US 'extreme vetting' kicks in forcing visitors to hand over social media details
newshub.co.nz
newshub.co.nz
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.
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.
That's not entirely correct, despite your emphatic all caps assertions.
Under under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008[1], they can wait for a non-US person to depart the US, then use the full powers of the NSA to access the harvested communications under the username(s) collected at the border.
The level of "cause" needed for FISA warrant is very thin, and only 0.3% of FISA warrants are rejected[3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
[3] https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2013/06/fisa-court...
Second: FISA is one court, the government can't commit mass surveillance along the lines of a social credit system using FISA warrants even if it wanted to. You literally think those three (I think it's three) judges are going to pen hundreds of millions of signatures on physical pieces of paper?
Once again, you and the other aggrieved posters in this subthread want to turn this particular issue into a proxy for warrantless surveillance, or border searches, or immigration abuses.
And it's not. It's a requirement to get your facebook ID. Not every policy is the end of the world, and if you want the uninformed masses to take your (and my!) civil liberties worries seriously, you need to present arguments that make sense and aren't irrelevant digressions.
Uh, how so? It provides a known good selector for future surveillance. It’s probably the reason it’s on the form and the privacy implications are definitely relevant to the discussion.
>You literally think those three (I think it's three) judges are going to pen hundreds of millions of signatures on physical pieces of paper?
They do bulk orders.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/ve...
You can say for sure that their process exists as one sheet per person/username? These documents are not available for public audit, so I find the faith you demonstrate to be questionable.
You know for a fact that there is no concentrated effort to slurp up as much information as possible to provide a political/intelligence bargaining chip with other state's intelligence services?
You are right about one thing ; it isn't as bad as the PRC's social credit system: yet. However, it is there as a foundation for one, and even what we have was considered unprecedented and the stuff of crackpots before evidence of the existence of these types of systems was made bare before all by Snowden.
Also, the 4th Amendment you insist provides so much protection? It doesn't apply under current case law. As soon as you share your information with a third party, 4th Amendment stops applying as there is no expectation of privacy; except in the few and far between carveouts of medical records or legal communique with an attorney. I don't personally buy that reasoning (Third Party Doctrine) but the courts do; act accordingly.
This sounds like someone who has never lived in the US as a visa holder. If you are living in the US on a visa or even on a green card, CBP agents have a shocking amount of discretion to detain.
There are many other areas of the immigration system where the standard of due process is significantly different from what many Americans think their country stands for, but regarding the Fourth Amendment specifically: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
My comment you replied to wasn't about ability to detain or the definitions of "probable cause" in immigration law, it was about the specific policy at issue which is demanding social media IDs so they can issue a warrant to facebook or whoever. And specifically that it was being likened to a surveillance program, when it clearly is not.
All I'm saying is that if you want people to take your anger seriously (and I do! I'm on your side here!) you need to argue specifics and not just mash vote buttons based on your tribal affiliation.
This policy is not just like China's social credit system. There are other policies that are bad. Those aren't arguments against that point.
>it was held that the Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment
>However, searches of automobiles without a warrant by roving patrols have been deemed unconstitutional
Yes, the 100mile exception exists. No, you don't lose all 4th amendment rights.
Claiming that is "consistent with the Fourth Amendment" is just mental gymnastics, like saying a corporation is a literal person.
I'm not defending the 100 mile exception. I'm only clarifying that the extent of the infringement (as far as courts have ruled) is limited to permanent checkpoints.
In the context of the parent comments however, I don't think the 4th amendment is relevant. The demand is for your account identifiers. Unless you have it written down on a piece of paper or an unecrypted device, it's the 5th amendment protecting you. Should you give them your account identifiers, it's going to be a stretch for them to use the border search exception to compel facebook (or any other service) to give up their records on you.
Look, I get that people are angry about everything in the civil liberties space, but not every policy is the end of the world. Argue about specifics, not good guys & bad guys.
Even in airports?
> BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT LIKE THE PRC'S SOCIAL CREDIT SYSTEM. Stop it.
Agreed, not yet.
