Slashdot Mirror
US Customs and Border Protection Wants To Know Who You Are On Twitter (eff.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Electronic Frontier Foundation: U.S. border control agents want to gather Facebook and Twitter identities from visitors from around the world. But this flawed plan would violate travelers' privacy, and would have a wide-ranging impact on freedom of expression -- all while doing little or nothing to protect Americans from terrorism. A proposal has been issued by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect social media handles from visitors to the United States from visa waiver countries. The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposes the proposal and has commented on it individually and as part of a larger coalition. "CBP specifically seeks 'information associated with your online presence -- Provider/Platform -- Social media identifier' in order to provider DHS 'greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity and connections' for 'vetting purposes,'" reports EFF. "In our comments, we argue that would-be terrorists are unlikely to disclose social media identifiers that reveal publicly available posts expressing support for terrorism." They say this plan "would unfairly violate the privacy of innocent travelers," would cause "innocent travelers" to "engage in self-censorship, cutting back on their online activity out of fear of being wrongly judged by the U.S. government," and would lead to a "slippery slope, where CBP would require U.S. citizens and residents returning home to disclose their social media handles, or subject both foreign visitors and U.S. persons to invasive device searches at ports of entry with the intent of easily accessing any and all cloud data."
that it's possible that someone doesn't have twitter and/or facebook?
Be or ben't
How are you going to tell if I have a twitter account at all?
Obviously only braindead idiots use their real names on Twitter. But they won't be concerned about this anyway and anyone who does that isn't aware of risks and/or accepts them.
If you're anywhere within 100 miles of a US border, the constitution doesn't apply, and any US customs agent can do anything they want to you, at any time, for whatever reason.
If you're still in the US, you should move inland > 100 miles, so at least whatever remains of the constitution still applies to you under specific conditions.
What if say, someone like me who does not have a Twitter or Facebook account wanted to visit America would that now make me a terrorist?
Would it be deemed that I am refusing to cooperate by telling them I do not have such?
I like how the summary says that it's acceptable to demand the Twitter and Facebook handles from foreigners but that it's unacceptable to do the same to US citizens and residents.
They say this plan "would unfairly violate the privacy of innocent travelers," would cause "innocent travelers"...
I'd say that is EXACTLY the point of the idea if indeed they are actually doing this. Our government is most likely not quite that stupid even though sometimes they make a strong effort to prove me wrong. The vast majority of the time they invoke "terrorists" what they are really doing is finding ways to put their boot on the throats of normal citizens. The more subjugated the citizens are the easier it is for them to get what they want. Crime investigators see the constitution and civil rights as obstacles to be brushed aside instead of valuable protections.
... or Facebook, or any social media, or a bank account, car or mortgage.
Also posting through Tor.
The US government can suck my dick.
that it's possible that someone doesn't have twitter and/or facebook?
Probably they would regard it as proof that such a person (like me) is a terrorist looking to hide something...
I have been reliably informed that any Citizen who does not cheerfully pay for their personal spy-on-me telescreen, and cheerfully app apps like Uber, anyone who prefers to hail taxis via telephone-call or in person, or who uses only free software on open hardware, is a luddite who is holding back progress, so yes you would be a terrorist. You must welcome your big-corporation overlords.
That's all well and good, but what if I'm not a 16 year old girl?
- Custom officer : Do you have a github account? ... And that is how I found myself in Guantanamo, thinking I was going to visit my aunt in New York.
- Me: Sure, it's x x x
- Custom officer (takes one look at the github page, does a double-take): right this way sir.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
US Customs and Border Protection Wants To Justify All the Time They Waste Surfing the Net
even Slashdot qualifies as 'social media'. Given the propensity for over-reach that's been displayed by CBP and associated agencies, visitors to the US might soon be required to supply ALL of their usernames and pseudonyms to border agents. After that, I'm sure the passwords will be demanded too.
BTW, this seems to be a dupe of a story first posted here in June: https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
I don't even have a twitter account and you know they aren't going to believe that. I was listening to the radio this morning and they were talking about roommates and pretty much everyone on the radioshow said they wouldn't trust anyone who they couldn't find on Twitter because not having an account is somehow suspicious to them. What the hell is this world coming to?
