DHS Plans To Gather Social Media Info
buzzfeed.com
buzzfeed.com
""" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. """
The Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe that the due process clause of the 5th Amendment imposes the equal protection responsibility on the federal government as well as the individual states.
I'm not clear on how dual-citizenship works when you naturalize to the US, but are there not situations where they have to give up citizenship to their country of origin? Does that mean these people are permanently left in a degraded legal state with no home country, where they would have full legal rights, to return to should the DHS decide they've over stepped their bounds on Facebook?
However, the US do not recognize the concept of dual citizenship. Meaning that an Italian-American is always seen as just an American by the US government. Once you become American you are American, you are not a XXX-American.
One such a case is China. If a Chinese citizen gets the passport of another country they lose their original Chinese citizenship (if China knows about the new passport.)
I wonder what happens if they are born in countries like the USA that give citizenship at birth. Do they have to forfeit one of the two citizenships? And when, at birth by decision of the parents or later on by their choice?
It is very easy to point fingers at one figure or political party, in this case though the waters have been slowly rising since 9/11 through Bush Jr, Obama, and now Trump.
Until American citizens are impacted (either through loss of tourism money or more directly) I don't see much happening.
Yes, I went there. What kind of insane guilt-attribution system makes the parent commenter (and all others who dissent) responsible for the actions of the US government?
The way to stop it is to apply pressure to the rule makers. They still work for us (although most of the time it does not feel this way), so the constituents must tell rule makers to change stupid rules. Otherwise they are not innocent bystanders anymore. And nowadays the constituents will not care unless they feel the pain.
We all are "too busy" (at least I know that I am) unless our own relatives have to give out logins while going abroad. I wish it was not this way, but this is the way it is today :(
And this new rule wouldn't be garbage if it wasn't a US citizen?
My point is that the EU is a big place with differing levels of care about what happens at the borders. I doubt all of the EU would/could reciprocate even if they wanted to.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/world/europe/eu-visas-uni...
Plus, I would not overestimate degrees of separation -- if a friend's granddaughter traveling internationally for a high school trip supplies social account credentials, and those get leaked it is a powerful demonstration of stupid law in action. Having her get a load of humiliating / X-rated junk as a result would I suspect make even a strong supporter rethink his support.
I think, in general, that it's better to do the opposite: if someone wants to do a stupid thing, make them look as strange as possible; try do the exact opposite thing, so that their rationale (e.g. "otherwise terrorism") is undermined. Plus, of course, that opposite thing might be a good idea on its own.
I've heard all kinds of reasons to not have IDs they don't make sense - IDs are racist apparently, or some kind of a right wing conspiracy about government controlling people. Many other countries seems to manage with national IDs, some are more poor, some just as technologically advanced.
Is the argument that minorities are incompetent or just poor and can't get IDs if they want to vote? I think if they are free to get there should be no issue denying voting to anyone?
But let's say it is required for voting as well and it is subsidized. How exactly does it deny minorities the right to vote? Not sure what minorities we are thinking about but wonder if there is an implication that some would not be able to figure out how to get an ID, which I think is a bit insulting to those minorities. For example let's look at India:
---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aadhaar
Aadhaar is the world's largest biometric ID system, with over 1.171 billion enrolled members as of 15 Aug 2017.[3] As of this date, over 99% of Indians aged 18 and above had been enrolled in Aadhaar.[4]
---
So this is a country with a lot more poor people, with issues such as open defecation, and worse poverty, and arguable not as advanced as US, and they managed but here in US it's somehow a minority issue? I just don't see it.
Shortly after 9/11, the USA required Brazilian tourists to use a fingerprint scanner. A Brazilian judge made a rule for American tourists to do the same:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/10/world/us-and-brazil-finger...
It was a huge mess at first because Brazil hadn't required any other countries to do it in the past. I suspect that customs threw away the fingerprints at first (it was done with ink originally), but it's done digitally nowadays.
Brazil does this for all countries. American tourists, for example, have to pay $100 for a visa because Brazilians need to do the same in the U.S.
To this day, it's considerably easier for Europeans to enter Brazil than Americans. While the U.S. hasn't rescinded the fingerprint law (that I know of), it's possible this policy prevented escalation...
Some VCs, tech people, etc. who make money from immigrants are going into panic mode.
What I understand from the rule change is that it would allow the DHS to search for you on Google and look at your Facebook and Instagram profile before granting you a greencard. Frankly, every potential employer will most likely do the same. I'm not at all anti-immigration, but this seems to be reasonable "vetting" even in my book. Or am I missing something here?
If they do post-arrival vetting, for how long will they be allowed to do it? 1 year? 5? 20?
It's just another BS excuse to use mass surveillance against as many people as they can. They start with immigrants, then they invent some other reason for some other category of Americans, and so on.
This is the "problem" with surveillance technology getting ever cheaper. It gives them an irresistible desire to apply it more and more, even where it's not absolutely necessary, as the cost is no longer an impediment, so "might as well."
I have the same opinion on killer drones or killer robots for that matter. The cheaper they will become to use, the more they will be used. Eventually they'll run out of "real targets" and start sending them after less important targets, too. Killer drones are not "the same as an airstrike", as I've seen many say on various forums, for this very reason, just like mass surveillance done today is not the same as the targeted surveillance done decades ago against real targets, as some were implying immediately after Snowden released his documents.
