US Ordered 'Mandatory Social Media Check' For Visa Applicants Who Visited ISIS Territory (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has ordered a "mandatory social media check" on all visa applicants who have ever visited ISIS-controlled territory, according to diplomatic cables obtained by Reuters. The four memos were sent to American diplomatic missions over the past two weeks, with the most recent issued on March 17th. According to Reuters, they provide details into a revised screening process that President Donald Trump has described as "extreme vetting." A memo sent on March 16th rescinds some of the instructions that Tillerson outlined in the previous cables, including an order that would have required visa applicants to hand over all phone numbers, email addresses, and social media accounts that they have used in the past. The secretary of state issued the memo after a Hawaii judge blocked the Trump administration's revised travel ban on citizens from six predominantly Muslim countries. In addition to the social media check, the most recent memo calls for consular officials to identify "populations warranting increased scrutiny." Two former government officials tell Reuters that the social media order could lead to delays in processing visa applications, with one saying that such checks were previously carried out on rare occasions.

Comments

I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[amxcoder]

What if I don't have any social media accounts. And what constitutes a "Social Media Account"? Is this just the big ones like Facebook and Twitter? Or does it include all of the off-shoots that tweens are into these days like Instagram, SnapChat, etc.? How about defunct Social Media Accounts like MySpace?

Does it include ANY website that you communicate, like our very own Slashdot, and any random forum you belong too for hobbies, and GitHub and other sites that facilitate communicating with others over certain topics?

The reason for this is to find "terrorists", but how many terrorists are dumb enough to give over their accounts that they use to actively proclaim jihad on the world with? I understand you have to vet people for certain things, but I'm not sure how this will really help, being that it sounds like it's on the "honor" system that you are being truthful and turning all of your accounts over. It also has the flaw in that it assumes that you have Social Media accounts to begin with which many people do not.

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[Brett Buck]

The reason for this is to find "terrorists", but how many terrorists are dumb enough to give over their accounts that they use to actively proclaim jihad on the world with?

        A lot of them, actually. ISIS is very active about it, in fact. I think both the French and Monaco truck-ramming idiots had posts on some social media about jihad. Same with the idiots who shot up the theater.

        These guys are not criminal masterminds, nor are they particularly crafty or intelligent. Something this simple wouldn't stop all of them, but it would at least flag some of them.

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[rtb61]

So your assumption is that Facebook et al demand birth certificates, picture id, fingerprints and DNA prior to opening an account in any particular name. There is real insanity in using something like social media at borders where the validity of any social media account ie what is you name, John Smith, provide social media account details and passwords, I have none, liar John Smith is all over the place, prepare to be strip searched and anal probed and be held in custody until you provide details for all social media accounts tied to John Smith or variants of John Smith. So basically guilty for the entirety of social media until you can prove which accounts are not your account.

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[dgatwood]

Seriously. When I was in high school/college, I had something like thirty FreeNet accounts on different servers around the U.S., just for the heck of it. Do those count? Because if so, I don't have any idea what any of them were.... :-D

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[AHuxley]

Like other nations do, a person gets asked for an email account to track the application.
Bank account shows buying any network product over the years?
So that email account might be asked for.
Re 'give over their accounts that they use to actively proclaim .."
The question is like the old political party question on entry to the USA. All the USA has to find any trace of a lie and access to the USA is revoked.
The more questions asked, the more people might try to hide from the USA.
Its very hard to hide from friends of friends internet usage. A photo?
Facial recognition works well over all the different public and private databases the US has a gov, mil or has access to in the private sector.

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[dbIII]

but it would at least flag some of them.

I doubt it. This is just another example of "something must be done" - spinning wheels to show that there is action but not actually going anywhere.
It's just going to piss off a lot of people and make Bin Laden's ghost laugh at how even the people who like the USA enough to actually want to visit are being encouraged to hate it by little Hitlers on border duty.

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[n329619]

^ This + This v

The problem is neither are the people issuing visa application, checking at the boundary control or making laws.

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[Ihlosi]

What if I don't have any social media accounts.

Then you're either very suspicious or lying, and both warrant extra special treatment. Step over here for a minute ...