How would they prevent people from using sanitized "fake" accounts? Seems a pretty obvious work-around.
Just do what I do when people ask for unverifiable information: LIE. "What is this 'Twittre' of which you speak?"
Kim Jon-un approves. He approves very much.
Footnote: the economic system is irrelevant here.
Why do people still travel to the US? I haven't visited the country since they started treating visitors like criminals and I refuse any business travel towards the US. Sure, it may not always be avoidable for everyone, but if tourists simply stop coming, they will have to start treating their guests more normally at some point.
I'm planning to visit US in August 2017 to watch the total solar eclipse that pretty much is visible in lots of the states (path of totality goes from Pacific northwest to South Carolina). If this ruling gets implemented, I wonder what's would be more problematic: Leaving the field empty since I don't have any (well, I guess I could give my nick on IRCNet) or creating a throwaway account on Facebook without any content if they decide to look it up?
Not that I really expect any true problems at the border, have visited US many times in the past due to business although not in last 5 years. Some agents have been more friendly than others...but no real problems whatsoever.
How would they prevent people from using sanitized "fake" accounts? Seems a pretty obvious work-around.
The point would be that if you lied about it and they find out later they have extra ammunition to prosecute you with. Basically either you give up private information or they charge you with perjury if they catch you hiding information. Either way you lose.
i dont have a facebook account, (I HATE facebook)
i do have a twitter account, but i never tweat to anybody ever, i only have a twitter account so i can read tweats from things that interest me, i just flag the spammers is about the only interaction i do
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I would argue there should be no visa waiver countries in the first place. We really ought to require everyone entering the USA notify the state department a head of time. As a small government guy one of the few things our government is supposed to be doing according to the preamble is providing for the common defense. You don't defend by just letting potential bad actors thru the gates. Requiring non-citizens to be fully vetted and securing against illegal boarder crossings would be a cost effective anti-terrorism control, at least cost effective as compared to the endless string of foreign military interventions.
While a would be bad actor isn't going to disclose the jihadist twitter account, that isn't the important reason for the requirement. What it provides is an easy to prove slam dunk reason to deport and mark permanently persona no gratta a bad actor who as home here. There you see (s)he lied on the entry forms, grounds for immediate deportation and baring from future entry. We don't have to sit while they appeal and litigate more complex charges etc. Don't have to prove that complex money laundering terrorist funding scheme they appear to be involved in, just put them on the first boat back to Eastern Bumbfookistan.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I put my phone number on goods I'm having shipped to America illegally so customs can call me for an explanation if they so desire. Yes, I'm trafficking things across the border that I'm not allowed to traffick across the border; and yes, customs inspects the package and decides it's fine.
I still don't want them digging through my Facebook and shit. My Facebook is online and exposes a ton of shit to everyone; there is no expectation of privacy, and they're welcome to go looking, and I still don't want to hand over a compendium of all the leads they should use to investigate me at their leisure. It's just a hassle to keep myself that well-documented.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
It might help if you knew how to spell "horde". It would lend a bit of credence to your screed about morons.
THe NSA already knows everything about all of us. They just want to check to see who gives a fake account name.
Not a violation of privacy, you don't get 4th amendment rights as a non-citizen outside the country. Deal with it.
It's the next step, pretend that speech is incitement, or 'radicalization', the new buzzword which means incitement. Ergo what you say is potentially a crime, hence your views need to be checked for DHS approval.
You see the same attitude everywhere these days, a simple manipulation of weak minded people's fears. If you whisper these 'radicalization' words into peoples ears, it's like magic spells.... supercralifragilistic.... and they become jihadists. BE AFRAID OF SPEECH!
And the only way to be sure your words don't bite you is anonymous free speech. Yet attacks on privacy, mean VPNs are backdoored, Tor is undermined, Blackberry private communications are recorded and datamined.
Speech is the big threat now!
You don't even need to wave the magic wand, the spell alone is apparently enough to bring down democracies! Theresa May Expelliamous!
I never posted anything on Facebook (heck, i very rarely hit a Facebook page at all).
But then, I will probably never visit the U.S. anyway.
Really? It's not even funny anymore, the fascists are winning, it's out of control....
