Slashdot Mirror


US Visitors May Have to Hand Over Social Media Passwords: DHS (nbcnews.com)

People who want to visit the United States could be asked to hand over their social-media passwords to officials as part of enhanced security checks, the country's top domestic security chief said. From a report on NBC: Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told Congress on Tuesday the measure was one of several being considered to vet refugees and visa applicants from seven Muslim-majority countries. "We want to get on their social media, with passwords: What do you do, what do you say?" he told the House Homeland Security Committee. "If they don't want to cooperate then you don't come in."

76 of 652 comments (clear)

  1. Against TOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At least with FB it's against the TOS, and if you sign on from an unfamiliar IP, it would try other challenges to validate your identity.

    1. Re:Against TOS by dmomo · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's against the TOS for the user to let another access their account via the password. I didn't see anything in there about being on the receiving end. I would say it's implied, but it's not explicit. So security would be effectively forcing the user to violate the agreement with Facebook. Not sure how that plays out legally, but I'm assuming Facebook has every right to terminate their account for complying with the security check.

      Here's the clause:

      "You will not share your password (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.
      You will not transfer your account (including any Page or application you administer) to anyone without first getting our written permission."

    2. Re:Against TOS by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      Yep. I could hand over my password. But they'll have a hell of a time getting past the SSO codes (Unless the NSA has cracked that system somehow)

      But I'm going to give the US a pass over the next 4 years. I have nothing to hide, but on a matter of principles I wouldnt give my own govt my passwords, and I sure as hell wouldnt give a foreign govt them.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    3. Re:Against TOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No terrorist could possibly fake a social media profile. Or have two or 100. And it's impossible that an innocent person could just not have a social media profile.

    4. Re:Against TOS by unixisc · · Score: 2

      For FB, why do they need a password? If they want to check out Mohammed Islam's account, they can just visit his home page and see what he has written. Or even ask to befriend him temporarily so that they can see his private messages as well, and unfriend them once the background check is over.

    5. Re:Against TOS by Kagato · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because it's against the TOS, it's against the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. CBP is asking people to commit a felony. The United States Court of Appeals held just last year that sharing password and allowing access contrary to the TOS is a violation. There are people in PRISON right now for commit this crime. I would not recommend doing it and Facebook should make a statement that what DHS is proposing is against the law.

      If DHS wants to do this they need to ask congress to add an exemption to the CFAA.

    6. Re:Against TOS by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's also against the 4th amendment:
      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
      I would argue that an on-line account is an effect of a person (actually in both definitions of the word) and the constitution does not exclude non citizens.

      Just disgraceful what my country has done to it's charter document.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    7. Re:Against TOS by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

      At the border, any and all "searches and seizures" are considered "reasonable" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. See Border search exception.

    8. Re:Against TOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I agree. This is very simple and very great. Bigly! If you won't show your facebook profile then you have something to hide (why wouldn't you if you didn't?). If you have something to hide you are guilty. Seems like good security and can't be abused at all. Finally, we're back to common sense small government!

    9. Re:Against TOS by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      But I'm going to give the US a pass over the next 4 years.

      What makes you think it will get any better after that?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Against TOS by johanw · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just make a fake account on FB and Twitter and hand over those details. Follow and like Trump on both accounts and you're done.

    11. Re:Against TOS by tsqr · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because it's against the TOS, it's against the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

      18 U.S. Code 103018 U.S. Code 1030(f): This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.

    12. Re:Against TOS by retchdog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      this wouldn't be a search; it would be a compulsion to divulge information, which would then be used to assist in searching for something which isn't at the border.

      additionally, like most universal claims, what you're saying is obviously false if read literally. for example, i don't think the courts would find it reasonable to conduct a mass cavity search in the lobby of an airport, on all debarking passengers from Syria (or wherever).

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    13. Re: Against TOS by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Informative

      Georgetown Law School says you don't know what you're talking about.

      http://scholarship.law.georget...

      The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    14. Re:Against TOS by Kjella · · Score: 2

      It's against the TOS for the user to let another access their account via the password. I didn't see anything in there about being on the receiving end. I would say it's implied, but it's not explicit. So security would be effectively forcing the user to violate the agreement with Facebook. Not sure how that plays out legally, but I'm assuming Facebook has every right to terminate their account for complying with the security check.