And what constitutes a "Social Media Account"?

If your definition is narrower than the authorities' definition, you're potentially in trouble. So: No, yes and yes.

Does it include ANY website that you communicate, like our very own Slashdot, and any random forum you belong too for hobbies, and GitHub and other sites that facilitate communicating with others over certain topics?

If you don't want to be charged with lying to authorties, yes.

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[jandersen]

Easy, if you don't have a social media account, your visa is denied. No skin off our asses.

Ah, yet another 'easy solution'. Yes, I suppose you can be an idiot about if you like, but the thing is, if you consistently behave like an idiot, you will end up being considered an idiot. I can sort of follow the thinking behind this sort of rule, but it is just so heart-breakingly naive. What will happen is that good, honest, well-intentioned people will, as always, be the ones that lose out; the ones that genuinely don't use social media will be under suspicion, whereas if you are an extremist with a busy life on social media, you will just extend the double-life you are probably already living, and have a social media persona that is all about "America is the greatest, Amen, I love democracy, ain't Trump just great?" which they and their pals can laugh themselves silly about, while they continue their real activities under an assumed name. No sweat. And on top of this, the good, patriotic people that make up the majority of the security establishments in the US will loathe being made to act like stupid bullies, so after some time they will probably want to leave - and then all you'll have is the leftovers, the ones that enjoy bullying. How is that good for America?

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[AmiMoJo]

Most of these terrorists are natives anyway. Like the guy who just tried it in London - born as Adrian Russell in Dartford before he changed his name, UK citizen from birth.

The terrorists are actually one step ahead here. They know it is dumb to try to sneak jihadists over borders, at least via legitimate means that pass through border security. Instead they prefer to radicalize vulnerable people already in the target countries, via social media.

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[Alioth]

There is a list.

If you apply for a visa waiver, you will be asked for your social media accounts right now but it is listed as OPTIONAL. There is a list on the visa waiver sites they want you to give details on accounts on, the list has about 30 sites on it as well as an "Other" where you can disclose information about anything else.

It is currently optional, but the question is already there even for visa-waiver countries.

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[coinreturn]

So your assumption is that Facebook et al demand birth certificates, picture id, fingerprints and DNA prior to opening an account in any particular name. There is real insanity in using something like social media at borders where the validity of any social media account ie what is you name, John Smith, provide social media account details and passwords, I have none, liar John Smith is all over the place, prepare to be strip searched and anal probed and be held in custody until you provide details for all social media accounts tied to John Smith or variants of John Smith. So basically guilty for the entirety of social media until you can prove which accounts are not your account.

Well they could look at all the pictures of John Smith and see if any are obviously you, or if any of them posted about just visiting the country you're coming from. Of course this assumes you're dumb enough to have privacy settings that allow unknowns to peruse your profile.

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The same type of terrorists who are dumb enough to think that Allah will reward them with 72 virgins for wearing an explosive vest.

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[coofercat]

...although it arguably puts up the "cost of doing business" for ISIS. That is, they now (may) have to make up fake social media accounts over a period of many months/years to make one their dodgy people look 'clean'.

I'd imagine though, if you want to get anyone 'dodgy' into the US, a fake passport is probably a lot easier than fake social media accounts.

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[stephanruby]

What if I don't have any social media accounts.

"Just don't lie. It's 10 years in Gitmo if you lie. Remember Martha Stewart. She went to prison because she lied to Federal agents. You're not a Martha Stewart? Are you?"

"Is that your iPhone? Please unlock it for us. Yes, my colleague will return your iPhone shortly to you. It just takes a few minutes."

"Has anyone else used that iPhone other than yourself? Please write down their names, contact info, dates, and circumstances in which they did."

"What's your email address?"

"Any other email address? Keep in mind that the average traveler in your age group that comes to the United States has used at least 12 email addresses over the years. It would be very suspicious and we would probably require a full body cavity search if you only provided one, especially if it had very few messages in its inbox, and you'd probably miss your connecting flight delaying the rest of your family. "

"Ok, sexfocashmesohony at Yahoo dot com "

"We're almost done. One last question. Provide a list of your 10 closest Facebook friends and their contact information. "

"Yes, the ones that you're constantly bitching and complaining to because they've stopped inviting you to events since you're not on Facebook. "

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[Miser]

You most definitely have me beat. During the heydey of freenets I had about 14 or so. Unfortunately they are all long gone. I remember the first time I telnet'ted to the Cleveland Freenet and marveled I could access a computer system in Cleveland from my home town for "free".

