'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..."

Comments

The whole idea is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The whole idea is stupid

[MrLint]

Sounds like another "Common Sense" government 'list'!

Re:The whole idea is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

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!"

They probably don't think that. They're dumb, but usually not quite that dumb.

The real reason is it's a small step from being optional, to being required because terrorism / the children / murrica. Once it is required, then it establishes guaranteed guilt. If you do something else they don't like, you are by definition guilty of some other unrelated thing. "Mr Coward, it appears that you failed to disclose your 1998 GeoCities account to us on form 390124/b-52. Please come with us. We'd like to ask you some questions."

Re:The whole idea is stupid

[ShanghaiBill]

They are not interested in looking at your posts. They are interested in looking at who your friends and connections are.

Gov't building database on US citizens

[QuietLagoon]

If a foreign traveler is coming to the US for a visit, chances are that person will have some facebook, linkedin or other social media contacts who are US citizens.

.
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.

Re:Guilty by omission?

[Xian97]

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.

Tough luck if you don't do social media

[melting_clock]

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.

Tell the government

[Kludge]

Don't post here.
Post here

Re:You have no rights when applying for entry to a

[Drishmung]

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.

Non-Nefarious Reasons...

[SeattleLawGuy]

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.

Re:Yes, it's bad

[jrumney]

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.