We've not been the home of the brave for a while now and I think we're pretty far from the land of the free to the outside world. This is the next level of "papers please" and I bet if this remains and is enforced will be used against citzens as well. May or may not be as bad as China's social credit system.
I want to say this feels "un-American" but I'm not sure we'll ever come back from over-reaching moves like this and TSA.
So... this is a bad policy, but let's not hyperbolize.
The fourth amendment is still a thing, and it protects non-citizens and citizens alike.
The demand here isn't for your social media history, it's for your account IDs. If they want your (non-public) posts, they still have to get a warrant from a judge and show cause, just like they do now.
The feature they're demanding is to know who you are, so they know where to target that warrant request. And that's arguably bad, and a slippery slope.
BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT LIKE THE PRC'S SOCIAL CREDIT SYSTEM. Stop it.
How can US citizens fight this? It's not unconstitutional, since non-citizens aren't covered by the Bill of Rights. Do we just hope & pray that the next administration is gracious enough to revert a policy decision that has no negative impact on themselves or their constituents?
> non-citizens aren't covered by the Bill of Rights.
That's not correct, and two centuries of case law agrees with the plain language of the constitution: no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
> since non-citizens aren't covered by the Bill of Rights
That is a common misperception. Most of the Bill of Rights applies to "persons", which includes non-citizens and even undocumented aliens. However, it doesn't apply to people not under the jurisdiction of the US, such as foreign nationals overseas. When someone applies for a visa from overseas they don't have these rights. Likewise those still outside US territory who are presenting themselves at a border seeking entrance.
Once on US soil, Constitutional protections generally apply.
How can they possibly require people who don't have social media profiles to hand such details over? Where's the proof that someone has or hasn't a social media profile? If they can verify that someone who claimed not to have a Facebook account indeed does, then why ask the question at all?
And if the US government is going to rely on Facebook and Google for identify vetting, then we've really entered an overtly "CorpGov" era, to steal a term from Yippies. Even if this is only a problem for visa applicants at the moment, who's to say what the next step will be?
Cory Doctorow wrote a short story on this (google search information and online postings being searched at airport customs) back in the early 2000s called, "Scroogled": http://superkuh.com/scroogled.html
For now, it likely serves a few purposes: to cross-reference information in the database, as a legitimate reason to deny someone who may have lied to the officer, to uncover new information about the individual [1] & to decrease the need of a court order.
The best course of action a civilian can do is to put pressure on their govs to create a system that protects their perceived interests.
[1] Since the person can't tell what kind of information the immigration office has, they are more likely to over-present
I did an ESTA application a few weeks ago and was wondering why anyone in their right mind would fill in the section where you can optionally provide social media details. Guess this answers that question.
This article is short on details. What does "social media details" mean? Is that username and password, or just username? The former is much worse than the latter.
I'm very wary of what I share publicly, so if you only see my public posts then I'm not too worried. But I sure as hell wouldn't be compromising my security and privacy and giving out my passwords. I would sooner choose a new random password, write it down, and then travel, and simply not use (or even be able to log in to, or disclose the passwords of) my social media accounts while traveling. What would they do then?
It's public handles only. They specifically say they do not want your passwords. They also will not circumvent any security, so if you have a twitter account locked, or fb posts to friends-only, they are not included. This is explicitly about public postings and public information.
An extreme waste of resources from an anti terrorism perspective. But, occasionally useful when looking for people lying about their reasons to enter the US.
Which will come at the cost of billions of tourist dollars when people stop coming in because the entry lines are so long dealing with all of this nonsense.
This I can understand. I have a friend who travels to the US semi regularly on a tourist reason (has family there) but then works informally, selling handicrafts / jewellery at markets and posts all over his facebook about what he is selling and when he will be selling it and where.
NSA and by extension CIA already have this data as its unencrypted and flowing through the telecom taps they do.
I think it implies that certain tech solutions by a certain founder are not performing as gov was led to expect.
So basically visitors basically being told legally hey out yourself as far as public social messages because we the US gov have some tech problems with tracking dow3n that social message keyword stuff.
Everybody traveling to the US needs a VISA, unless they have a waiver, which requires an ESTA, which requires some personal contact information. I don't know if the social media info will be added to the ESTA application, but it wouldn't surprise me. The visa waiver program also only applies to about 35-40 nations (there are 190 or so in the UN).
Considering the workload on visa reviewers, I highly doubt they are perusing through people’s social media and making a judgement.
I’m assuming DHS already has a list of flagged handles and just comparing the two against each other. I also assume handles are stored so if flagged at a later date, a visa could be revoked.
>"As we've seen around the world in recent years, social media can be a major forum for terrorist sentiment and activity. This will be a vital tool to screen out terrorists, public safety threats, and other dangerous individuals from gaining immigration benefits and setting foot on US soil."
Now, we do some very simple replacement:
>"As we've seen around the world in recent years, social media can be a major forum for communist sentiment and activity. This will be a vital tool to screen out communists, public safety threats, and other dangerous individuals from gaining immigration benefits and setting foot on US soil."
If it's good enough for McCarthy, it's good enough for me.
