Slashdot Mirror
'Social Media ID, Please?' Proposed US Law Greeted With Anger (computerworld.com)
The U.S. government announced plans to require some foreign travelers to provide their social media account names when entering the country -- and in June requested comments. Now the plan is being called "ludicrous," an "all-around bad idea," "blatant overreach," "desperate, paranoid heavy-handedness," "preposterous," "appalling," and "un-American," reports Slashdot reader dcblogs:
That's just a sampling of the outrage. Some 800 responded to the U.S. request for comments about a proposed rule affecting people traveling from "visa waiver" countries to the U.S., where a visa is not required. This includes most of Europe, Singapore, Chile, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand... In a little twist of irony, some critics said U.S. President Obama's proposal for foreign travelers is so bad, it must have been hatched by Donald Trump.
"Travelers will be asked to provide their Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Google+, and whatever other social ID you can imagine to U.S. authorities," reports Computer World. "It's technically an 'optional' request, but since it's the government asking, critics believe travelers will fear consequences if they ignore it..."
"Travelers will be asked to provide their Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Google+, and whatever other social ID you can imagine to U.S. authorities," reports Computer World. "It's technically an 'optional' request, but since it's the government asking, critics believe travelers will fear consequences if they ignore it..."
Do they really think that if some ISIS guy flies in, he's going to fill out the customs form honestly and say "Yep, my Twitter handle is @jihad4lyfe!" It's preposterous to think this would be effective at gathering any sort of reasonable intelligence.
.
So, in effect, this proposal results in the government building a database of US citizens. The government couldn't do that directly, so they go about it indirectly, i.e., using foreigners as the entry point into social media. From that entry point, they just follow the links and connections.
The combination of social media, open borders in Europe, and the Islamic extremism that is centuries old but whose recent spread was magnified by Bush, Blair, Obama, Merkel, and the other globalists has produced a situation in which very dangerous people are using social media to organize and plot very violent activities and the normal behind-the-scenes government-to-government info exchanges about travellers are not working. The countries from which many travellers are originating these days know very little about them since they are recent arrivals there and were generally unscreened while immigrating due to political correctness.
This sort of thing may be distatsteful, but critics need to offer some rational suggestion for somethng better since many of them have been supporters of the very sorts of politics that made the older methods of screening, which mostly narrowly focused on the actual dangerous people, no longer acceptable. If there are arsonists wandering around and you have campaigned to make it politically unacceptable to use fire extinguishers then you cannot be surprised if small fires are put out with big fire hoses that get everybody wet.
If Trump was the one doing this, the left would be screaming that it was obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, ..., but since it's Obama, they'll just look for ways to pretend it's Trump and that he's racist,sexist....
See how loudly you can say I DECLINE TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.
Government always wants more power -- like every other organization and individual, if you put your Machiavellian cap on -- and tries out its new ideas with test runs like this.
Push back and they will back off.
Give in and bend over, and expect more of the same, except worse.
Alternative Right.
This seems more to be a forum than social media to me. I don't have friends or follow anyone and post no media. Slashdot would only be considered social media in the very broadest sense. I post on a few forums but have no social media presence at all in what is generally understood to be such, like Twitter, Facebook, et al.
::blink::
Do you not realize, for some reason, that Slashdot is a social media site?
Are you new here? This is more of an anti-social site.
It would make it difficult for those of us without a facebook, twitter, instagram, linkedin or google+ account... Not having these social media account means you cannot provide them which could be interpreted as a refusal to supply account information... Maybe not by a sane person but the people that make and enforce these rules are another story. That could complicate entry to the US by appearing suspicious and have the typical effect of harming the innocent while doing nothing to improve safety and security.
I generally avoid social media because of privacy and security considerations. I do have memberships of many forums and discussion groups because they offer an acceptable level of privacy.
Do you not realize, for some reason, that Slashdot is a social media site?
That's a pretty broad definition of social media you have, didn't know it included forums now.
Don't post here.
Post here
USA constitutional rights apply to citizens only.
No. You fail civics,
The Supreme Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. The Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office.
Here, have a little light reading.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
U.S. Constitutional rights are limited to everyone (citizens, foreigners, illegals) in certain U.S. territories. When you're trying to enter the U.S. and are held up at Customs and Immigration, you are not yet considered to be on U.S. soil, so you do not enjoy the protection of U.S. Constitutional rights. This is precisely why Bush put a POW prison camp in Guantanamo Bay. While Guantanamo is controlled by the U.S., it is Cuban territory. And thus prisoners there would not be protected by the U.S. Constitution. (At least until Boumediene v. Bush which decided since the U.S. maintained "de facto sovereignty" over the base, it could be considered U.S. territory.)
Whether U.S. citizens enjoy U.S. Constitutional protections when abroad is an unsettled matter too. The recent drone killings of U.S. citizens fighting for ISIS abroad were done under the presumption that the answer is "no". They are not entitled to due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments. If you extend that reasoning (not saying this is correct, just saying if you extend that reasoning), then U.S. citizens trying to re-enter the U.S. do not enjoy Constitutional protection until after they have been admitted.