This initiative sounds like it was paid for by Twitter and Facebook to boost the creation of extra accounts that people can give the SS at the border while being themselves on another account...
No problem, officer. My Twitter handle is @TheConstitutionAppliesToEveryInteractionOfThe USGovernmentWithUSCitizensAnywhereInTheWorld.
This is not supposed to achieve anything - except for making them look like they are "doing all they can". Last time I went to the Statets, I was required to fill in form that asked me"Are you coming to America to carry out terrorist offences?" or something like that. The things they come up with; I still haven't figured out how anybody can even ask such a question.
the terms of your plea bargain require you to stay away from all social media sites.
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
I would argue there should be no visa waiver countries in the first place. We really ought to require everyone entering the USA notify the state department a head of time.
So you think the us should implement some warning system for Visa waivers? maybe something like this https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/ ?
Essentially everyone still has to get the equivalent of a visa. Visa waiver countries were conned. You still require a visa like, it's just called something different.
So essentially no matter what country you are traveling to or from, don't bring any electronics and "delete" your social media accounts while flying. Then "restore" them when you land...
I think Facebook and Twitter both have the ability to "delete" your account, but not really, giving you the option of then later "restoring" it as if nothing happened.
I just told my wife, who is a non-us citizen, that this is what we will be doing from now on.
- AC because, well, you know.
So terrorists now know they need to create "clean" Twitter and Facebook accounts to disclose to the authorities, whilst hiding their other accounts.
Seriously, this has as much chance of working as just asking everyone "Are you a terrorist ?"
Unless of course this is all a ruse and terrorists aren't the real target of this snooping.
Why should freedom of expression necessarily mean freedom of accountability for such expression?
Not trying to troll... this is a serious question.
Barring the situation where one is living under an actual oppressive regime wherein the government surreptitiously "silences" anyone who expresses disagreement with them, I don't see how that is an issue. The USA still definitely has its problems, but it is one of the furthest places I can think of in the world from having such a regime.
I am not an advocate of the notion that "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" either, because I do believe that everyone has something to hide, even if they haven't done anything wrong. Some things are kept secret or hidden not because there is anything wrong with them, but simply because they are private. Using social media, however, isn't exactly private, so I'm not sure what the issue is with anonymity in such forums.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I would argue there should be no visa waiver countries in the first place. We really ought to require everyone entering the USA notify the state department a head of time. As a small government guy one of the few things our government is supposed to be doing according to the preamble is providing for the common defense. .
Congrats. You've just moved into totalitarian nightmare. What happens to US travelers when other countries reciprocate these travel restriction ? Part of why there are countries that can enter the USA more easily than others is to ensure easier travel for Americans. International business will be affected. Tourism will be affected. You've just started to treat your closest allies badly, and will suffer those consequences.
Also, can you imagine the logistical nightmare of having the hundreds of millions of international travelers - the vast majority are from countries that do not need visas to travel to the US currently - submit applications and have them processed by the US? how much actual safety will be gained?
as a "small government guy" you've just increased the size of the NSA enormously for no reason. You're certainly not going to reduce the protections at this border with these new pre-flight checks. In fact, you may actually increase the amount of staff required to deal with on the borders as well.
and once you've secured this full pre-approval for entry for non-Americans, how long until the security apparatus decides that it should be pre-approval for international travel for Americans ?
I think you misunderstand. The poster you are responding to is referring to his ridiculously large collection of morons. I suspect that family has tried to intercede, but he/she just cannot bear to release any of them.
and spend your vacation in a better country. Let the U.S. know just how badly they need that tourist income, and they'll be more respectful towards you.
I do not have a Twitter account, but drafting a dummy one with american flags, rainbows, and puppies for the sole purpose of taking the edge off this sort of thing (if it came to pass, and I was a regular traveler for whom this would create a burden), would be trivially easy. Part of me thinks they wouldn't be fooled by this, but since they also don't seem to get how it wouldn't be easy to game, more of me thinks they would be fooled.
It's clear you're a xenophobic racist. And apparently, you're also a bit dumb.
is not "I don't have a facebook|twitter" account.
It is "Huh? Whats a facebook?"
It seems like gov't. agencies (and Farcebook) are falling all over themselves to have the most information on you.
Control is the goal. You have been warned.