So what does this mean for people who want to publish their thoughts under a pseudonym? Or people who (like me) don’t have any meaningful social media presence (no Facebook, for example). Does that make them suspect, liable for more elaborate screening, easier to deny them access, etc? How far back do you have to supply your details? What if I forget to mention some account I used 10 years ago, can that be seen as failure to comply, and can it be held against me? I can see many other ways something like this could be abused to harass innocent people. In that sense, I can see where the comparison with the social credit system is coming from.
Agree. But it is worth comparing because, while we do not live in a country that has extreme government over-reach, we are (and have been) headed down that path. You said "know who you are, so they know where to target that warrant request" which is, to me, in-line with the ideas of the social credit system. The idea that some group, some where, is collecting this information to use against someone or someones. To think they aren't / won't is naive.
If it doesn't turn toward citizens then I'm happy to be wrong and admit it. We'll see...
It's like a version of systematic desensitization where we continue to normalize giving up vast amounts of personal information on our own (to sites like Facebook) and asking tourists to point government agencies to that trove of information.
I did not intend to hyperbolize nor conflate as another person said. I said this "may or may not be as bad" and it will depend entirely on what is done with the information and how much it's use "expands" (or doesn't).
When I asked in school in the late 90's "how do we know the CIA doesn't just spy on us" the answer was "there are laws that prevent it". Now we know how that really works (or at least some of it) so I believe I'm entitled to my skepticism (and you're entitled to disagree).
No more nor no less than any other country, who all have their own cultural stories why they are brave as well
Like who? None of the countries I've lived in is anywhere near to calling themselves the "home of the brave" or something similar.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner
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".
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.
It seems incredibly obvious to me that the law, at the very least, should have a clause for being here legally.
So they really aren't subject to domestic law at all.
Your status is granted (or denied) by a border agent, based on your visa, when you cross into the country. Changing one can be done on the US soil and the process does not require a visa. But if you want a visa stamp for a new status then you have to visit a US consulate and that requires leaving the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
Brief stops for questioning at a fixed post on a highway are legal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuer...
But it seems you can't actually physically search vehicles, unless something has since modified this precedent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Ortiz
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?
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 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
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?
So I’m not sure it’s much of a win.
https://travel.trade.gov/view/m-2017-I-001/documents/US%20Vi...
So, while their is likely some backlash, people seem to just accept with things.
Which to be fair they put themselves on quite a while ago with other shit.
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.
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.
What business is it of anyone's? What do they think they are going to find?
>"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.
For visas, there are some serious potential negatives to this (it might be used to target those critical of the US Government or specific Presidents, it might be used as a proxy for religion or sexual orientation or some other protected status).
It also has positives: aside from catching incredibly stupid terrorists or other undesirable aliens who post a lot of clearly indicative content and then report, it also allows an easy rejection for a person who fails to report a known bad account already connected to him. It's a mistake to assume all terrorists or undesirable aliens have perfect OPSEC.
The one corner case where it's probably exceptionally useful is if there's someone like circa-2015 Anjem Choudary who hasn't yet been convicted of a crime, but is recruiting for IS using various social media handles. He's a known individual and more effective as a recruiter due to his public status. He then has to choose either to not report (and thus be banned), to report (and thus be banned), or to delegate US recruiting to someone else (who will be less effective).
I'd prefer we collect all this data and then ALSO have a more transparent process for processing visas. It should be clear why one is being rejected, and an opportunity to appeal. There should be reporting of aggregate statistics. The thing I'm most worried about would be a covert policy, of, say, "no redheaded people" which was actually enforced by marking every redhead as an IRA member and rejecting as a terrorist, but that is something which could be addressed. There are probably also explicit policies which people find objectionable and could be addressed through public pressure/voting/etc. (right now I think the ESTA bars for people who visit specific countries might be bad, although I don't know how much worse non-ESTA visa process is if you're from an ESTA country.)
USG (and commercial sources) already have increasingly-complete name/passport/etc. to social media identifier and activity databases, so the main point here is to go from xx% to a higher level, and then to set up a "you lied on the form" opportunity for rejection or deportation.
On balance, I think this is a good policy change.