Thinking about people's personal information:
I've been having a lot of strongly-reactive feelings to these conversations & I'm sorting it out:
1) I work in libraries. At our best, we take personal info/privacy very seriously because historically libraries HAVE been targeted w/subpoenas etc. to get patron data.
1a) Therefore, I'm an advocate of "they can't get what you don't have/keep."
1b) See Connecticut Four for a recent case of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Four
2) As I mentioned, the acronym ICE means something else first to me. And THEY are people I worry abt targeting our patrons.
2a) So, to me, giving personal info to ICE == destroying lives.
That doesn't mean my feelings are right. Just that they're my feelings and since I've figured out there's some actual logical things behind them, I wanted to share that out for consideration. Thanks.
@ruth This is why I encourage people to set up a canary. Gov gag orders can prevent you from saying anything - but they cannot generally compel an action. So a canary where the alarm goes off through inaction is the best.
@ruth It's not illogical at *all*. And well - no one person controls how language evolves. ICE means something *very dangerous* in today's climate in the US. So asking people to be clear about what they're asking for is good. Ditto asking for clarification before setting someone on fire for asking. (Cause if they wanted info just in case, sure I can work with that. If they actually *DID* mean for immigration? FUCKEM.)
also I understand the community-based impulses to want to care for people you fear may be in danger and I don't know how to balance that. It's a good thing to want, just data is scary.