I think because it's now going to be a required question? It's one thing if you're putting information about yourself for the public to see and having the government research it independently, but it's another for it to be expected that you hand over your account handles to social media accounts that might not even be publicly visible in the first place. Even worse that the government would be essentially using multinational corporations as de facto identity vetting.
Clarification to downvoters: "Freedom" implies corruption of language, as in the concept of freedom has a specific meaning and suggests an overall trend. Fear implies that you can not trust others, instead the striving for absolute control and transparency, resulting in the violation of rights. The question is honest, what merits these extreme measures? The downvoting without comment is dishonest. You did not understand or did not care enough to parse it and respond properly.
[+] [-] merricksb|6 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20065142
[+] [-] leetrout|6 years ago|reply
We've not been the home of the brave for a while now and I think we're pretty far from the land of the free to the outside world. This is the next level of "papers please" and I bet if this remains and is enforced will be used against citzens as well. May or may not be as bad as China's social credit system.
I want to say this feels "un-American" but I'm not sure we'll ever come back from over-reaching moves like this and TSA.
[+] [-] ajross|6 years ago|reply
The fourth amendment is still a thing, and it protects non-citizens and citizens alike.
The demand here isn't for your social media history, it's for your account IDs. If they want your (non-public) posts, they still have to get a warrant from a judge and show cause, just like they do now.
The feature they're demanding is to know who you are, so they know where to target that warrant request. And that's arguably bad, and a slippery slope.
BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT LIKE THE PRC'S SOCIAL CREDIT SYSTEM. Stop it.
[+] [-] turk73|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] senorjazz|6 years ago|reply
No more nor no less than any other country, who all have their own cultural stories why they are brave as well
[+] [-] qlm|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d33|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] layoutIfNeeded|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zxcb1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e12e|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colanderman|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajross|6 years ago|reply
That's not correct, and two centuries of case law agrees with the plain language of the constitution: no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
[+] [-] droithomme|6 years ago|reply
That is a common misperception. Most of the Bill of Rights applies to "persons", which includes non-citizens and even undocumented aliens. However, it doesn't apply to people not under the jurisdiction of the US, such as foreign nationals overseas. When someone applies for a visa from overseas they don't have these rights. Likewise those still outside US territory who are presenting themselves at a border seeking entrance.
Once on US soil, Constitutional protections generally apply.
[+] [-] roywiggins|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ravenstine|6 years ago|reply
And if the US government is going to rely on Facebook and Google for identify vetting, then we've really entered an overtly "CorpGov" era, to steal a term from Yippies. Even if this is only a problem for visa applicants at the moment, who's to say what the next step will be?
[+] [-] superkuh|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gpetrium|6 years ago|reply
The best course of action a civilian can do is to put pressure on their govs to create a system that protects their perceived interests.
[1] Since the person can't tell what kind of information the immigration office has, they are more likely to over-present
[+] [-] jon-wood|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dontbenebby|6 years ago|reply
I thought ESTA was the basically almost-not-a-visa they use for EU et al that basically just checks you're not a felon or a terrorist
[+] [-] bluefox|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] alistairSH|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CydeWeys|6 years ago|reply
I'm very wary of what I share publicly, so if you only see my public posts then I'm not too worried. But I sure as hell wouldn't be compromising my security and privacy and giving out my passwords. I would sooner choose a new random password, write it down, and then travel, and simply not use (or even be able to log in to, or disclose the passwords of) my social media accounts while traveling. What would they do then?
[+] [-] rdl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kakaorka|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Retric|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enjo|6 years ago|reply
So I’m not sure it’s much of a win.
[+] [-] senorjazz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fredgrott|6 years ago|reply
NSA and by extension CIA already have this data as its unencrypted and flowing through the telecom taps they do.
I think it implies that certain tech solutions by a certain founder are not performing as gov was led to expect.
So basically visitors basically being told legally hey out yourself as far as public social messages because we the US gov have some tech problems with tracking dow3n that social message keyword stuff.
[+] [-] 50656E6973|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yasp|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ebilodeau|6 years ago|reply
https://www.apnews.com/c96a215355b242e58107c2125c18fc4a
[+] [-] alistairSH|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yasp|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] refurb|6 years ago|reply
Considering the workload on visa reviewers, I highly doubt they are perusing through people’s social media and making a judgement.
I’m assuming DHS already has a list of flagged handles and just comparing the two against each other. I also assume handles are stored so if flagged at a later date, a visa could be revoked.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] SN76477|6 years ago|reply
What business is it of anyone's? What do they think they are going to find?
[+] [-] inherentFloyd|6 years ago|reply
>"As we've seen around the world in recent years, social media can be a major forum for terrorist sentiment and activity. This will be a vital tool to screen out terrorists, public safety threats, and other dangerous individuals from gaining immigration benefits and setting foot on US soil."
Now, we do some very simple replacement:
>"As we've seen around the world in recent years, social media can be a major forum for communist sentiment and activity. This will be a vital tool to screen out communists, public safety threats, and other dangerous individuals from gaining immigration benefits and setting foot on US soil."
If it's good enough for McCarthy, it's good enough for me.
[+] [-] mfatica|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] whymeiask|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ravenstine|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] datavirtue|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zxcb1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zxcb1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SomeOldThrow|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]