Miser

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[erapert]

What will happen is that good, honest, well-intentioned people will, as always, be the ones that lose out

I'm pretty sure that well-intentioned, good, honest people won't vacation in ISIS land and then blog about how Americans should all be killed.
So you're wrong. Good, honest, well-intentioned people won't have anything to worry about from this.

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[michael_wojcik]

These guys are not criminal masterminds, nor are they particularly crafty or intelligent. Something this simple wouldn't stop all of them, but it would at least flag some of them.

Indeed. What we have seen so far is a run of shockingly low-quality terrorists, and we should applaud Tillerson's efforts to get us a better class of them.

Re:I don't have any you insensitive clod!

[LienRag]

What will happen is that good, honest, well-intentioned people will, as always, be the ones that lose out;

What makes you think that's not the goal?

good

[Anonymous Coward]

Some checking on people who have been in war zones with our stated enemies. Seems specific enough in target and restrained enough in scope.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

But ISIS countries are MUSLIM! Which means this is a MUSLIM BAN! Trump is a BIGOT, a FASCIST, and LITERALLY HITLER!

Re:good

[0123456]

They should only be allowed a visa to visit Hawaii, since Hawaii likes terrorists so much.

Uh.... what?

[mark-t]

...required visa applicants to hand over all phone numbers, email addresses, and social media accounts that they have used in the past

*ever*???

Personally, I know I wouldn't even be able to begin to comply with this kind of demand. I don't remember all of the old phone numbers I've had. All social media accounts? Does that include aliases on bulletin board systems from the 1980's? Again, I couldn't comply because I don't remember them all. I probably have about a half dozen expired email accounts at old internet service providers, some of which don't even exist anymore, where I can maybe remember half of them.

Re:Uh.... what?

[chipschap]

I was once asked to list every address I had ever lived at. That's just about impossible unless you stayed in the house into which you were born for your whole life.

Re:Uh.... what?

[DonaId Trump]

No kidding. Hell, my browser has 6 different Slashdot logins stored *right now*, not counting all the other ones I've used going back 15 years. Email addresses would be practically impossible, even going on a "best effort" basis. I give out a new email address every time I sign up for a different website or get tied into some store's rewards program.

Phone numbers are likely to provide some real intel, but the whole idea of collecting social media accounts is laughable on its face. It's preposterous to think some evil-doer is going to fill out a visa application and truthfully put down "@al_jihadi_death2america" in the section for Twitter accounts. They'll just leave it blank or fill in some dummy account.

Re:Uh.... what?

[SlashGodet]

Reminds me of healthcare demands for past surgery/hospitalization/diagnoses. WTF who can remember.

Re:Uh.... what?

[chipschap]

That's sort of a corollary to this.

"List every place you've ever lived from birth to the present. Give complete address details including apartment numbers, postal codes, and exact starting and ending dates specifying month, day, and year. In each case, state your reason for moving. There may be no gaps in the dates. Write legibly and clearly."

And of course, the space for listing this is about a half inch tall.

Re:Uh.... what?

[Kjella]

I was once asked to list every address I had ever lived at. That's just about impossible unless you stayed in the house into which you were born for your whole life.

That's highly individual but I think a lot of people can do that. I tried to do a count for myself and arrived at eleven, I can name all the cities and most the roads, but if I dug through all my papers I could probably find all the addresses. I don't think I know any that's literally lived all their lives at the same address, but I know one that's only had two. Now this might be statistically biased since the only people I can follow through most their lives are the people who stayed in my home town, but I know quite a few that are between five and ten. The stereotype is often:

1. Birth home. Because parents don't want to take kids away from friends etc. same place ~20 years.
2. Collective or other shared accommodation, often combined with studies.
3. Own apartment / relocate for work
4. Share bigger apartment with partner
5. Get kids, buy house or the other way around. Stay in house (see 1)
6. Sell house, buy apartment for retirement.

