US Government Begins Asking Foreign Travelers About Social Media (politico.com)

schwit1 quotes a report from Politico: Since Tuesday, foreign travelers arriving in the United States on the visa waiver program have been presented with an "optional" request to "enter information associated with your online presence," a government official confirmed Thursday. The prompt includes a drop-down menu that lists platforms including Facebook, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn and YouTube, as well as a space for users to input their account names on those sites. The new policy comes as Washington tries to improve its ability to spot and deny entry to individuals who have ties to terrorist groups like the Islamic State. But the government has faced a barrage of criticism since it first floated the idea last summer. The Internet Association, which represents companies including Facebook, Google and Twitter, at the time joined with consumer advocates to argue the draft policy threatened free expression and posed new privacy and security risks to foreigners. Now that it is final, those opponents are furious the Obama administration ignored their concerns. The question itself is included in what's known as the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, a process that certain foreign travelers must complete to come to the United States. ESTA and a related paper form specifically apply to those arriving here through the visa-waiver program, which allows citizens of 38 countries to travel and stay in the United States for up to 90 days without a visa. "There are very few rules about how that information is being collected, maintained [and] disseminated to other agencies, and there are no guidelines about limiting the government's use of that information," said Michael W. Macleod-Ball, chief of staff for the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington office. "While the government certainly has a right to collect some information... It would be nice if they would focus on the privacy concerns some advocacy groups have long expressed."

Comments

Once you've found all the socialmedia users....

[Anonymous Coward]

would you mind keeping them, next to those who think it's clever to over use emoticons. Thanks.

Confused

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

Washington tries to improve its ability to spot and deny entry to individuals who have ties to terrorist groups like the Islamic State.

Is this measure meant for complete imbeciles or I'm missing something here? What if I'm a real terr orist? I will either specify no social profile at all, or specify the one meant for fooling everyone.

Ah, I get it, it's not about terrorism. It's about pilfering taxpayer money. Oh, and it's about security theater as well. As if more people die of terrorism than people on the roads ... oh, wait.

Re:Confused

[DNS-and-BIND]

Nah, if they lie about it then their visa can be revoked and they can be sent back home, where their hatred of America may be indulged without risk to our own people.

Re:Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA will already know who has what social media accounts. So this exercise is about allowing the traveler the chance to demonstrate an intent to deceive. Which will tell us which ones to keep our eyes on.

Re:Confused

[Striek]

Is this measure meant for complete imbeciles or I'm missing something here? What if I'm a real terr orist? I will either specify no social profile at all, or specify the one meant for fooling everyone.

Ah, I get it, it's not about terrorism. It's about pilfering taxpayer money. Oh, and it's about security theater as well. As if more people die of terrorism than people on the roads ... oh, wait.

Not quite. This is about collecting even more information in the ever greater and ever more futile attempt to profile everyone they can, because everyone knows this is about as "voluntary" as DHS roadside screenings. They're fully aware that nobody with malicious intent will divulge anything that could deny them entry. People coming from countries that tend to generate terrorists aren't even included in this. This is only for countries for which a visa waiver exists - in other words, places America has deemed as "safe"; this is a dead giveaway that this has nothing to do with catching terrorists. This is about collecting and cataloguing information for all those individuals who don't appear on their usual radars.

Also, you can bet your bottom dollar that many people who have otherwise anonymous profiles will enter this information willingly, granting more information to agencies which might not have drawn these connections before. What they're planning to do with this data, how they're planning to use it, is anyone's guess. They sure seem to think that it will help, and they're not so stupid as to believe this will actually help catch "terrorists". This is an information grab, pure and simple, and the fucks in charge of it don't see what's wrong with collecting all of this shit from everyone.

Personally, I stopped visiting the States years ago. The border agents have done a splendid job of making me feel unwelcome there. There are plenty of other places in the world to spend my tourist dollars that don't automatically assume I am the enemy, collect my social media profiles and fingerprints, and grope me like a horny teenager every time I visit.

