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
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.
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.
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 ?
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)
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.
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)?
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
So if you are posting with any handle other than "Anonymous Coward" you will need to provide that handle to your friendly neighborhood spy.
Or just not travel to countries that don't treat their visitors with respect and basic human decency.
There are many places I would love to visit in the world, far more than I ever will be able to in one lifetime I expect. Why would I voluntarily subject myself to the kind of culture we're talking about here, when I can be welcomed as both a tourist and a business person in so many other places?
Obviously some people have no choice, and I hope things work out OK for them, but this sort of policy seems absurdly counter-productive for people who do have a choice and do care about the way they are treated.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.