      Regarding the receiving end it's really quite easy, Facebook has authorized you to use their service and the password is just your authorization token. If anyone else is using your token to access their service they should be hit with some felony "unlawful access to computer resources" hacking charges, regardless if they got the token by accident, theft, blackmail or given voluntarily. Same as if I give you a key to water my plants, no matter who else ends up with the key they don't have my permission, even if you can physically delegate the key you can't legally delegate my permission.

      As for the terms of service the recipient is not a party to the contract, so it can't regulate this in any way. It can only regulate the relationship between you and Facebook, if you hand over the password they have cause to terminate your account. That can of course leave the user caught between a rock and a hard place, either they "voluntarily" hand over the password to US customs or they're refused entry into the US. But neither contract nor criminal law absolves you of any duties just because complying is difficult.

      Personally I'd probably resist enough that I could claim it was under duress and hope Facebook decides to press charges. Because as a private individual you don't really have much leverage here, the US is free to refuse entry to anyone but its own citizens so they can set any conditions they want. If they want to require the rubber glove treatment it's either bend over and spread'em or stay home. The only leverage you have is if they break the constitution - unlikely, as the 4th amendment doesn't apply at the border - or the rules violate some other US laws.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    15. Re: Against TOS by Archtech · · Score: 2

      Some of us aren't in America and don't want to go there. (Offers in excess of $1 million might be seriously considered - or they might not). Some of us also don't have social media accounts, so we have time to do more important and interesting things.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    16. Re:Against TOS by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      No.

      It's an agreement, and binding only between the issuing entity and the willing participant.

      If I give my password to someone else and Facebook finds about it, all they can do is block access.

      Facebook is free, offers no warranties, guarantees, and provides for indemnification.

      --

      "The only right a Facebook member has is to leave." © 2017 CaptainDork

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    17. Re:Against TOS by Archtech · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The word "free" (as in "Land of the Free") is dangerously undefined. Free from what? Free to do what? Not free to do what? The answers to the second and third questions would run to thousands of pages.

      To assert that one country is "free" while another is "not free" is ridiculous. It doesn't even make much sense to say that one country is "freer" than another. So in Country A you are allowed to do X but forbidden to do Y; whereas in Country B it is the other way round. Presumably which country you prefer is a function of whether you prefer X to Y.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    18. Re:Against TOS by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Well, given that the Customs and Border Patrol were doing exactly that - enforcing after halt ordered by Federal Court, when will they be held liable?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    19. Re: Against TOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Umm... You realize you are posting on a social media platform, using a social media account, right?

    20. Re: Against TOS by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure the bill of rights doesn't say 'love it or leave it' where 'it' is the crazy current administration policy.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    21. Re: Against TOS by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Informative

      Umm... You realize you are posting on a social media platform, using a social media account, right?

      There's nothing social about Slashdot.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    22. Re:Against TOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First of all, the border search exception is NOT absolute and has never been claimed to be absolute.

      Secondly, the whole point of GP is that an absolute border search exception, or even the border search exception we "have", would be in direct conflict with the Fourth Amendment. A judge, or even a bunch of judges, deciding to "consider" something reasonable does not make it reasonable.

    23. Re:Against TOS by outlander · · Score: 2

      Umm, this far leftist is just as outraged as you are by this.

      The 100-mile constitution-free zone at borders is Not Right.

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
    24. Re: Against TOS by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to reality.
      The US has long talked a good talk of championing personal freedoms, but usually does a bad job of actually respecting them. In just about every stage of our nation's history, there has been some threatening group of the day who has had its freedoms sharply curtailed, where the response has been more "meh," or at least "maybe this isn't great, but we're under attack or under threat."

    25. Re: Against TOS by Tanktalus · · Score: 2

      Sure, but I have no idea what my slashdot password is. Sorry. When Firefox forgets my password, I'll lose my account.

    26. Re: Against TOS by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2

      It's better to agree by using a 2nd social medial handle that shows how super happy you are about Trump-America yeah!

      We want only the best deceptive people to come to America.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    27. Re:Against TOS by jeremyp · · Score: 3, Informative

      So if you don't hand over your Facebook password, you might be organising a terrorist group from your Facebook page so you can't enter the |USA.

      If you do hand over your Facebook password, you have committed a felony, so you can't enter the USA.

      That strikes me as exactly the outcome that the Trump administration is looking for.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  2. WTF? by Calydor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can imagine Facebook, Twitter etc. blowing up over this.