Re:Confused

[hambone142]

Why don't they just simplify the form.

Check one:

I am a terrorist __

I am not a terrorist __

There. That will work.

Re:Confused

[ShanghaiBill]

Is this measure meant for complete imbeciles or I'm missing something here?

This measure has two purposes:
1. To set a legal precedent that can be expanded later.
2. To soften up public expectations so that future government demands for social media credentials will be considered "normal".

If you want to see where this is heading, look at China's Social Credit System, where social media behavior can lead to citizens being denied access to passports, transporation, housing, education, and even some medical care.

Re:Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

You jest. This is one of the questions:
"Do you seek to engage in or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities, espionage, sabotage, or genocide?"

Not homicide, mind you, but genocide. You'd think the few people this applies to they'd already know by name.

Re:Confused

[El Cubano]

Actually, it is different than that. Right now, if someone tries to enter the US and they are allowed to enter, discovery of a social media presence that indicates they may pose a terror threat is not necessarily grounds for deportation or removal. Thought-crime is not a crime in the US.

However, if the government requires you to disclose your social media presence as a condition of entry (remember, immigration can refuse entry to anyone based on one or more of a very diverse set of criteria available to them) and you don't, then you have lied and most likely falsified immigration paperwork. If they discover a social media presence that is you sharing pictures of your kids with your friends, it is likely that nobody will care. However, if they discover a social media presence that indicates you may pose a terror threat, they can deport or remove you prior to you committing an act of terrorism, because you have already committed one or more crimes: entering the country under false pretext, lying to immigration officials, falsifying immigration paperwork, etc.

What you say may also be true, but the reality is that the government rarely thinks that far ahead.

This assumes, of course, that we don't collectively lose our minds when the government tries to enforce actual laws.

Re:Confused

[DamonHD]

Personally, I stopped visiting the States years ago. The border agents have done a splendid job of making me feel unwelcome there. There are plenty of other places in the world to spend my tourist dollars that don't automatically assume I am the enemy, collect my social media profiles and fingerprints, and grope me like a horny teenager every time I visit.

Yep, me too, nicely summarised, though I gave up visiting before the full groping thing I believe.

Rgds

Damon

Re:Confused

[rtb61]

Quite simply they are building up data bases of foreign citizens so they can be targeted and their politics manipulated, so as to control foreign governments to ensure their obedience to US based multi-national corporations. Overall really quite offensive and pretty much a solid indication that the US should be avoided as a travel destination, really quite undesirable, and best to avoid contact with their corrupted authorities and the political appointees that control them. This is politics of the worst sort.

Re:Confused

[ooloorie]

Is this measure meant for complete imbeciles or I'm missing something here? What if I'm a real terr orist? I will either specify no social profile at all, or specify the one meant for fooling everyone.

Yes, you're missing something. They don't want to use social media accounts to discover ties to terrorism (although they may get lucky; terrorists aren't very smart), they want to use social media accounts to identify travelers that they don't need to spend resources on so that they can focus on those where they need to dig deeper. For example, someone who, according to both LinkedIn and Facebook, has been an Italian accountant for 20 years with lots of real, identifiable Italian connections is (1) likely to return to Italy, and (2) unlikely to blow people up; and such profiles are probably also difficult to fake. Presumably, they are also only starting to figure out how they want to use this data.

This it could actually help people from developing countries most, countries where police reports and other information on citizens isn't as reliable or complete as it is in Europe.

I still don't think this is going to work very well, but it's not quite as dumb an idea as you make it out to be.

Re:Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget about inter-government data sharing.
Oh, this citizen of the UK uses these online user IDs, I think we'll let them know for their own records.

Re:Confused

[Deep Esophagus]

You missed the part where they also have a checkbox asking:
Are you here as a terrorist to cause harm to American lives or property?

• Yes
• No

• • The TSA is putting all their money on this plan working.

Re:Confused

[Hognoxious]

There used to be a thing, I think it was called a landing card, and the last question was "Have you answered all the above questions truthfully?"