Ah, yes. The arrogance of the modern man, he who can do better than his lessers.
Documented since at least Greek times.
That might get you a free flight to Cuba.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Well, don't want to sound like a dick or nothin', but, ah... it says on your chart that you're fucked up. Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded. - Idiocracy(2006)
The moron uprising is shifting into high gear.
Intelligent people, or even less intelligent people capable of critical thinking, are being drowned out by drooling morons. The only salvation appears to be wealth and even the wealthy are under siege by the moron hoard. I'm really not sure how much longer they will be able to stave off the tide.
You should spend more time with rich people. You may find they are just as benighted as the common folk, perhaps more so. The ability to amass wealth has no correlation with intellectual enlightenment or critical thinking.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
The context-free, content-free post you provided indicates an approximately 83% probability that you are a pre-bayesian-era generation spambot. The remaining 17% probability is for a human with a mental ability of the above mentioned spambot.
Congratulations, great-grandfather-writealike! You've made it to slashdot!
The bot detection bot.
I would argue there should be no visa waiver countries in the first place. We really ought to require everyone entering the USA notify the state department a head of time.
I'll excuse your ignorance (you seem to be from the USA after all). As a visitor with a visa waiver passport, I had to register my details ahead of visiting your charming country (see e.g. https://www.cbp.gov/travel/int...). I still need to whip out my passport each time I enter, and can be denied entry. About the only benefit to this is not having to fork over the dollars for the visa, and a quicker line through customs, as much of the process is automated.
Please also rest assured that my country and around 3 dozen others also extend the same courtesy to the magnificent citizens of your state - and not even Americans disagree on how kooky some of their fellow countrymen* can be, right up to presidential candidate level.
(* = where "men" refers to persons of all possible genders and sexes).
This is what happens when you DO have full documentation going to the UK.
https://medium.com/@rachelnabo...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Dear US customs,
from past experience visiting the (now no longer existing German Democratic Republic (Democratic as is Congo)) you could do so much more to make your country save. First, do not use Facebook or Twitter to find out anything about people. These services are used to project your public image. Second, in the old GDR no filthy foreigner could simple visit (except for those from West Berlin to East Berlin). You required an invitation. Third, everyone required a visa and you had to exchange some money on a per day basis into local currency on a one-to-one ratio. Fourth, as people must be invited you know the motivation for the trip and can in addition assess the visited family or group to make sure they are not terrorists.
Hope that helps.
Kind regards
prefec2 (yes this is also my twitter account, I think, maybe I changed it I forgot, ask my phone if you really need to know)
"U.S. border control agents want to gather Facebook and Twitter identities from visitors from around the world."
That would assume I have a Facebook or Twitter account, which I do not.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
As somebody from the US, I strongly disagree with you. I quite like going to Europe without having to get a visa. I personally feel that all Europeans should be treated with the same respect they treat me with and they should be let into our country with an equivalent amount of hassle as I have going into theirs (read almost none). Fact is I go through more hassle re-entering my own country then I do entering Europe as a visitor. It's ridiculous.
That's those evil, civil-liberty and privacy hating Republicans. It's time we elect a Democrat who will fix all this! Vote Hillary! She knows how to keep her E-mail private!
We're all @Snowden on Twitter, right?
@Suq_Madiq
Shall I go on?
fuck em both and the fbi
I would argue there should be no visa waiver countries in the first place. We really ought to require everyone entering the USA notify the state department a head of time.
What about countries you share a land border with, like Canada? An estimated 75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US-Canada border, and "Canada accounts for about 20 per cent of America’s US$2.3-trillion export sector, making it the single biggest destination for Made in America products in the world." Requiring pre-visit visa applications would seriously dampen the enormous day-trip cross-border shopping industry. As of a few years ago, all visitors to the US require a valid passport (previously Canadians could enter with a birth certificate and two other forms of ID.) Since you already have full details on visitors from their passports, it becomes a cost-benefit analysis; what other details would a visa capture and would that information be worth the potential costs (ie: to the economy in lost sales)?
Barring the situation where one is living under an actual oppressive regime wherein the government surreptitiously "silences" anyone who expresses disagreement with them, I don't see how that is an issue. The USA still definitely has its problems, but it is one of the furthest places I can think of in the world from having such a regime.