    Besides, if they get password access how can they use ANYTHING they find as evidence of anything? They've got WRITE access, for crying out loud! The evidence chain isn't just poisoned, it's rotted right through.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    1. Re:WTF? by parallel_prankster · · Score: 2

      Most social websites will have a timestamp of when the post was made or edited. So, government trapping people by writing fake posts may not be a viable option. Or at least we know this, not sure if the bozos running the government do. I think they might even try!

    2. Re:WTF? by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That seems to be the least of the problems. Even if you assume good faith (and you can't... too many stories of individual immigration officers, possibly with the encouragement of higher ups, acting inhumanely towards would-be immigrants), the request doesn't make sense: if I say I don't have a Twitter or Facebook account, are they going to believe me? What are the chances I have one if I live in a part of the world with no Internet?

      And if I do, and I'm actually using my Facebook account to meet up with terrorists, preparing to be the first person ever from any of those seven countries to commit an act of terrorism in the US, what makes you think I'd use the same account for that as I do talking with friends and family? I mean, having one account used for both seems like it'd be asking for trouble. Guess which password you'd end up with...

      What a waste of time and resources, and a completely unnecessary invasion of privacy.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're so close to realizing this will eventually become mandatory unfettered read-only API calls for the gubmint.

      Better also keep an eye on them for domestic dissidents too. Maybe we can come up with a catchy name for it like COINTELPRO.

    4. Re:WTF? by caseih · · Score: 2

      If they want to vet someone's social media presence, they can already subpoena these predominantly American companies and get this information. But what about someone who has no social media presence at all?

      The feds have been trending in this general direction for years now, with suspensions of constitutional rights at border crossings that started back under Bush and Obama. Unfortunately the new administration is even less respectful of the rule of law.

      You're absolutely right that officials can with this information alter the information about a person online and plant evidence and sow falsehoods (ahem alternative facts) about someone that, perhaps who an official or high-level figure does not like. And since not every person who works for these departments is strictly honest, this is going to happen. Period. Even if it's not some larger conspiracy.

      Seems like the administration either has not considered this, or simply does not care. Either possibility is downright scary.

    5. Re:WTF? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can imagine Facebook, Twitter etc. blowing up over this.

      Me too, except "blowing up" in the sense of suddenly having lots of new account signups. I imagine a desk at airports, with public computer everyone uses to sign up for accounts on these websites, in order to have a password to hand over.

      "Uh, yeah, my account is throwaway12345@gmail.com. My password is 12345."

      how can they use ANYTHING they find as evidence of anything?

      This isn't for purposes of finding evidence. It's for theater. Someone got the idea that American voters want visitors to be humiliated and insulted, and this is their idea for how to best do it.

      How the idea of anal pattern photographs got shot down, I have no idea. Cowards!!

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    6. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Evidence chain: ancient concept based on the alleged difference between facts and unfacts

    7. Re:WTF? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if I do, and I'm actually using my Facebook account to meet up with terrorists, preparing to be the first person ever from any of those seven countries to commit an act of terrorism in the US, what makes you think I'd use the same account for that as I do talking with friends and family? I mean, having one account used for both seems like it'd be asking for trouble. Guess which password you'd end up with...

      Exactly this. It would take minimal effort for a would-be terrorist to make a "clean" Facebook account. Have it only friend pro-US people and be completely innocuous - not even discussing US politics, but discussing which pop band is the best and the results of "Which Hogwarts House Am I In" quizzes. A clever terrorist organization could even have a whole division dedicated to maintaining these accounts for years before handing them over to the would-be-terrorist. DHS gets the clean Facebook account and doesn't see the secondary account where he's liked every anti-US Facebook post there is. This won't protect us from terrorists (except, maybe extremely stupid ones), will weaken the security of people entering the US, and will lead to abuse.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    8. Re:WTF? by The-Ixian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think it is fine as long as all other countries ask for traveling American's passwords.

      Just wait for that blow-up

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    9. Re:WTF? by JeffOwl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rules of evidence don't apply in this case unless they try to prosecute you for something. Denial of entry does not require the same standards as criminal prosecution.

    10. Re:WTF? by houghi · · Score: 2

      Please alsp define "Social media" I do not have Facebook, twitter or similar accounts. Is /. Social Media? Is the webserver with my domain name one, because that is where I put anything I think is important on (It is nothing).
      Is Usernet "Social Media"? What about email?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    11. Re:WTF? by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      This is the same as any other thing that gives someone access to personal data. Identity theft in just the US costs victims billions a year what stops a disgruntled government employee from using the information found.