I'm sure that caught out hundreds of criminal masterminds.

Re:Confused

[0111 1110]

I suspect they would be keeping their eyes on most slashdotters because how many of us would be stupid enough to supply our real usernames to online sites to the US government for any reason? Any tech savvy person with an IQ above 60 would leave it blank if optional or lie if made non-optional. This is more of a retardation detector than anything.

Re:Confused

[0111 1110]

Not everyone even has a 'social media' presence. So no it is not lying to claim that you don't have accounts at any of those retardo web sites and it's pretty stupid as well to assume terrorists are dumb enough to post on any accounts they may have about their secret activities.

As far as anti-US web sites how the hell could the US government possibly identify who posted that info? Even if the person has their own account at an ISP and even if the ISP were willing to just give out customer information to any government that might want it it is still a ridiculous amount of work for the government with basically no chance of any real benefit.

Finally just because someone dislikes the US for bombing children or whatever does not make them terrorists and no it doesn't make them someone worth watching either. Most people outside of the US don't particularly like US policies and no the majority of human beings on the planet are not terrorists.

Re: Confused

[Bartles]

You'd think terrorists would be that smart. But time and again we find after the act that they were active on social media, and used it exactly like you'd expect.

Re:Confused

[edtice1559]

They don't really have to lie. It's pretty reasonable to have one whitewashed social media account for business and acquaintance and another that you only use for close friends. Just provide the former.

Re:Confused

[edtice1559]

It's actually easier to go to Israel than the US!

Re: Confused

[coastwalker]

To be fair it is true that visiting America as a tourist is not terribly appealing these days. It is not likely that I would voluntarily endure the security theater of air travel to the United States and it's hostile border control system. It is ironic that the terrorists have largely won the war against the West by making us ripe for right wing fascism. Who would have believed that we fought the Second World war against Nazism and the Cold War against communism only to fall into the trap of beginning to take on the behaviors that we supposedly fought against them for.

Re:Confused

[AmiMoJo]

I'm sure the Russians are very grateful for this effort.

..and this is effective, how, exactly?

[Rick Schumann]

If they're terrorists or involved with/sympathetic to terrorist organizations, they'll lie, or have 'clean' social media accounts to present.
If they're complete innocents and refuse to give social media information, they'll be assumed guilty until proven innocent (which won't happen -- they'll always be suspect).
If they're innocent and give social media information, they'll be suspected of giving information only on 'clean' social media accounts, and still remain suspect.
The only 'terrorists' this will catch are really, really dumb ones that either didn't think things through, or that weren't coached properly by their terrorist leaders.

Any way I look at this, it's pointless and stupid. All it'll really do is victimize innocent immigrants, who are being considered guilty until proven innocent (which won't happen; YOU try proving a negative!), and have law enforcement chasing ghosts while the real bad guys go about their business. Nice job, Washington.

Re:..and this is effective, how, exactly?

[BitterOak]

If they're terrorists or involved with/sympathetic to terrorist organizations, they'll lie, or have 'clean' social media accounts to present.

That's EXACTLY what they're hoping people will do. The DHS officials will then check out the "clean" profiles, and ask Twitter/Facebook or whatever for the IP address associated with those "clean" accounts, as well as any other accounts which log in from the same address. They'll then look very closely at those other accounts. People will think they're fooling the DHS, when in reality, it will be the other way around.

Re:..and this is effective, how, exactly?

[El Cubano]

Any way I look at this, it's pointless and stupid. All it'll really do is victimize innocent immigrants, who are being considered guilty until proven innocent (which won't happen; YOU try proving a negative!), and have law enforcement chasing ghosts while the real bad guys go about their business. Nice job, Washington.

On this you are wrong. Here is something I already posted further up in the discussion. I repost it here because it directly addresses your statement:

Right now, if someone tries to enter the US and they are allowed to enter, discovery of a social media presence that indicates they may pose a terror threat is not necessarily grounds for deportation or removal. Thought-crime is not a crime in the US.