And maybe few extra that is essentially the same, but nicer. Like going from a basement to a penthouse apartment or one house while you had babies/toddlers but then a nicer one with more space to kids' rooms before they start school or stuff like that. Or they're looping a bit on that move together, move apart but really most couples hold off until they're fairly sure this is a keeper. Now there's exceptions to this, people who rent with furniture and switch places al the time but for most moving is a giant pain in the ass that they don't do very often.

Re:Uh.... what?

[TheRaven64]

2. Collective or other shared accommodation, often combined with studies.

It's pretty common to move accommodation for each year of a degree, so this can easily be 3-4, more if you do a PhD or similar (though people often find a place for the whole of their PhD). I can remember the second and third places I lived as a student (I stayed in the same place for two years of undergrad and then for the whole of my PhD), but the first was university-owned accommodation and I don't recall the exact address - I certainly don't remember post codes for all of them.

Re:Uh.... what?

[cdrudge]

Oh you can't comply? Well sorry, visa denied. It's a practically impossible task, especially if you go back to the 80s for those BBS accounts, even earlier for phone numbers, or include one-time/throwaway accounts we've all created.

Re:Uh.... what?

[coinreturn]

I was once asked to list every address I had ever lived at. That's just about impossible unless you stayed in the house into which you were born for your whole life.

Um, no. I've lived at 11 addresses and I can recall all except two that were temporary relocations (and I can partially recall them). Granted, it is a ridiculous request. Perhaps all the addresses you've lived at for the last seven years?

Re:Uh.... what?

[DontBeAMoran]

Not all of us, but those who are racist are sorry about it.

Re:Uh.... what?

[houghi]

I use my landline only for ADSL. I have had it for 10 years or so. I have NO idea what that number is. And that is a current number that is in use.
And at one point I tried out dozens of free email account services. Pretty sure some of these exist, but I have no idea if they do or not.
And I do not even know if I have an email account with my provider. Probably is in the package, but no idea what the adress would be.

Re:Uh.... what?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I've had 3 but I would need to use the Google Maps trick for one of them.

Re:Uh.... what?

[mark-t]

Yeah.... and what about places that you lived where you were too young to remember? I know for a fact that my parents moved at least twice before I was 3, but I would never be able to tell you the addresses, all I know are the city/town names.

Re:Uh.... what?

[mjwx]

I was once asked to list every address I had ever lived at. That's just about impossible unless you stayed in the house into which you were born for your whole life.

I can list every single one of my permanent residences. I've had 12 thus far in my life.

However the only time I've been asked to list all of them was to attain Top Secret clearance whilst working at the Australian Tax Office (and that was a requirement because I might accidentally see something classified Top Secret, not that I handled classified info.. the joys of tech support).

Re:So now Trump controls where we vacation

[Anonymous Coward]

You need a visa to return to the US after vacation? Or did you miss that part of the full title.

Non-citizens who want to take a vacation with our enemies have volunteered for a little extra scrutiny when they then want to visit us.

If I'm ever asked about my social media...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'm just going create a bunch of porn profiles with just dick pics to hand over and see what their biometrics think of that. Just being a Good Samaritan. Have a few with cartoony smiley faces and AK-47s. If they turn it down, it's not my problem. It tried. If everyone did that, they'd stop just like they did when people pulled their pants down at airports a decade ago. You'd hope anyway. One of the male agents just smiles at you. Cavity search. :( Says he needs more "biometric data."

Marketing tool for Facebook!

[SlashGodet]

Hah! Government/biz connections run deep. Marketing tool for Facebook 'nuff said.

Re:So now Trump controls where we vacation

[Anonymous Coward]

Quiet, don't interrupt the two minutes hate.