    12. Re:WTF? by ooloorie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Besides, if they get password access how can they use ANYTHING they find as evidence of anything? They've got WRITE access, for crying out loud! The evidence chain isn't just poisoned, it's rotted right through.

      You're not on trial. They are trying to find evidence that's in your favor, not evidence against you. If they don't want to admit you, they don't have to bother planting evidence, they just stamp "denied" on your visa application.

    13. Re:WTF? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      I think it is fine as long as all other countries ask for traveling American's passwords.

      Just wait for that blow-up

      Americans following the same rules they expect others to follow? Not a chance!

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    14. Re:WTF? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      It would take minimal effort for a would-be terrorist to make a "clean" Facebook account.

      Actually I think the amount of effort to do that would drive people to terrorism.

    15. Re:WTF? by ooloorie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What a waste of time and resources, and a completely unnecessary invasion of privacy.

      This only applies to the seven banned countries, countries that don't have reliable records.

      If you travel to the US from Europe, the US requests your police, financial, and surveillance records from your home country. In that case, they don't need your social media accounts, because that contains everything from your political affiliations to the terms of endearment you use with your Swedish mistress.

      If you travel to the US from a place like Somalia, the US can't get any reliable official records on you. By default, that means you won't get admitted. The US immigration system is offering to look at your social media accounts to see whether they show enough stability, financial resources, family connections, etc. to still admit you.

      Think of immigration like a mortgage: you only get it if you can prove that you are good for it, and social media is another option for establishing that you are (in fact, both for immigration and mortgages). Frankly, I think it's a bad idea, but it is intended to help people.

    16. Re:WTF? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...What a waste of time and resources, and a completely unnecessary invasion of privacy.

      Your assertion is based on the premise that the people behind this policy actually give a rat's ass about the safety and/or privacy of the average American.

      A friend once made the insightful comment that having to stand in line at an airport waiting to take your shoes off has nothing to do with thwarting terrorism - its purpose is to make obedience to authority reflexive and habitual. As far as I'm concerned this is more of the same - and don't be surprised when, a few years down the road, America citizens are also forced to give up their social media passwords at the border.

      Once upon a time I thought the people who talk about governments of ostensibly 'free' nations having their citizens chipped or bar-coded was the fantasy of conspiracy theorists. These days I'm not sure they're wrong.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    17. Re:WTF? by Calydor · · Score: 2

      They are trying to find evidence that's in your favor, not evidence against you.

      I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    18. Re:WTF? by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      You don't understand; the default is simply for you not to get admitted if you are from one of those seven countries; they don't need to look at your social media account for that, they just deny your visa.

    19. Re:WTF? by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

      The problem is they could post something, say "Look you're a terrorist" and send you back to your originating country. By the time you've figured it all out, you're 3000 miles away in a foreign land and nothing you can do. This is RIPE for abuse and I can't believe any court would find this legal.

    20. Re:WTF? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      "You've been denied access to the United States because your Facebook account is only three months old and likes boring stuff."

      The immigration system in this country is already a mess, we don't need to add more stupid and arbitrary ways for people to get denied access. If we deny access to someone there should be a good reason, not that their damn Facebook account isn't up to snuff. And, like has been said, it would be easy for an organization to create a whole series of accounts and actively maintain them for years before handing them out. The 9/11 attackers (from Saudi Arabia, UAE, and various other countries that Obama hasn't bombed and Trump hasn't banned) showed up at the airports with new haircuts, a fresh shave, a button-down shirt, slacks, etc. They looked like any other person. Adding a years-old actively-maintained fake Facebook account to that disguise isn't exactly the work of a criminal mastermind, it's just more security theater for the government to act like they're protecting something when they only thing they're doing is slowly rolling back rights.

      Most Americans live in a bubble and have no clue how the immigration process works, or even the tourist process. We would probably be meaningful change happen to those systems if every other country in the world started treating Americans the same way that their own citizens get treated when they try to come here. When you get denied entry to Europe because your Facebook account isn't convincing enough then maybe you'll start looking for real solutions.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  3. What's stopping other countries? by gtall · · Score: 2

    Maybe other countries will demand the same thing. I can see el Presidente Tweety giving up his password in the name of security.

    1. Re:What's stopping other countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its simple, more and more people are now avoiding the USA.