However, if the government requires you to disclose your social media presence as a condition of entry (remember, immigration can refuse entry to anyone based on one or more of a very diverse set of criteria available to them) and you don't, then you have lied and most likely falsified immigration paperwork. If they discover a social media presence that is you sharing pictures of your kids with your friends, it is likely that nobody will care. However, if they discover a social media presence that indicates you may pose a terror threat, they can deport or remove you prior to you committing an act of terrorism, because you have already committed one or more crimes: entering the country under false pretext, lying to immigration officials, falsifying immigration paperwork, etc.

There is a perfectly reasonable and rational explanation and a clear way in which this sort of thing can be used. Now, whether you agree that the reason is legitimate, or even good is another thing altogether.

Re:..and this is effective, how, exactly?

[St.Creed]

Immigrants? Try people who just have a connecting flight in he USA to another destination. A co-worker just returned from Nicaragua and he was stopped 6 times between the arrival hall and the departure hall. Very likely because he's not white and has a beard. Either that, or his work for the central bank was so interesting everyone wanted to know more about it. And I really can't say which scenario would be creepier.

My wife really wants to visit the USA, but my enthusiasm is lower and lower. Even China has pretty relaxed border controls compared to the USA.

Re: ..and this is effective, how, exactly?

[Cederic]

So I'm taking away from the many Americans I keep employed and earning a good income when I come over for a week to work with them? That's not tourism and I'm not aware of possessing any specific neurosurgical capabilities.

Good to know. But then, we already knew there are many stupid fuckwits in America, we'll just make sure you're on that list.

Re:..and this is effective, how, exactly?

[Shane_Optima]

Any way I look at this, it's pointless and stupid.

If you want to argue against something as unethical or self-destructive or not worth the price, one of the worst thing you can do is falsely assert total ineffectiveness. (Which is what a lot of anti-torture[1] people do, unfortunately.)

If they're innocent and give social media information, they'll be suspected of giving information only on 'clean' social media accounts, and still remain suspect.

Social media has been around for a while now. If you happen to have a medium to heavy social media presence going back for 5-10 years that the authorities can trawl, that's not nothing. Do you assume every jihadi is a mastermind willing to spend literally a decade carefully avoiding topics, denouncing terrorism, etc. just to some day obtain entry to America?

The possibility of someone opening a second account (after they were "radicalized", for instance) could be implied by changing in posting density, tone, comments from friends, etc. And by looking at names and geographic cues and employers and such, you can make it pretty hard to get around this via simple ID theft.

I'm not saying I particularly relish this sort of all-encompassing profiling from law enforcement; I am simply saying it will clearly be pretty effective at clearing a subset of people who 1. Are not threats and 2. have been using social media heavily for years.

How they choose to handle the other group of people who do not have a long and credible social media presence is another matter entirely.


1.. "You'll always have a huge problem with false information if you use torture!" Uh, not if it's an encrypted computer that's already in your possession and you want the password. There's zero potential for incorrect information causing any problems there. "They can use deniable encryption software with an alternate password and fake plans!" Do you know how hard it is to maintain that properly? Credible fake documents with datestamps that don't look suspicious on an OS that looks well-used?

It's not merely a waste of energy; it makes your side look weak and desperate. You should be focused on the moral issues and the consequences once the torture becomes known.

Re:..and this is effective, how, exactly?

[Cinnamon Beige]

I'm not saying I particularly relish this sort of all-encompassing profiling from law enforcement; I am simply saying it will clearly be pretty effective at clearing a subset of people who 1. Are not threats and 2. have been using social media heavily for years.

How they choose to handle the other group of people who do not have a long and credible social media presence is another matter entirely.

Actually, I'd say they're related problems: If you're using it early in the process and the only real difference between that subset and those without that long and credible social media presence is that the first group gets a lighter look than traditionally done at the traditional methods for profiling, then it may actually be in your favor to build up that long and credible social media presence & share it. If nothing else, you should have some idea what's there, and might actually result in greater privacy if the bulk of the evaluation is done with a computer program that merely spits out stats & a list of posts needing human eyes if/when needed.