Are you being serious here?
The intent behind is likely to identify low-risk people, rather than identify terrorists. Think of the algorithm they employ as a series of checks and decisions, and after each check, they can decide the accept, reject, or keep looking. After some preliminary checks, if you have a social media account, that's several years old, has a lot of American friends, and looks otherwise innocuous, they will consider that as strong evidence for an accept decision. Otherwise, they will likely go on to the next check.
Having said that, it's still a dumb idea. The potential for them to accidentally find something somewhere in your social graph, or to misinterpret an online posting of yours, is just too high. Given the current political climate, merely supporting the wrong presidential candidate, the NRA, or BLM might rub some bureaucrat the wrong way. They will certainly keep that data, download and keep your social graph, and use that for retrospective data mining as well, in particular if someone a few edges away from you ends up running afoul of the law.
Note also that the EFF gets the constituional issues wrong again: there is no First or Fourth Amendment protection for non-citizens at the border. One can argue about whether it should be so, but immigration and border control can legally discriminate against non-citizens on the basis of ethnicity, race, gender, national origin, speech, political views, and religion; it can also search personal effects as much as the administration tells it to. And the US works the same in this regard as other countries.
Small government guys don't typically support layering 50 million laws on top of each other, so that no one is able to follow them, and then selectively enforce those laws to get rid of the undesirables to the people in power based on technicalities. So what happened to you? If you don't want a foreigner in your country because of whatever makes you suspicious, it's much easier just to deport them for whatever made you suspicious of them in the first place.
If push came to shove I'd set up dummy Facebook and Twitter accounts and let CBP see them. No good way to tell which of the several hundred Laura Hallidays on Facebook is me. Post some pictures of cats, a few likes, done.
I already engage in some self-censorship. There are a few CDs (mainly Russian and Israeli acts) I leave at home when I cross the border.
...laura
For a small donation....you can do whatever you like, then go home without charges.
Yeah, man. Due process and real investigation is hard. Let's just give ourselves a convenient pretext for tossing out anyone we deem a Bad Actor (TM) for whatever reason we feel like! That's totally what a small government would do!
Wow, we're turning into Super Sad True Love Story, and few people are noticing. Make sure to have a social media presence when you come back to the United States, or you might get detained.
The correlation between wealth following intelligence is over. Much of the wealth that is accumulated today is inherited rather than earned. Think old aristocracy and its decadence, just with less inbreeding.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Amass wealth? Kidding right? - the majority of those with wealth are still those that inherited or that come from at least one generation of wealth and stand to inherit.
As such drooling idiots infect the wealthy as well as the poor. More as a percentage perhaps, lower on the wealth ladder means you are likely a little more susceptible to Darwin as there are fewer resources to bail you out of your follies.
Tell them you believe Facebook is just a fad that will go away any time now. Then offer them your MySpace credentials.
Who is the "they" doing the believing? EFF?
A lot of people, including the EFF, are mentioning Facebook and Twitter for some reason. Those sites are said to be fairly popular, so they might be good examples if you're trying to explain the issue to the mainstream.
But if you actually click through to the .gov site's proposal, they don't say anything specifically about those two sites. They say "social media identifier." The page's only mention of Facebook is that the page has a Facebook-sharing widget.
So: "social media identifier." For people who use Facebook, their facebook id would, indeed, happen to be something the government would be interested in. But if you don't use Facebook, then that's not what they're asking for. The presumption is that you socialize (to at least some degree) somehow. That may or may not be correct, but for 100.0% of the people who are reading this comment, it happens to be an accurate assumption.
One good answer to their question might be: what's your Slashdot identifier? Well, if you log in, then it's your login name. Using that combined with some really large logs (presumably where the https was broken) they can see all the pages you requestedwhich uses that cookie, and infer what kinds of things you're interested in. And Slashdot already helpfully shows your posts, so they'll know what you're often saying. And that will happen to work fairly well for you, sirber.
If you don't log in, then they might like to know your ISP accounts (home and mobile) so they can check logs to see your IP address at certain times, to either directly tie it to Slashdot activity, or indirectly through, say, Google Analytics cookies or something like that. At some point, this crosses the line into the impractical, but let's remember: if you don't login to Slashdot, then the value of whatever identifies you on Slashdot is significantly lessened, since you're probably not maintaining persistent communications anyway, so they're less likely to care. They'd ask you about some other site.