      If I need to fly to Europe from New Zealand I now go through Hong Kong or one of the other non-us routes. This is now the preferred method for all staff as the risks of IT devices (computers/phones/etc) being compromised at the US boarder is now considered too high.

      There is also a growing preference for equipment from the EU as any training will be outside of the US too.

      The US is slowly but surely shitting in its own nest.

      I know personally, for family holidays we will no longer consider the USA, there is a great big world out there to see, and currently the USA and its policies places it a long way down the list of places to visit.

    2. Re:What's stopping other countries? by The-Ixian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would love to see this happen.

      Just wait for the entitled Americans to cry to their government reps about how they are being treated like garbage.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    3. Re:What's stopping other countries? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ahh, I see. So the plan is to make the US such a terrible place that no-one will want to go there? Now it finally makes sense.

      Just a heads up, you might want to look into Somalia, they appear to have attempted a similar approach.

    4. Re:What's stopping other countries? by gtall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the plan is to tell Americans they are safe by banning people who have no record of doing naughty things in America, and that do not have Trump properties in their homelands.

      One thing you have to consider when observing this Administration, nothing is connected. One policy might yang the yin out of some issue, another might yin the yang out of the same issue.

      Also, knock-on effects are not considered because there's no way the head guys can keep two ideas in their heads at the same time. Case in point, the last Yemen raid by American Special Forces. The previous administration tried to think through the effects if something went wrong. The current administration would rather shoot first and aim later. The result: Yemen said no more of those.

      Another case in point: American ban on Iraqis coming to the U.S. Iraq's Parliament is considering legislation banning Americans, and the Iraqis fighting and dying to attack Daesh are looking at the Americans and wondering why they should bother. Trumpets blaring about taking Iraqi oil tell them that the American administration has no respect for Iraqis. End result, decreased cooperation against Daesh, and possibly support for aggression against the U.S. after Daesh goes down the rat hole.

      And the Administration rhetoric has given that little twit Ayatollah running Iran a gift claiming the Administration is showing America's true face.

      Wanting to put China in its place, they did the opposite of rally Asian nations against China hegemony by pulling out of TPP thus pushing those countries closer to China. And whining about cheap Mexican labor and labor standards, they decided pulling out of the TPP would be a good idea, however it would have increased wages and standards for Mexicans.

      Claiming the Mexican hordes are climbing over the borders (they aren't), they give every indication of starting a trade war with Mexico thus lowering the Mexican economy and making it likely to increase the pressure on Mexicans to squirrel under the new stupid wall to get into the U.S.

  4. Next up in 'Murica by TimothyHollins · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Next up on the hit series "'Murica: Hell yeah!", the orange prez makes a scandalous law - all students are to get daily cavity searches.

    While glove manufacturer stock prices are soaring, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly tells worried students "If you don't want your rectum searched for contraband, just stay at home.

    God-damn the news are getting entertaining.

  5. Uh huh, and then... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    People will just keep real and fake social media accounts. One for real stuff, and one for border control to ogle.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  6. The message this sends by rossdee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    USA doesn't want tourists visiting the country
    or business people doing trade deals

    1. Re:The message this sends by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To be fair that's been the message for a long time. There's few countries I dread visiting, and the USA is one of them. I remember my last business trip clearly.

      "Welcome to the United States of America" it said in the customs area of the airport. I got to stare at that shitty sign for 3 hours as a single customs man took his time individually fingerprinting and questioning the thousand visitors queued up.

      America is a lovely place and the people are lovely and friendly. But I still dread actually clearing customs in that area and I say that as a white ordinary privileged man.

  7. Profit motive will keep us safe (probably) by sjbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not surprised DHS is "considering" something like this. Certain gestapo elements in our government always are trying thuggish and ill considered tactics to make their lives easier. This is plainly a stupid and counterproductive idea to anyone with a functioning brain but the danger is real enough. The good news is that the companies affected (Facebook, Twitter, etc) have lots of money and flesh eating lawyers to fight such an over-reach by the government. I don't generally trust Facebook but I do trust their profit motive and DHS forcing people to hand over passwords is a clear and present danger to their bottom line.

  8. Read-only password needed by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If this behavior is permitted, then the social media sites need to start implementing read-only passwords for account. It is one thing to allow the US government to see everything n your account, and all your friend's accounts. It is an entirely different thing to allow the US government to act on your behalf with your account.