If they use it late in the process, then probably there will be functionally no difference between the groups and no point to asking, because it won't matter.

Re:..and this is effective, how, exactly?

[Shane_Optima]

If they use it late in the process, then probably there will be functionally no difference between the groups and no point to asking, because it won't matter.

That's only true if "the [traditional] process" is particularly effective. I'm not convinced that it is. I suspect that a heavy social media presence over the course of 10 years, subjected to well-crafted expert system analysis with human oversight (for anything specific issue the expert system doesn't feel confident about, e.g. does this specific tweet appear to have an anti-American slant?) will be much superior to any traditional profiling method currently in use, leaving only the problem of ID theft.

When people become "radicalized", they don't suddenly become cold, calculating masterminds overnight. Also, you do realize the NSA uses writing style analysis to search for other accounts likely used by the same person, right? What percentage of jihadis are taking conscious steps to avoid that trap?

Re:..and this is effective, how, exactly?

[Cinnamon Beige]

Oh, I do realize that--and I was not talking about "the [traditional] process," if I meant that you would not need to have those brackets in there.

Regardless of how effective the traditional process is or is not, something like this ought to be used before it's applied for it to be particularly worthwhile--if it's effective, and being done by the means both of us posited (wherein the majority of the content isn't actually inspected by a human), then it's less invasive of privacy than the traditional method, and you can use the traditional method for those people who don't have the required social media presence.

Do it late, and I suspect it'd take incredible optimism to expect even a tiny minority of people not already ruled out to have the required heavy social media presence over a sufficient period of time. Therefore, it'd be even more pointless then running hearing screenings for students at a school for the deaf.

Re:..and this is effective, how, exactly?

[AHuxley]

It will help sort out illegal migrants with a cover story about been on a holiday or who faked some reason to "study" in the USA. People who have devices with guides and support material known to law enforcement to help illegal migrants to try and stay hidden in the USA.
Guides that show sanctuary cities and how illegal migrants can get state and city documents or access US tax payer funded state or city support services.
Scanning for such material or a past history of looking at support sites would be useful in finding people who want to over stay or work in the USA.
It also might provide some hints at illegal migrant workers supporters, networks, movements and who uses them as workers i.e. an unexpected destination or new areas of interest to law enforcement.
US law enforcement can the build a digital map of movements, supporters, work and areas in the USA providing services, papers, work.
Its time to look a browser logs, digital files, reading material not just luggage. Illegal migrants who thought they could fool the USA on entry with a good "holiday" or "educational" cover story might still slip up with their online reading material.

Re: Once you've found all the socialmedia users..

[Anonymous Coward]

:-)

Welcome to Nazi Germany papers please!

[Joe_Dragon]

Welcome to Nazi Germany papers please!

Well for one thing

[rsilvergun]

The ones that don't give up their credentials will get more scrutiny.

Also you're vastly over estimating people's intelligence and sanity. Lots of "terrorists" are just the heavily manipulated mentally ill. For every Bin Laden there's a thousand of these guys. They're not likely to think they're at risk by giving up credentials, but they're also not all there in the head. Agents would be looking for patterns and again who they should be spending time investigating further.

I suppose we could also solve this problem with mental health services and equitable wealth distribution, but fat chance of that.

Both

[SeattleLawGuy]

Is this measure meant for complete imbeciles or I'm missing something here? What if I'm a real terr orist? I will either specify no social profile at all, or specify the one meant for fooling everyone.

Both. "real" does not mean intelligent, and even "intelligent" does not mean "smart all the time," so you have increased security from detecting people who provide the information.

The fact that someone did not provide a profile may also be a flag--not a red flag, but combined with other stuff might set off someone's bump of trouble, or reallocate a few seconds of time at the border from someone who provided lots of information to someone who did not.