Other "site" presumes HTTP, though, and of course social media is far larger than just the web. Email might still possibly the biggest social media network of all, where your identifier would be your email address. IRC? Usenet? (Ok, we're sounding very old here. But maybe someone knows how to investigate old people.)
If there's really nothing, then you probably are somewhat unusual (no, not a "terrorist," just unusual), so they might need to talk to you instead of just read about you in the other room. The presumption isn't Facebook and Twitter: it's just something.
Something online. Maybe you spend all your time chatting people up in bars, in the real world, without a computer network. Then I suppose a photograph of your face is your social media identifier. No?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
But this flawed plan would violate travelers' privacy, and would have a wide-ranging impact on freedom of expression -- all while doing little or nothing to protect Americans from terrorism.
So exactly the same as every other US Federal government "security" program... Seeing a pattern, here.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
at airports
Making an online public post is the same as standing on the street corner and announcing your message. Why should such acts be given privacy protections?
You talk as though there was one government instead of a lot of somewhat disjointed agencies and departments.
Shorthand way of communicating the concept. Most people understand this just fine. It's a part of the government and they are trying to do something to make their life easier at the expense of civil liberties. If another part of the government fails to stop them (like Congress or the President or the Secretary of Homeland Security) then they are tacitly endorsing the actions of this agency.
And those are separate from Congress and the Judiciary.
Of course they are. US Customs is a part of the Dept of Homeland Security. But it IS a government agency and therefore referring to it as "the government" is entirely accurate if a tad sloppy. It is entirely within the power of Congress to stop these actions. If Congress fails to do so then Congress is endorsing these actions so in that sense the government is effectively a single entity.
Slashdot is a form of social media. So if you are posting with any handle other than "Anonymous Coward" you will need to provide that handle to your friendly neighborhood spy.
Which part of Data Treaty don't you get?
You signed a Treaty, not a suggestion.
You signed it with Canada and the EU.
Those countries are exempt from data collection.
Period.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
No Facebook, LinkedIn or any cloud accounts either.
All of my devices data was copied to an encrypted thumb drive and mailed to a dead drop address ahead of me.
Am I free to go?
Have gnu, will travel.
as long as it's not Tindr!
Here are some answers that SCOTUS found valid:
* "Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent."
* "The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible."
You don't have to live in North Korea to be afraid of getting physically beaten or even killed if someone doesn't like what you say ... as many people who've received civil settlements from the police can attest.
Wealth has NOTHING to do with intelligence. Education AND exposure to a multitude of different aspects in life (empathy) have the greatest impacts on intelligence, not much else.
Look at Trump, he claims he's super rich (I have doubts about even his wealth and believe a lot of what he claims he has he doesn't and he's hiding that fact), he's dumber than a box of fucking rocks. Look at Paris Hilton or that idiot Kanye West, who supposedly got a decent education. Morons, the lot of them yet super rich. Justin Beiber, need I go on?
I know a lot of small/medium business owners who are likewise not people who should be making any decisions, major or minor, about the world we live in, yet they were in the right spot at the right time and took some lucky risks and are rich.
"Why should freedom of expression necessarily mean freedom of accountability for such expression?"
What exacly counts as accountability? Is it just "Did you say that?" "Yes I did" (end of story)? Because under any other circumstances, like if there are repercussions to your free speech, then your speech isn't really free now is it?
What is there difference between "free speech with repercussions" and "no free speech"?
'"if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" either, because I do believe that everyone has something to hide, even if they haven't done anything wrong.'
No, everyone has done something illegal, even if they don't know it.
And then use your real one for everything else.
Normally, you don't want to deport bad actors that are here. You just arrest them. The anti-terrorism rules are flexible enough to hold anyone for an extended time. And this is before the Gitmo options. Any bad actor worth their salt will provide doctored items that would just add noise to the analysis. It really isn't that hard to get valid but misleading social media accounts.
But the cost of this is pretty high. We are going to collect tons of point less data that will add noise to the set we have. We will invade the privacy of tons of people. We will become adversarial to our visitors. And this new information will certainly be abused with innocents hurt at the behest of those in power.