This is just a simple example... Social media is not an official record and is trivially influenced and manipulated by the general public without recourse. Any information empowered to substantially restrict individual freedoms should correspondingly be protected from inaccuracies, e.g. court documents and police records.
It's entirely concievable that someone could be in the US for years, have a family, make a political facebook post (maybe "take a knee") and then be deported.
Does it include forums? Closed forums? Anything with a chat capability? A website that uses a third party chat widget and another third party address book?
What is social media according to the US government?
How far back does that go?
Looking at the Tinder story also on the front page, do we have to declare our fake FB profiles just for Tinder, etc?
How big is that text field, and how long do they want this story?!
depends on whether or not the security person likes you ;)
https://www.dhs.gov/publication/privacy-policy-operational-u...
"Social Media means the sphere of websites, applications, and web-based tools that connect users to engage in dialogue, share information and media, collaborate, and interact. Social media take many different forms, including but not limited to web-based communities and hosted services, social networking sites, video and photo sharing sites, blogs, virtual worlds, social bookmarking, and other emerging technologies."
By that definition I've forgotten far more social media profiles than I have today. No idea of the usernames, emails, sites, apps, anything.
It's mad that you could be denied entry for not having a Facebook account.
I'd love to visit the US again but everything I've heard about the TSA and invasions of privacy really put me off.
edit: Actually Dec 2016 / Jan 2017 https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/22/14066082/us-customs-bord...
> Enter information associated with your online presence, including the types of online platforms, applications and websites that you use to collaborate, share information, and interact with others, as well as the username(s) associated with those accounts. (OPTIONAL)
With the length of time and the amount of sites I use I'd be here hours filling this in. I love NYC and have family in the states but I really can't imagine willingly going there now. Though the UK is hardly going the way of anything better.
People are happy to point fingers at Russia, China and feel smug and superior and look the other way while totalitarian ideas like searching people's personal effects that attack the core of human dignity and dehumanize individuals are legitimized with little to no pushback.
I like the idea but is this actually written somewhere (a treaty perhaps) or just an opinion? If an opinion I don't see why you would draw a line between visit and live.
It doesn't mention they'll be requesting passwords, only "handles, aliases, [...] search results [and] publicly available information". I mean, everything is already accessible on the internet (to the extent I want it to be), and accessible by merely a Google search of my name (which is written on my passport), so anyone (not just Homeland Security) could easily collect this info anyways (even without me being anywhere _near_ the US).
> I mean, everything is already accessible on the internet (to the extent I want it to be), and accessible by merely a Google search of my name (which is written on my passport), so anyone (not just Homeland Security) could easily collect this info anyways
The notion that only the info you want accessible under your name is actually accessible under your name seems a bit naive, also you may need to disclose 'aliases' as well, which means account on which you on purpose don't use your real name, probably because you want to express your opinions a bit more freely.
> I think this is a bit overblown.
DHS agents cherry-picking people's social media posts to deny them entry does not seem overblown to me.
I think the only effective solution to this is for the EU to impose similarly annoying travel restrictions on American citizens and for companies to stop going to conferences etc. in the U.S.since they'll notice once big business complains.
Sucks, because they've got some nice nature, but I can go somewhere I'm not hauled over a barrel for every detail of my life upon entry.
On top of that, depending on where you go, it's either full of tourists or has no facilities. Tourists are the worst part about the Grand Canyon and, while strictly an opinion, there are more interesting things to see.
If you do decide to go to the bottom, bring a lot of water with you. The climb back out can be labor intensive and hot. You're fine, so long as you remember to bring water. You might as well bring extra water, because there's almost always a tourist sitting there on the edge of the trail and slowly dying of thirst. So, you'll feel obligated to share your water. You might as well just bring a few extra bottles.
You'll get far better, and more comprehensive, imagery from a good documentary. It's hard to get a permit to raft the whole thing, for example. But, you can live vicariously through others and not have to deal with the tourists.
If you can't guess, I've been a half-dozen times. It hasn't once been my preferred destination. I've gone because I was in the area and at the behest of others. My first visit was on a family vacation. It's nice, but there are many other options that I personally enjoyed more. I'd just watch a documentary and make the trip a little longer so that I could go to Taos instead, but that's just me.
On the other hand, as you go to Taos, coming up out of Santa Fe, you can see stuff like this:
https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g47224-d...
It doesn't even attract, comparatively, a whole lot of tourists.
Reference: Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens? http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/297/
"It makes no sense to say that a foreign national has a First Amend- ment right to criticize government officials or to join political groups without fear of criminal prosecution, but that he may be deported for the same activities."
"The decision marks the first time outside of a war setting that the Court has upheld preventive detention of anyone without an in- dividualized assessment of the necessity of such detention. And the majority expressly rested its decision on a double standard, noting that Congress can make rules in the immigration setting that would be unacceptable for citizens."
https://medium.com/@thegrugq/stop-fabricating-travel-securit...
I think its important to note that this was Democrats justification of slavery during the civil war as well.
That's exactly the problem: A queue of charlatans ready to sell Homeland Security bogus analysis of social media posts, with the predictable pernicious results.
What's good for the goose is good for the panopticon.
[1]https://globalnews.ca/news/3268531/cellphone-search-at-the-b...
Oh well, i'm all for terrorizing people as long as it stop terrorists.
(I wrote this comment and deleted it twice because i've used HN on campus and this can be linked back to me now. lol, maybe I am just paranoid.)
Please tell me this is sarcasm.