There are some other fairly obvious ways this could be operationally important, but while I'm against the idea for (personal, professional, commercial, etc...) privacy reasons, I'm still not going to provide the list someone can use to avoid being flagged as a terrorist.

Re:Both

[0111 1110]

Well apparently there already is a question that basically asks, "Are you a terrorist". I think that should be sufficient to weed out the retarded ones, but if they are that stupid then it is unlikely they would be much of a threat anyway. I have noticed that stupid people tend to assume that everyone else is just as stupid as they are. This policy probably came from a mentally handicapped individual who thinks terrorists really are as dumb as they would be if they were terrorists.

One day I'd almost be tempted to answer yes myself to the question about being a terrorist, but answering yes to that question is itself probably a crime in the US.

useless

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

As if anyone who's involved in anything nefarious would give the nice folks at Customs and Immigration information that would incriminate themselves or lead to anything suspicious.

Why not just ask everyone coming in if they have "plans to bomb any buildings, commit a terror attack, or engage in any criminal activity"?

Those that say "yes" or "maybe" can be pulled aside for questioning and everyone else can just skip on through.

From an old fart ...

[CaptainDork]

... each of us should have at least two (2) accounts.

The first is "real," and contains normal chatter about kitty cats and memes to "Share if you love Jesus."

The second should be totally fake and we can let significant others know who we are.

I do that for all my social media and email.

I also have a spare iPhone I use for taking video and shit.

I'm a photographer and when I'm (rarely) asked the phone I use to take photos and videos, I hand over that one.

It can only work on WiFi and has very little crap loaded on it.

When they ask for my cell phone, I ask for probable cause regarding a phone I was not using at the time.

I recall two incidents: one at the local port where cameras are not allowed, but no signage, and the same when I was shooting a local oil refinery.

Re:Trump will solve this

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

That must be why the stock market rallied upon Trump's election.
I'm guessing they realize things are bound to improve after 8 years of "War on Jobs, errr, Coal", no-growth "recovery", and shrinking labor participation rates.

That's right, you're guessing (and you're not very good at it).

When President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 7,949.09 and the unemployment rate was at 9.3 percent.

Today after Obama's two terms in office the Dow Jones is at 19,933.81, which is the highest it's ever been, and the unemployment rate is 4.9 percent, almost half of what it was.

But don't let any of them fuckin' facts get in your way, AC.

commentsubject

[Falos]

>The new policy comes as Washington tries to improve its ability to spot and deny entry to individuals who have ties to terrorist groups like the Islamic State.
C'mon. Just say it.

>The new policy comes Because Terrorism

Re:What consists of "online presence?"

[Calydor]

IRC channels? That ICQ login you had back in the 90s? Various handles used on BBS servers in the 80s?

What happens if you only divulge some information? What happens if you divulge information they don't want? What happens when you start having to do this online, they don't salt and encrypt your password, and start brute-forcing all supplied information with the password you used there in a moment of not thinking ahead?

Least friendly

[Macdude]

And the US continues in its attempt to make it the least friendly country in the world to visit...

Re:Least friendly

[AHuxley]

The US is just doing what every other normal nation does. Have a boarder and making sure the documents and reasons for been in the USA are correct.
Most nations ask people on holiday how long they will stay, where their hotel is or if they are staying with friends, family when requesting entry.
Do they have enough cash to cover their stay? Do their "friends" or "family" actually exist? Does the hotel, resort exist?
If on "business" does their brand or company exist? If a "student" does their stated study plan exist and for how long will they stay? How many hours of study?
Do they have the funds not to need to work in the USA over the time they will be allowed into the USA for "study"?
If not who is covering their living costs? Can they show funding to cover not needing to work in the USA if allowed in for a holiday or study?
Given the lax passport and citizenship standards in many once trusted EU nations, the USA has to ensure the passports, documents and reasons for entering the USA is correct.
As the EU failed at that and now gives usable international travel documents out to anyone who arrives and asks for EU citizenship, the US has to be very aware of who might seek entry into the USA from the EU. EU travel documents are now totally useless in determining a persons real origins or past on entry to the USA. So the US has to request more information to try and work out who wants to enter the USA and why.

