Edit: Link to the pertinent section of the form used by Thai immigration to ask for social media account information. [2].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12974377
[2] http://www.khaosodenglish.com/wp-content/uploads/pre/1460977...
Edit: Link to the pertinent section of the form used by Thai immigration to ask for social media account information. [2].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12974377
[2] http://www.khaosodenglish.com/wp-content/uploads/pre/1460977...
Self-censorship is amazing though, before the European refugee crisis, it seems Germans were polite or tolerant towards foreigners, because it's the social norm. Now in some cities, because they know their neighbors think the same about "those people", they've also realized they're free to express their negative views.
Since they'll probably say "Please kindly write down your HN username", hello to the nice immigration officer reading this!
This was really surprising to me a few years ago. (The first time I had left the US since I was a small child.) I had thought people were just complaining about long lines.
The Customs guy talked to me for >1 hour because I didn't make enough eye contact. And I'm an average looking white male who was coming back from a country that the US has a good relationship with...
My girlfriend is employed. So once they found that out, they had little concern and it became much more relaxed. My friend's girlfriend is not (student, finished undergrad and taking a bit of time off before starting a PhD program). They give her the third degree.
It doesn't help that it can be pretty arbitrary depending on which agent you get, too. Having a similar description to yours, customs agents have always let me walk through without difficulty. Except for one time coming back from Canada.
This was on the way back from Israel though, so I was very aware of how much easier re-entry into the US was than going to Israel.
But as a US citizen, I have no idea what visitors have to go through.
On the other hand, Israeli officials have been solidly professional when I visited. They can see my deadname too, as they have a data-sharing agreement with the USA.
I have several friends who are not US citizens, so I get to hear about how much it sucks from their perspective. There are differences depending on country of origin and visa type. My friends who are from "bad" immigration countries like India, China, and Russia have a hard time, but friends who are from more "trusted" countries tend to have it much easier. My friends who are on long term / work visas find it a huge pain to deal with renewal and keeping it updated (and sometimes my friends from "bad" countries get stuck outside the US for weeks during renewal, for no good reason), but the actual border crossings aren't too bad, as long as they have all their paperwork in order. I don't really know anyone who visits the US on a tourist visa or similar, so I don't know what that experience is like.
Regarding changes for non-citizens, despite my friends relating their experiences, I don't think I've seen _that_ much of a negative difference over the past few years. The onerous fingerprinting requirements are not new[1], and the idea of the anxiety-inducing chat with the immigration officer is even older and doesn't seem to have changed much post-9/11. The new social media stuff is of course ridiculous, especially if it morphs into a hard requirement (or worse, a soft one, where refusing to provide details habitually results in denied entry). Is there a timeline anywhere of changes to US entry practices in the last decade or two? It'd be interesting to see if there have been a lot of small, incremental, "unnoticeable" changes.
[1] And it seems many other countries have adopted fingerprinting requirements anyway; I was just in Japan and Taiwan, and both fingerprinted me. I believe Japan has been requiring fingerprints of visitors longer than the US has.
Or should I just forget about visiting these countries?
Also its Skype, Linkedin and Facebook if i remember right. I dont have those.
It may start with ISIS alignment (but seriously, if that's what catches a would be terrorist, it's both a pathetic statement of our other law enforcement and that terrorist.) But where does "suspicion" end? Black Lives Matter had a terrorist attack in Dallas, if I tweeted I was near a protest, will that flag me? What if I tweeted that President Elect Trump was "unelectable" as Barack Obama had press conference?
I simply don't understand the outrage. It seems random and unconnected to reality. Your public social media whatever is public. Why wouldn't it be investigated just like anything else about you that can be gleaned?
There's also the flaw in the idea that these things are related. If I say on a social media account something critical of the government or an elected official, that doesn't actually make me (me, personally, that is; I'm not speaking in generalities) any more likely to commit a crime or be involved in terrorism. However, a generic, statistics-based approach to flagging things like that assumes it does.
It's also not clear about what's public and what's private. My Facebook account is locked down so only my friends can see anything I post. Some people make their Twitter and Instagram accounts private. While that's not the same sort of "private" as "only exists on my computer's hard drive", it's still certainly not public in the same way that a comment on a HN thread is. If I give an immigration official my FB username, does that mean they get to look at my posts through a backdoor given to them by FB, even though all my content there is marked friends-only? If so, then I have a problem with that as it violates my due process rights (it should require a specific warrant, with my name on it, for FB to hand over that data). If not, then providing my FB account to them is useless, as they won't be able to get anything from it anyway[1].