Here's the actual problem,

[Anonymous Coward]

Any information you hand over is you consenting to a search. They will make feel like you can't get into the country without a social media account. That's not true. It's just a scare tactic. Worst case, by a shitty $40 Android, get a Twitter account, then throw the fucking thing away. Any one asks, you lost it and forgot the password. If you gotta do it again, who cares. You already spent hundreds of dollars flying. I wanna know where are all the NAACP related groups and protestors on this? Anyone noticed that? Not a single one. It's just 9/11 united in hatred and ignorance bullshit group think all over again. The only difference is, the previous voters and the next round of legal voters weren't even alive or only 3 years old when it happened. God only knows what they told them in school about it. That's a scary thought. Can we not have a republican dictator that justifies his actions based on religion or the need to feel like Patton? Has the U.S. EVER had a republican leader without starting a war during his term? How's this any different from the 1950s red scare bullshit? The ONLY people with the authority to deal with terrorism are also the same people with the ONLY means of identifying and labeling such activities. It's all bullshit to control people with fear. Keep people in church, keep people stupid by making education expensive, and keep them scared.

Re:Here's the actual problem,

[0123456]

Hint: this is for Visa applications. That is, for foreigners who aren't allowed to visit America without one, and are supplying this information in their own country.

And it's for Visa applications from people who like to hang out with ISIS, which should be an automatic denial in any sane world.

Re:Here's the actual problem,

[ooloorie]

Any information you hand over is you consenting to a search. They will make feel like you can't get into the country without a social media account. That's not true. It's just a scare tactic.

Admission of non-citizens into the US is not a right and is not subject to due process. Non-citizens can be denied entry for arbitrary reasons, not just in the US but also in all other countries on the planet. How do I know? I have lived in half a dozen countries and immigrated to the US.

Even as a citizen, you can be searched at the border.

It's just 9/11 united in hatred and ignorance bullshit group think all over again.

The "ignorance and group think" is people like you who confuse legal protections of citizens with immigration procedures.

I wanna know where are all the NAACP related groups and protestors on this?

Quite apart from the legal issues, the NAACP stands up for the rights and advancement of a population that suffers from, on average, lower education, lower skills, and lower incomes. What possible reason would the NAACP have to advocate the admission into the US of even more people who compete for already scarce low skill jobs?

Re:Here's the actual problem,

[Strider-]

And it's for Visa applications from people who like to hang out with ISIS, which should be an automatic denial in any sane world.

Or all the folks who worked as contractors supporting US efforts in the region. I'm not in a Visa country, but I've been to several areas that have been controlled by Daesh, working as a civilian contractor.

Re:Here's the actual problem,

[dbIII]

people who like to hang out with ISIS

ISIL/Daash may want it pretend they do but ISIL is not actually running a country. They are one of the smaller rebel groups in Syria and Iraq. Being in the same area as a thinly spread bunch of criminals does not also make you are criminal, especially if you are one of the people actively fighting these criminals, such as the Kurdish groups that we provide military aid to. Those are the sort of people who will be visiting the USA and they are the sort of people who have already had a lot of problems with travel bans. Did you miss the disputes where the Pentagon had to get involved over the first travel ban? It was over people who were working for them from the same areas covered by this new bit of security theatre.

Re:Here's the actual problem,

[dryeo]

Admission of non-citizens into the US is not a right and is not subject to due process. Non-citizens can be denied entry for arbitrary reasons, not just in the US but also in all other countries on the planet.

On the other hand, the US signed a treaty (actually a couple) that says my wife and son, both not citizens of the USA, can wander into the USA any time they want. According to the American Constitution, treaties are the second highest law of the land, just below the Constitution. Of course America being America, all it takes is a Supreme Court Justice to say, "no, the Constitution actually means something else" and America has a long history of breaking their own laws and especially treaties. Probably the reason they dropped the u out of honour.
Through other treaties and such, my son also has the right to go to a few other countries as well.

Re:Here's the actual problem,

[luis_a_espinal]

Admission of non-citizens into the US is not a right and is not subject to due process. Non-citizens can be denied entry for arbitrary reasons, not just in the US but also in all other countries on the planet.

On the other hand, the US signed a treaty (actually a couple) that says my wife and son, both not citizens of the USA, can wander into the USA any time they want. According to the American Constitution, treaties are the second highest law of the land, just below the Constitution. Of course America being America, all it takes is a Supreme Court Justice to say, "no, the Constitution actually means something else" and America has a long history of breaking their own laws and especially treaties. Probably the reason they dropped the u out of honour. Through other treaties and such, my son also has the right to go to a few other countries as well.