Such very normal methods keep out illegal immigrants, people who over stay or who work in the USA when lying about entry for a holiday or pretending to study.
The US has a lot of legal, easy ways to enter and enjoy a great holiday or work or get an education.

Re:What consists of "online presence?"

[PopeRatzo]

What about membership in forums like Slashdot?

Hopefully, that will get you on a watch list, at very least.

Re:confirmed

[PopeRatzo]

Carrie Fisher is out of emergency and in stable condition, according to family.

Re:I'd be suspicious because...

[PopeRatzo]

I've been a *nix sysadmin for almost 20 years

You just made the list.

Re:Attention Progressives: this is OBAMA

[PopeRatzo]

Shifting the blame to his successor is a doubling-down on dishonesty and denial.

You have a few more weeks to use that. Then the whole shooting match is on Trump and the GOP. No more scapegoats.

Remember, Trump could reverse this policy with the stroke of a Tweet if he wanted to. It will be interesting to see if his "extreme vetting" includes social media.

It is worse as an American....

[Anonymous Coward]

It is worse as an American....
Since post-9/11 you have been required to give full fingerprints and other identifying information/biometrics in order to work for state, nevermind federal government jobs. Additionally similiar requirements are in place for licensing as a mariner or pilot (I had a friend who just went through FAA licensing in the US, full hand fingerprints are a requirement.) California proper took the Japanese approach to it (single thumbprint for a California Driver's License, plus straight face photo, same as a passport.) Nevada on the other hand also required full hand fingerprints to get a state id/driver's license as an out of state US citizen, in addition to the normal requirements (photo, birth certificate.) Interestingly US passports, at least as of 5-10 years ago only required two forms of ID, a photo, and 40-100 dollars for normal/expedited filing to recieve. So it is actually easier to get a US passport than it is to get a state ID in many places, and at least used to eliminate the biometric requirement (which is required by almost all other forms of ID application now.)

Personally privacy is one of the most important rights for me, followed by biometrics. Given those as priorities to keep secure America is no longer the country for me to reside in. And given the popular results of the 2016 election, it is obvious that Americas have been brilliantly manipulated into two evenly matched factions who will be forever at each other's throats while those with the actual power continue to manipulate their for their own benefit while the plebs continue to fight their ideological squabbles as the major war while losing all the benefits of America that truly matter while they aren't paying attention.

Still blaming Bush, after 8 years of Obama

[raymorris]

> You have a few more weeks to use that.

I don't know about that. I could be mistaken since I pay more attention to your very funny posts than to your political posts, but if I recall correctly you've talked about Bush quite a bit THIS YEAR. After 8 years of Obama, you're still blaming Bush. So people who like that game can blame Obama for another 8 years.

* My apologies if I'm remembering wrong and you're not one of the "blame Bush" goofs. As I said, I think of you more as "the guy in Houston who posts really funny stuff, and also drank too much liberal Koolaid".

Re:Still blaming Bush, after 8 years of Obama

[PopeRatzo]

I don't know about that. I could be mistaken since I pay more attention to your very funny posts than to your political posts, but if I recall correctly you've talked about Bush quite a bit THIS YEAR. After 8 years of Obama, you're still blaming Bush. So people who like that game can blame Obama for another 8 years.

I blamed Bush until January of '09. Then I blamed Obama until 2010. Then I blamed the GOP. That brings us up to date.

As an American

[bmo]

All I can do is say "take your tourist money elsewhere."

I used to go between RI and Ontario a lot. Coming back each time through Customs and Immigration, I felt like I was not even welcome in my own country.

There are some wonderful things to see in this country, but there are wonderful things to see in the rest of the world, and if you never come here in your lifetime, you won't be missing much.

--
BMO

Re:As an American

[Anonymous Coward]

My question is, at what point do we just say, "the terrorists have won. We changed, they triggered that change. Despite official protests and denials to the contrary, the country is lesser and poorer because of security theater, official snooping on everyone, and a certain negativity you encounter at the border."