Making law enforcement's job easier at the cost to civil liberties is never a good trade off.
I wasn't addresing the issue of breaking the law without knowing it when keeping things secret. If you don't know that you've broken the law by doing something, unless there was some aspect of privacy that was otherwise involved, you wouldn't generally have a reason to think you needed to hide that in the first place. My point is that people have things that are private even *IF* there was nothing wrong with what they want to keep hidden (to anyone who says otherwise, you could ask them why they are wearing clothes... is there something wrong with their body?) My point being that even if a person has done absolutely nothing illegal (ignoring the side-issue that you raised of everyone doing illegal stuff without knowing it), that person still has things to hide... again, not because they have necessarily done anything wrong, but because those things are simply private.
As for the issue of the consequences or possibly even undesirable repercussions to speech making that speech somehow less free, that might be the case if you consider freedom synonymous only with anarchy. Freedom to do or say something can entail the responsibility to still be accountable for what you do or say, and still be freedom in nearly every other sense of the word.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Once you arrive at the US, you have to get past passport control and customs. That's what most people worry about, but it's less unpleasant than getting the visa. The problem is only that the personnel act overworked, surly and suspicious - very unwelcoming.
Far worse is the process of getting a visa, because this requires visiting the American embassy. The place is built like a prison, and that's pretty much the feeling you have when you are there: the personnel is behind thick glass windows with over-pressure against poison gas, talking to you through a crappy speaker. Even though you may "have an appointment" you often spend hours waiting. Sure, your appoint may begin on time, but then you wait again, then go to some other window, then wait some more, then go pay at the cashier, who may be on her lunch break...
And you aren't allowed to take anything in with you. Just your wallet and any paperwork you may have. No bags, not a phone, not a Kindle. I've learned that they let me take in a physical paperback, a pad of paper and a pencil - that's as far as you can stretch the rules.
The process of checking people to let them inside is slow, and the only place to wait is outside - if it's stormy, windy and raining, be sure to dress warmly. But not too warmly - you can't have a backpack or anything, because the embassy has no provision for your belongings. They don't want them on the premises, so you have to find someplace else to leave your stuff. The obvious spot is the train station, which is about a mile's walk away (there's no parking at the embassy, they're far too paranoid for that). This is really great for people who are visiting for the first time, because they naturally assume there will be lockers or some other provision for their belongings; they face a 40-minute walk to deposit their stuff elsewhere, missing their appointment. It is also great for families with babies or small children, since you can't bring in your kiddy bag to take care of them.
The whole setup is a truly unbelievable PITA - you have to see it to believe it.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Of course they do. They want to link your accounts to have full surveillance ability.
They already use Microsoft Windows at the borders. Windows is immediately accessible to the US government already. Since the FBI can reach into Windows as well (unless you are smart as fuck) this means person's info is shared internationally. FBI have the highest mole count of all spy agencies. Welcome to multi-culture America where you can get hired into a spy agency if your mom was born in Shanghai.
To try and help the poor people of San Fransisco, anyone making less than 6 figures can't afford to live and needs our help!!!
Plus I hear New Hampshire is the shit
and don't use twitter. My wife is 45 and doesn't use facebook. My dad uses both, however.
In case you misseys it, pre-approval has been required for years now
The ability to amass wealth has no correlation with intellectual enlightenment or critical thinking.
Is that something you're basing on evidence or logic, or just something you tell yourself until you believe it?
Certainly, my job requires critical thinking, and permits me to amass wealth.
so you're saying that if you act like an asshole I'm not allowed to tell you to bug off? Because that's a repercussion.
You should spend more time with rich people. You may find they are just as benighted as the common folk, perhaps more so. The ability to amass wealth has no correlation with intellectual enlightenment or critical thinking.
You misunderstand. I wasn't suggesting that wealth lead to enlightenment. I was saying that intellectuals who have wealth are able to keep the moronic masses at bay, or at least at a sufficient distance that they have no impact. Meanwhile, intellectuals without means are more likely to be drowned out by the rabble.
But, I absolutely agree with you. I should spend a lot more time with rich people! Could you perhaps make an introduction for me?