As someone (also) married to a foreign national, what he said.

The OP's arbitrary posture on non-nationals is in the same category as people demanding immigration vetting of Puerto Rican and people from Guam and American Samoa (who are US citizens) moving to the mainland (yes, I've heard this, multiple times.)

Posturing about the law, and ignorance of the law, them two make a saucy shit sandwich. Every. Time.

Re:Here's the actual problem,

[ooloorie]

On the other hand, the US signed a treaty (actually a couple) that says my wife and son, both not citizens of the USA, can wander into the USA any time they want

Really? A treaty that grants non-citizens unconditional legal rights to enter the US? Being an immigrant myself, most of whose family lives outside the US, I'd love to hear about that! Can you provide pointers?

Re:Here's the actual problem,

[ooloorie]

Posturing about the law, and ignorance of the law, them two make a saucy shit sandwich. Every. Time

I've lived as an immigrant and guest worker for much of my life, and I've always understood that immigration is a privilege, that as an immigrant I do not have most of the rights of citizens, and that until I become a citizen, I can be asked to leave at any time. Even now that I am a citizen, my family abroad has no right to visit me here or live with me (although they occasionally enjoy that privilege after going through the paperwork). That's the way US and international law both work and have always worked.

And I agree: posturing and ignorance of the law are the problem here, namely posturing by people who evidently know little about (or deliberately misrepresent, for self-serving reasons) immigration-related law in the US and abroad and who naively assume for political and ideological reason that fairness demands that non-citizens are treated like citizens.

And US law is also clear that border searches are not police searches.

Re:Here's the actual problem,

[JesseMcDonald]

I've lived as an immigrant and guest worker for much of my life, and I've always understood that immigration is a privilege, that as an immigrant I do not have most of the rights of citizens, and that until I become a citizen, I can be asked to leave at any time.

You're selling yourself short. Your rights are not defined by the government's whims. You have just as much right to be here as anyone born within the geopolitical boundaries of the United States. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise (including the U.S. government) is infringing on your natural rights as a sentient being.

Re:Here's the actual problem,

[HeckRuler]

First off, whatever label used will eventually be a slur or co-opted. Welcome to the treadmill. Language sucks. If you're trying to steer it though, you should at least offer your preferred alternative. The alt-right / right / conservatives / republicans have it just as bad.

Second, I'm not sure you should jump to the conclusion that any idiotic statement on our side of the fence must be some false-flag trolling operation. Both camps are HUGE and we both have our fair share of idiots. Unless we call them out and self-police a little, then the idiots will flock to us and we'll be as bad as those TEA partiers. Some people will simply fight anything and everything suggested by Trump. And that's dangerous. ISIS is really deplorable. They should not be defended even tangentially.

Really, it ought to be:

First they came for the muslims, and you agreed because they look like ISIS. Next they will come for you, and all your bootlicking nazi buddies will turn against you.

This issue here though? With the visas for those from "ISIS controlled territory"? For the uninformed, that's fancy-talk for "Syrian refugees". And of course those people should be investigated. The newsworthy bit is that it calls out social media. Like what the hell is a "social media check"? If someone's friend posts to their cat-picture-post on facebook with "durka muhamed jihad", and a search tool hits that, is that it? Check failed? Entry denied?

Re:Here's the actual problem,

[ooloorie]

You have just as much right to be here as anyone born within the geopolitical boundaries of the United States

Now that I am a naturalized citizen I do. Before naturalization, I did not.

"vacation"

[SuperKendall]

Just why would you "vacation" in areas controlled by ISIS?

Are you also ne of those idiots that go hiking along the border of Iran?

Re:"vacation"

[Anonymous Coward]

Subway brand falafel patties aren't nearly authentic enough.

Re:"vacation"

[Jiro]

This is part of a sustained attack on journalism by the Trump administration.

What journalists are going to need a visa to come to the US?

Re:"vacation"

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who get killed if they stay.

The only people who are safe in ISIS-controlled areas are fundamentalists.
Terrorists OTOH will just get a visa and a fake passport from Saudi.