That's why DHS trying to extend this territorial exclusion to a 100 mile bubble around U.S. entry points (borders and international airports) was so ridiculous and troubling. They were basically trying to make it so anyone within 100 miles of the U.S. border or an international airport did not have Constitutional protection.
Do they really think that if some ISIS guy flies in, he's going to fill out the customs form honestly and say "Yep, my Twitter handle is @jihad4lyfe!"
No, they probably think that he will refuse to give them a handle and then they will use this as grounds to detain him for interrogation. The problem is that some of us don't use Facebook, Twitter etc. and so I don't have an account to give them - other than a dummy Facebook account which is entirely devoid of any personal information and that I only created because our local airport used to insist on Facebook to access the free WiFi. However I expect this will look like I created a dummy account to hide my real account from them.
I'm beginning to wonder whether the US government's long term plan is to make travelling to the US such a horrible experience for us foreigners that identifying the terrorists will be easy because they will be the only ones insane enough to try.
Generally I don't think they should be doing this because of the potential for abuse, but there actually *ARE* reasons why it could be used in ways which are not really privacy invasive.
The Visa Waiver Program allows stays of up to 90 days. After 80 days, if you have not left the country they could use your social media for a friendly reminder. It might help someone who was going to overstay feel like someone is paying attention and that they have to follow the visa law, and reduce the number of people overstaying their stay in the United States.
Real lawyers write in C++
then why ask individuals for their ID's?
To demonstrate compliance. Also, one of the primary charges levied against people the gov't doesn't like is making false statements to a federal agent. There may be nothing actionable in the online ramblings of a visitor to this country. At most, they might be asked to leave. But if you can catch them in a lie, there's jail time involved.
Have gnu, will travel.
When you're trying to enter the U.S. and are held up at Customs and Immigration, you are not yet considered to be on U.S. soil, so you do not enjoy the protection of U.S. Constitutional rights.
Reductio ad absurdum So, non-citizens lacking any rights whatsoever, Customs & Immigration could happily kill them on a whim? You are not within the USA, so a lawless zone exists? Free-fire anyone?
If you are not on U.S. soil, why do non-citizens need a visa to transit? Fly from Asia to Europe via the USA and you need a visa. Almost every other country simply provides a transit lounge where you wait while you change planes.
It seems both obvious, and likely to withstand legal challenge, that when you are on the wrong side of the Customs & Immigration barrier, you are nevertheless under U.S. control, in U.S. jurisdiction, and under the mantle of the U.S. Constitution. You have not yet been admitted, according to due legal process, into the country. You might be denied entry, and sent back. You might be arrested because you are in fact a terrorist.
I agree with you, the current issues with Guantanamo and the 100mi limit show what happens when people try to create places where the law doesn't apply to 'them' (because 'they' are the good guys).
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
Slashdot is an antisocial media site.
I am a German citizen with a Turkish sounding last name and have been requested to provide my email used to login to Facebook and Twitter every time I entered the US in the last years. That is when they single me out at the border and immigration desk each time in the last five year, claim it is random, detain me for 45 minutes, 30 minutes of which is waiting for anything to happen, then ask the same questions each time such as: been traveling to Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq? Any friends there? Political affiliations of my parents? Social media login email addresses (they don't seem to need passwords)? What is my job and education?
Even though they are seemingly friendly, any question on the why will immediately chill the atmosphere, letting the officer become cold in tone, threateningly often. I have learned not to oppose anything.
There seem to be no rights in these situations. Fearing to miss connecting flights forces you to cooperate to the fullest, leaving a bad taste about civil liberties in your mouth.
What is most infuriating to me is that it is always the same questions and the same fake friendlyness when I explain that I have a masters degree from a top American graduate school, lived in the US from 2003 to 2004 and am a startup founder...
There should not be outrage about this, collecting social media accounts is already the norm. Just not for everyone...
Actually the credit goes to Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla. for introducing this bill - not every proposed unconstitutional rights violation is the fault of the president, even in election season.
If the NSA, CIA, FBI, and other US agencies already have access to Facebook's and Google's databases, then why ask individuals for their ID's? I suspect it's another case of misguided "security theater" designed to have an impact on public perception rather than have any investigative usefulness. Do they still ask people if they are or ever have been members of the Communist Party?
It's a fundamental principle of investigation (and Border Security guards are in the business of investigation) to ask questions you already know the answer to, to test the truthfulness of the subject before you. Cops do it, Insurance investigators do it, employers do it, prospective landlords do it, bank loans officers do it. Everybody does it; even your parents.
I thought everyone knew that. Maybe I give people too much credit sometimes.
Actually it does not. This is NOT A BILL. It is a proposed change/regulation. It is supported by the passing of the Consolidated Appropriations Bill for 2016. That means, no bill or law needed, as it is under DHS control. DHS is controlled by Executive Branch.