Hacker News Reader

Comment by dontbenebby | Hacker News Reader

I don't like this, I think it will have a chilling effect on free speech, but if you're posting in public I think you have to expect folks may pull up your posts.

What I absolutely hate is compelling folks to disclose their handles. I do not labor under the delusion this handle is "anonymous" (many, many people know who I am) but I purposefully avoid tying my legal name to it precisely because of situations like this. I'm not a criminal or a terrorist, I just want to have authentic conversations about matters of public interest. It's hard to be authentic when there's someone snooping on your posts.

waves to any border agents reading my post history in the future

View on HN

> I don't like this, I think it will have a chilling effect on free speech, but if you're posting in public I think you have to expect folks may pull up your posts.

It's not just your posts that can get you in trouble at the border. They also check the posts of people you follow, and those too can get you in trouble.

There was just such a case in the news this week [1]. A 17 year old Palestinian arriving to start his freshman year at Harvard had his visa cancelled when he arrived and was sent home because they found that some of his social media friends posted political views that opposed US positions.

[1] https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/department-of-h...

Imagine not having friends whose social media posts are critical of the US.

That's literally at the beginning of the article linked.

If social media related things should preclude entry it should be enacted as legislation and not left to violent criminals (a border control officer is indicted every 36 hours).

flips off any ICE/border agents reading my post history in the future

Do you have a source for "a border control officer is indicted every 36 hours"?

Page 17 of this report

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/201...

The JIC received 256 reports of arrest in FY 2016 involving 251 employees. Five of these 251 employees had more than one arrest in FY 2016. In FY 2017, the JIC received 254 reports of arrest, involving 245 employees. Seven were arrested twice and one employee was arrested three times in FY 2017. This misconduct occurred primarily off-duty but also included illegal activity while on duty, in cases of corruption.

Thanks for your fine source, I first heard it on national NPR who mentioned that it used to be 1 felony indictment every 24 hours, so things are at least 33% better as far as ICE/border control is concerned.

An arrest is not an indictment. Arrests often don't even result in prosecution at all.

That's a very good point.

I don't see why this is so controversial. It seems like the proper way to do a background check in the current era.

It really all depends on _what_ disqualifies someone from entry. The worry seems to stem from a general distrust of ICE and the current administration rather than this actual technique.

I have to think that if someone bragging about criminal activity on Instagram/Twitter got through the border and murdered somebody, ICE would be criticized for not doing their due diligence.

Here's the thing, I know exactly what rules I'd ordinarily need to follow in order to enter the United States. It's a mental checklist when coming from Canada:

1) am I carrying any contraband? Drugs, guns, undeclared currency or goods, etc.

2) Can I show that I can support myself during my stay? Do I have a return ticket? Enough cash?

Compared to these requirements these searches are completely opaque. If I'm asked to hand over my device I'm thinking:

1) How much is the agent going to access? Is s/he going to see an NSFW pic I emailed to the gf?

2) Are there any legitimate protections keeping them from logging into my social media accounts and going through my history?

3) Is there any recourse if they see me making a "420" joke ten years ago on Facebook and denying me entry?

There should be clear criteria admissibility that also serves to protect your privacy.

> I don't see why this is so controversial. It seems like the proper way to do a background check in the current era.

Because it's not normal to perform extensive background checks for people visiting your country? I'd think it pretty weird it they wanted to interview my family, friends, employer, previous employer.

> The worry seems to stem from a general distrust of ICE and the current administration rather than this actual technique.

No... I mean I find the actual technique offensive. They can find public profiles associated with my name by googling me. Why do you need to provide them information about which handles are associated with me? If it's because otherwise they might mismatch profiles <-> individuals, perhaps they just shouldn't be using this information to profile people?

he was coming to live in the US as a student, not just visit.

It is offensive in this case because it wasn't anything he did that lost him the visa, just social media connections said.

More generally, I know that my social media is important to my wife's visa in a completely different country, and the government may interview our friends and family. (I view it as offensive, invasive; but it does normal that the government would indeed interrogate perhaps excessively immigrants, even temporary ones)

In the first case mentioned in the article. They request social media identifiers I believe for all visitors now.

   it wasn't anything he did that lost him the visa

You don't know that, nor does the NYT, not does the Crimson. None of these reporters saw any of the social media activity firsthand, nor do they claim to in the articles.

My guess is that he "liked" text or image(s) that for some reason raised concern.

  if someone bragging about criminal activity on Instagram/Twitter got through the border and murdered somebody

Like Tashfeen Malik, a Pakistani in the USA on a valid visa, who pledged allegiance to ISIS on social media before the San Bernardino massacre.

These policies to inspect social media are one result.

Rather, these social media policies are a result of a government and news media that operate on an assumption that everything bad can be prevented if only they have enough power. Random idiots merely supply a convenient narrative for longstanding authoritarian motives.

Because a lot of conversions nowadays happen online. If you have to give them access to everything then they'll also know everything about you and there's absolutely no reassurance that this information isn't going to be used in malicious ways. Even the NSA couldn't keep its agents in check and they abused access to the data for personal gain. How are they going to stop border agents?

Source on the mentioned abuse of access?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... seems to be relevant

What always worries me about this is I genuinely do not have any social media accounts, with the exception of HN and reddit, and I am vaguely terrified I will be turned away at a border somewhere for not giving up my facebook/twitter/snapchat/etc details because what 20 something year olf doesn't have facebook/twitter/snapchat/etc?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com