. The source you included does not:

> Obviously we want them to be wearing body cameras

by mcphage

5/11/2026 at 5:40:37 PM

First, read the post you linked before. Second, the "but the other side is bad too", even if true (and i am sure it will be true for some) is the most birdbrain take. Do you think the democrat will suddenly have 6 supreme court judges authorizing this kind of shit?

by orwin

5/11/2026 at 7:10:32 PM

Cool counterfactual, bro.

by rexpop

5/11/2026 at 3:05:43 PM

I'm not a fan of surveillance state, but I'm also not a fan of high crime and false arrests. If we're just tying up the police and having bloated budgets, we should get rid of publicly funded police and allow police to be a corporate benefit like healthcare.

by vamos_davai

5/11/2026 at 4:14:19 PM

i fail to see how for profit policing with less oversight would be a good thing for the general citizenry?

by Natfan

5/11/2026 at 3:17:41 PM

Isn't that a key plot point of Robocop?

But seriously, it's a great idea. I mean, just look how well healthcare as a corporate benefit has worked out!

by pickleglitch

5/11/2026 at 4:09:52 PM

Wait, Robocop wasn't meant to be a techno-utopia?

by jrochkind1

5/11/2026 at 10:48:04 PM

I'd buy that for a dollar!

by Schiendelman

5/11/2026 at 5:17:55 PM

that's a particularly useful sort of naive comment

by Shalomboy