    1. Re:Read-only password needed by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They can implement POTS (parent over the shoulder) password too. Log in using that password, everything would be seemingly normal, with write access and everything. But only portions that you had declared "safe" using earlier regular full access password sessions would be visible.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  9. Re: If you want to come to my country... by Striikerr · · Score: 2

    Don't forget those subversive Canadians! Them and their secrets around making good poutine or which beers taste best! Dude, you really have no clue do you. IF someone intending to do harm were entering the country, do you really think they will have social media posts about it or contain their devious plans on their phones or laptops? This just affects honest and decent people.

  10. Re:I don't even know my passwords by Dr.+Crash · · Score: 2

    Using 2FA authentication won't work to stop them.

    They ALREADY ask you to allow inspection of electronics. If you refuse to give them the password, expect to not get your phone, laptop, or tablet back till you either give them the password or they image the whole thing for NSA's "enhanced decryption".

  11. Re:If you want to come to my country... by sh00z · · Score: 2

    If DHS hasn't already scanned social media for jihadi, socialist, or subversive secrets, and linked them to individuals who can be identified on arrival in the US, then they HAVE NOT BEEN DOING THEIR JOB. Not one more tax dollar for security theater.

  12. Oh, well by xfizik · · Score: 2

    Just another reason to not use social media.
    P.S. I don't even remember my FB password, on those rare occasions that I try to use FB from a new device I always have to go through the "forgot your password?" ordeal. But I don't expect border officials to be too sympathetic about that.

  13. Asking People To Commit a Felony by Kagato · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most social networks (like Facebook) expressly forbid sharing passwords or allowing others to use your account. Because that's the policy it becomes a Felony according to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The United States Court of Appeals has affirmed sharing accounts contrary to the TOS is a violation of the CFAA and there are people in PRISON as we speak for doing just that.

    I would contend that you cannot be compelled to commit a felony by a agent of the United States. If DHS wants this power they need to have the CFAA amended to grant them an exemption.

  14. Re:I don't even know my passwords by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

    What if you come into the country not planning to visit your social media account and therefor you don't bring and devices with you?

    It is already common practice for travelers to bring blanked out devices with them and then restore them once they are through the checkpoints.

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  15. Re:Require mandatory tracking devices on muslims by unixisc · · Score: 2

    I'm sure it will be a surprise to all the people of Arabic, Turkic, Indo-Iranian or East Indian peoples to know that they are of Negroid ancestry

  16. Re:Enable LOGIN APPROVALS by arth1 · · Score: 2

    Enjoy paying 10 cents to your carrier to receive an SMS every time you log in.

    These are people travelling to the US. Not Americans.
    Outside the US, people generally don't pay to receive; only to send.

  17. Re:not such a good idea by ooloorie · · Score: 2

    Actually, the above reason is why the US tried banning (which is currently in the courts) people from these 7 countries

    That's my point: the US government is offering to look at people's social media accounts in lieu of official government records.

    Anyway, the reason they probably want to know their social media activities is that for now, they are forced to let in people from these countries that they can't vet.

    I expect the court order will be overturned quickly. Not admitting people from countries without good government records is reasonable and within Trump's authority.

    Syria, it's tough to expect that the Assad regime, which the US had been trying to topple (not sure if that's still Trump's policy)

    Trump, like Obama, was elected on the promise of putting an end to these kinds of unwise foreign adventures. We'll have to see whether he does a better job than Obama.

  18. How is data "at the border"? by Comboman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How exactly is data sitting on a server in silicon valley "at the border" just because the person who created that data is at the border? By that logic, you can search their car, house, workplace and bank account without a warrant as long as they are standing at the border when you do it.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:How is data "at the border"? by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      I never agreed to not reveal my city of origin. I have agreed not to reveal my Facebook password. Moreover, knowing I live in Minneapolis, while useful in specifically identifying me, does not reveal any private information about me or my friends and family.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  19. Re:I'd be happy ... by Opportunist · · Score: 3

    Try n9y25ah7.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. Re:Just create a fake account by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    The password is "theseassholesmademecreatethisaccount". No caps.Easy to remember.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Prima Nocta by tekrat · · Score: 4, Funny

    "DHS officials also stated that if the wife of a US visitor is good-looking, they want to demand they get to sleep with the woman before allowing entry to the couple..."

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  22. Re:What about people who don't use social media? by JustNiz · · Score: 2

    >> I deleted my facebook several years ago.

    Last I heard this isn't actually possible.