No account

[manu0601]

I have no account on all those social medias. Does that make me a suspect?

Re:No account

[edtice1559]

Anybody who doesn't share all of the intimate personal details on social media must be a terrorist.

Re:No account

[thegarbz]

A strange person who doesn't conform to social norms? Yes you're a suspect. You're also the actual target demographic for terrorist recruiters.

Re:No account

[AHuxley]

You would be asked for your ISP email account. The one that might have got used for US travel documents?
If that showed any social media account creation or use then that would be detected.
The questions would get more detailed, the interviews would move to small rooms smaller with more formal warnings.
The option to be allowed into the USA would be under review with each hour of questioning.
If a person requesting entry into the USA used a clean formal email account, a question could be asked if any other ISP email accounts existed...
A request to log into the main ISP account would show if any other email accounts got created.
Or was the ISP account just to request US documents and contact with the US gov with no other history or even years or months of normal use?
If the account was old but showed no other history or all of the past had had been wiped i.e. just contact with the US gov for travel documents was kept? That would not be normal and a request would be made for other accounts. If names, past history already mentioned don't track the email logs?
Different global travel, ip ranges, names, slang, jargon would soon be detected. Even facial recognition on all and any attachments over years of email use...

Re: Once you've found all the socialmedia users...

[Hognoxious]

And UX designers.

Concise

[raymorris]

That was clear and concise. Merry Christmas, my friend.

Re:Concise

[PopeRatzo]

Merry Christmas to you too, pal. And here's hoping for a brighter 2017, though hopefully not nuclear-weapon bright.

Ps I blame/credit for their budget, a year after

[raymorris]

Ps when I assign results (blame) in order to chart things and see what really works, I blame Bush through 2009 - it was his budget in 2009, and mostly the effects of Bush policies. That's imprecise, but reasonably close. Trump's first budget will start October 1st.

I find it interesting to come up with some objective criteria, such as economic growth rate, then chart it out for different presidents. By deciding on the criteria BEFORE I know the results, I get a true measure rather than something cherry-picked. This is the first chart I did, nine years ago:

http://bettercgi.com/tmp/econo...

Of course we know what happened right after that. It would be fair to say that based on economic growth, Bush Jr was the worst Republican President in recent history - the ONLY Republican President to leave the economy in worse shape than when he started.

Visa Waiver really?

[greatpatton]

ESTA: * Do you have to answer more personal question than to get a proper visa from China? check * Do you have to pay for it? Check * Do you have to provide you credit card number or paypal account? Check * Do you have to get it prior you travel? Check ESTA is not a visa waiver, this is a freaking visa process, it is just that it is fully automated (and should perform better than a human interview). Stop to make people believe that the visa waiver program exist anymore.

Those 38 Countries

[stereoroid]

... are the ones whose citizens probably present the least threat to the USA. That's why they're in the Visa Waiver program in the first place. Way to alienate your friends, DHS.

Re:Those 38 Countries

[AHuxley]

A bad person just has to tell the EU that are fleeing "war" and they get a new EU citizenship and legal EU papers.
The issue for the USA is that so many once trusted EU nations are now flooded with illegal migrants from very high risk third party nations the US gov tracks.
What was once the National Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... could be circumvented by an interesting person getting new documents from a nation the US once considered safe.
Getting new documents under that safe nations past reputation with the USA can allow all kinds of interesting people to try and sneak into the USA with new, clean documents.
That is why the US has to track every nations workers, people on holiday or students. The other nations passports so trusted in the 1980's are now junk and get handed out to anyone who can tell a good story on walking into EU.

Charlie

[sdinfoserv]

Reminds me of Good Morning Vietnam when they talk about Finding Charlie "Well, we walk up to someone and say, 'Are you the enemy? And, if they say yes, then we shoot them."
Unfortunately this is reality and someone in the US Govt. actually had this as an idea and it was approved, not just a joke.