I get your "limited resources" argument, but, to be blunt, I just don't care. I am firmly of the opinion that less effective law enforcement is a perfectly acceptable consequence of greater personal privacy. Fewer people in the US are killed by terrorism than by falling off a piece of furniture, so I'm not particularly concerned with trying to optimize the search for terrorists at the expense of due process and privacy protections.
[1] Actually that's not entirely true, as my friend list is public. So they could theoretically flag me based on someone I "know" (using scare quotes because a FB "friendship" tells you virtually nothing about the relationship between two people), which is ridiculous.
The internet in its current form is broken let's face it. It's way way too easy to anonymously attack others or to deceive others. Seemingly every day I read about some bank or company which was hacked or a radical terrorist who became radicalized online.
Right now everyone is running around online wearing black ski masks. You don't know me and I don't know you and we have very little (legal) means of verifying who the other person actually is. Maybe I live in Macedonia and get paid to post devil's advocate replies.
I would honestly be happier if we just had a national ID tied to our internet access. I sort of wonder if Internet 1 will have to break before we create a better implementation.
As a US citizen, this is truly offensive. It's as if you have no understanding of the government structure and history of The United States of America. We have 50 sovereign states, and this independence has allowed the state of New York to ban fracking and the state of Colorado to legalize cannabis. Not to mention that you just laid out what I would refer to as a police state.
I believe you should read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, and think more carefully about what you proposed.
What do you think a social security number is exactly? You seem to be confusing identification with independence.
I have read both papers thank you.
I didn't downvote your original post, but I will say that many of us don't share your view: we love freedom and aren't willing to so blithely trade it away.
Anonymous speech is the backbone of American freedom, and has been since the founding of the nation. Some of us are willing to have Civil War 2 before we let the government take that enshrined right away.
If you believe you are anonymous now, then I don't believe you have been paying attention to what the government has been able to do legally for the past 15 years.
I don't believe that this account is anonymous, but that's different than prohibiting any account from being anonymous. There are lots of relatively easy ways to be anonymous (in a city) against even state level actors (for the purposes of publishing; hiding that you exist as a person is harder). They're not free, but we're talking $50-200 in equipment, which nearly anyone could get ahold of.
I like to think I have a reasonable understanding of what the government is and isn't capable of doing, and Id point out that the last 15 years has also seen a transition from critics of surveillance speaking calmly about their concerns to filing lawsuits and hardening infrastructure against the government. The government hasn't been alone in ratcheting up their efforts, and it is indeed deeply disturbing that it seems we're on track for a showdown. Lots of people would be hurt if it came to Civil War 2: Cyberwar Boogaloo, yet how can we call ourselves Americans or patriots if we just throw away the core principles of the nation?
Other people have laid down their lives to defend that freedom, and it is our obligation now to defend it with the same passion.
Primarily, many rights are relaxed at the border (like search and seizure in Carol v United States) because the sovereign's interests and duties must be balanced with constitutional protections. If this case ever makes it to the Supreme Court i wouldn't be surprised if they rule that the government can require you to disclose all of your social media accounts if you're a non-citizen and any accounts where you do not have a reasonable expectation of anonymity if you are a citizen (I.e., they'd get your Facebook account and any account where you posted identifying details like a personal or work email but not your 4chan account).
Also, given that much of the revolutionary war propaganda and the federalist/anti-federalist papers were published under pseudonyms, Id argue anonymized political speech has been part of the American tradition since before there was a US government.
I agree that anonymity has been a key part of the US political tradition since before the formation of the Union but it's important that it is codified into law and the judicial branch is allowed to review it.
I agree, we're already not anonymous, hence your proposal is a waste of time and money.
And meanwhile there are a pile of states making it increasingly onerous to get id in order to limit voting.
Having a coherent strategy for id doesn't preclude banning fracking NY. It also doesn't imply that the government will require access to your social media accounts, or use tanks to investigate overdue parking tickets, both of which we seem to be running towards without a national ID...