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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

..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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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

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: 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.