Visa waiver for tourism/business meetings, not paid tutorials it seems, unless you are pleasant to the bouncers... (just read this on stackexchange today)
How is any of what you describe the government's business?
My god, the terrorist's haven't just won, you've fucking jumped face first into their arms and given them a sloppy wet kiss.
Every single one of you who thinks the way described in the post above is a terrorist enabler and supporter.
For fucks sake!
Which ironically, is pretty much what it's like visiting the USA.
Except that there, every foreigner gets fingerprinted, they don't even have to think of a reason. And there's none of this "records destroyed after 10 years" bullshit either, they're kept forever.
Border Services:
What is your social media account?
Visitor:
I don't have one.
Border Services:
Well that's suspicious!
Alternate conversation.
Border Services:
What is your social media account?
Visitor:
It's MindlessDoodle73...
Border Services:
Well that's suspicious!
Oh boy. A big ol' sob story medium post about how mean immigration is, starring a "I'm kind of a big deal" woman in tech. Can't wait, let's read.
First off, she's an American complaining that the UK border took her fingerprints upon being detained and gave her clear information on where and how long that information could be kept... does she realize her country fingerprints everyone who comes into it, even the 'good ones', and has no meaningful privacy protection for that data? Has she been living under a rock, or was she just too busy jetsetting around to notice what's been official policy for almost 10 years now?
Also, nice of her to notice the African woman's plight in detention long enough so she could cast her as the motherly sympathy the author craved while turning into an emotional wreck over a few hours of detention. I imagine the other woman couldn't just idly thumb at her smartphone and book a cross-continental back up flight with a convenient app to get out of it, but hey, I imagine she can't write medium posts about how the worst experience of her life was a mean spirited border official applying the letter of the law either.
Instead of the paid-for trip and spa visits she was looking forward to, she got to see the flipside of the first world safety and respect she seems to expect with no strings attached. With of course zero sympathy for the "creepy" white man also in detention who, unlike herself, must maintain full composure and chivalry in the face of equal or worse detention conditions. The pull quotes are just the icing on this narcissist's cake.
Sorry, but this story isn't about what happens to people at the border, this is about her and her need for validation. If it wasn't, there'd be an ounce of perspective to the whole thing.
That's not a repercussion, that's you practicing your own free speech. A repercussion would be a loss of freedom, property or money.
"Freedom to do or say something can entail the responsibility to still be accountable for what you do or say, and still be freedom in nearly every other sense of the word."
I like how you quietly slipped 'to do' into the freedom of speech argument to try and make your point more valid. Freedom of speech says nothing about what you can do other than opening your gab and gurgling into the wind.
"...if you consider freedom synonymous only with anarchy" Wow, that argument is really clutching at straws. We already have defamation laws that protect individuals against slander and libel. Some may see these laws as being in contention with free speech rights, but they are there to protect other rights of the individuals being slandered. Apart from that there should be absolutely no consequences to free speech. Anything else is a false guise of free speech. End of story.
So, you are required to have a Facebook and Twitter account now?
It's awfully nice of the government to help out these struggling businesses in this way.
I want a (golden-egg laying) pony.
Requiem for the American Dream
The ability to amass wealth has no correlation with intellectual enlightenment or critical thinking.
Is that something you're basing on evidence or logic, or just something you tell yourself until you believe it?
Certainly, my job requires critical thinking, and permits me to amass wealth.
It's based on my personal experience. I said critical thinking and wealth are not correlated, not that they can't exist in the same place. I would expect you would understand that, what with your critical thinking skills and all.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I wasn't trying to make my point more valid by inserting "to do" in there... freedom of speech is the same as any other kind of freedom that might otherwise apply to things like an actual action. I was generalizing when I mentioned "doing", but my point is identical without it when talking specifically about freedom of speech.
I disagree.... If you really feel like you have the need to say something publicly but you do not want to be held responsible for the consequences that what you are saying might not be well received, then I think you completely deflate the importance of saying it in the first place. If it's important enough to be publicly known, then it is probably important enough to be worth whatever consequences that might entail. I would compare wanting to say something publicly but not wanting to face any undesirable consequences that might arise from it as being akin to wanting to buy a car on credit but not wanting to have the regular monthly payments it entails.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!