I was referring to the graphics/animations that the GP comment mentioned. I was more confident that those were AI-generated than the actual text. Upon further scrutiny I'm having second thoughts.

There are multiple cases of inconsistencies between certain claims and the sources that they linked to:

> The acting IRS Commissioner, Melanie Krause, resigned in protest.

No mention of that here: https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/08/politics/irs-dhs-sign-data-de....

The actual link should be https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/08/politics/melanie-krause-actin... (which is a "Related Article" in the former link).

> The Defense Department even purchased location data from prayer apps to monitor Muslim communities.

Nope: https://www.eff.org/issues/location-data-brokers

> ICE's contract gives them "unlimited rights to use, dispose of, or disclose" all data collected.

Quote doesn't appear here: https://themarkup.org/the-breakdown/2022/06/27/meet-smartlin...

> DHS's own internal documents admit Mobile Fortify can be used to amass biographical information of "individuals regardless of citizenship or immigration status", and CBP confirmed it will "retain all photographs" including those of U.S. citizens, for 15 years.

Both hyperlinks lead to the same page, neither quote appears: https://www.biometricupdate.com/202512/ices-use-of-cbp-biome...

> ICE Homeland Security Investigations signed a $9.2 million contract with Clearview AI in September 2025, giving agents access to over 50 billion facial images scraped from the internet.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT!!! https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/rights-organizations-d...

> This one requests 14 permissions including 7 classified as "dangerous,"

Only 6 permissions are classified as dangerous: https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/gov.dhs.cbp...

If I really wanted to force the claim that the body text is AI-generated (or assisted) then I'd guess that the LLM (likely Claude) counted the "dangerous" icon from its appearance in "The icon [Red exclamation mark] indicates a 'Dangerous' or 'Special' level according to Google's protection levels."

> And the whole CBP ecosystem, from CBP One to CBP Home to Mobile Passport Control, feeds data into a network that retains your faceprints for up to 75 years and shares it across DHS, ICE, and the FBI.

This makes it appear that there are separate apps running concurrently, namely CBP One and CBP Home. They aren't. From the linked source, "CBP One is no longer available". It was replaced with CBP Home. The source does not mention Mobile Passport Control.: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/cbp-on...

> ...discussions around government applications that are loaded with surveillance tech (and in many cases it seems like the apps' primary, and sometimes only, purpose is data harvesting) seem very on-topic for HN.

Which is exactly why I said: "Some submissions are less about the subject matter than they are about providing a space to talk about only the subject in general."

The article in its entirety reads more like a desperate attempt at spinning the recent release of the "White House app" into a story about state surveillance. The problem is that it doesn't have a cogent conclusion or point to make except for a "Surveillance Data Pipeline" graphic that depicts ICE as the central destination for all of this data and the following:

> The federal government publishes content available through standard web protocols and RSS feeds, then wraps that content in applications that demand access to your location, biometrics, storage, contacts, and device identity. They embed advertising trackers in FBI apps. They sell the line that you need their app to receive their propaganda while the app quietly collects data that flows into the same surveillance pipeline feeding ICE raids and warrantless location tracking. Every single one of these apps could be replaced by a web page, and they know that. The app exists because a web page can't read your fingerprint, track your GPS in the background, or inventory the other accounts on your device. > > You don't need their app. You don't need their permission to access public information. You already have a browser, an RSS reader, and the ability to decide for yourself what runs on your own hardware. Use them.

What is the link between the two? Who is the "You" being addressed here? We have apps that are apparently used only by ICE, apps meant for foreign travelers into the US, apps only someone's conservative/veteran grandfather would be caught using—these are disparate demographics to me.

If my initial impression to all of this information was "So what?" how would this article convince me that it's actually meaningful? Submissions like this aren't about discussing anything novel or critical about the subject matter (with the exception of the Huawei thing which is a missed opportunity from an editorial point of view). They are signal boosts to talk about bad government and technology in general.

I've spent enough of my morning trying to make actual sense of this story, that's not to say that it's not informative (albeit unsurprising), but the quality of the writing irrespective of whether its "readable" makes me question if the submission was popular because of its substance or because it's supposed to be a proxy for r/politics.

You owe me a coffee.