This regulation is specifically to avoid having to take care of refugees that exists because of the power shift that happened because of the war in Iraq.

Re:"vacation"

[Anonymous Coward]

>What journalists are going to need a visa to come to the US?

Every non-US national who wants to do journalism work in the US, no matter the duration of the stay. So this would include non-US journalists from many respected publications and agencies including AFP, the BBC, Al Jazeera (the English-language branch of which is stuffed with former BBC World Service talent), Der Spiegel, Le Monde, Financial Times, etc, etc, etc, not to mention non-US nationals who work for US-based services like the AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, etc, etc, etc.

Re:"vacation"

[Sique]

Even terrorists are not safe in ISIS controlled areas. To keep up discipline, ISIS uses extreme measures including executions also against their own people.

Re:"vacation"

[TheRaven64]

It's been over a decade since the US tightened the visa restrictions so that everyone wanting to come into the country as a practicing journalist must have a visa, even if they're from one of the visa-waiver countries. You can bet that if you tick that box, you're already going to come under a lot of extra scrutiny (and if you don't, but then publish anything written about your time in the USA, expect to be denied entry the next time).

Re:"vacation"

[Alioth]

All foreign journalists need a visa to go to the US.

Journalists do not qualify for visa free travel, even if they are from a visa waiver country, if they are going to the US for the purpose of journalism. (All other professions can go on business trips to the US visa-free - but journalists have always been excluded from this since the visa waiver program began).

Re:"vacation"

[NatasRevol]

British ones? Canadian ones?

I mean how fucking stupid IS this question.

Telephone Game: Racist Edition

[dcollins]

Reuters version -- "applicants who have ever been present in territory controlled by the Islamic State" * (link)
Verge version -- "applicants who have ever visited ISIS-controlled territory" (link)
Parent version -- "applications from people who like to hang out with ISIS" (above)

* Comprised in the majority of citizens who were victims, prisoners, kidnapped, abused, forced slaves and wives, i.e., any brown-skinned refugees.

Re:Telephone Game: Racist Edition

[No Longer an AC]

Because they have relatives in both the US and Syria.

And how you distinguish someone who just visited their parents in Damascus with someone who says they visited their parents in Damascus but spent most of their "vacation" in Raqqa?

Re: Telephone Game: Racist Edition

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the huddled masses yearning to be free don't mean much to entitled Americans who did nothing at all throughout their lives to deserve to be here.

Re: Telephone Game: Racist Edition

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You're literally worse than the stinking Communists that actually let me visit my West German grandfather.

Re:Telephone Game: Racist Edition

[Anonymous Coward]

Business?
I'm a "prototype white male", of European heritage, lived my entire life in Europe.
West Europe at that, not in those Eastern parts!
But I've been to Iraq, so I guess I'm applicable for this background search?

Now, I design electronics for a living. "Is the manufacturer based in the USA" is actually
starting to become a real design input. Its an easy filter to apply so I don't need
to even be concerned about the possibility of this type of nonsense.

Posting AC for obvious reasons!

Re: Telephone Game: Racist Edition

[ooloorie]

You're literally worse than the stinking Communists that actually let me visit my West German grandfather.

Why would communists prevent you from visiting your West German grandfather? West Germany was never run by communists.

As for the "stinking Communists", their problem was that they violated the fundamental right of people to leave their country. That's why most of my family couldn't visit me after I emigrated, being stuck behind the iron curtain and all that. Of course, it was easy for Westerners to visit East Germany: Westerners brought hard currency and were very unlikely to stay in those shitholes.

Immigrants like myself who actually have first-hand experience with "stinking Communism" need to speak up to prevent ignorant, privileged fools like you from turning the US into the kind of shitholes we came from.

Re: Telephone Game: Racist Edition

[b0bby]

You're literally worse than the stinking Communists that actually let me visit my West German grandfather.

Why would communists prevent you from visiting your West German grandfather? West Germany was never run by communists.

I know nothing about K. S. Kyosuke, but I interpreted that to mean he (she?) had grown up in East Germany or at least the Eastern bloc, but had been able to travel to West Germany.

Re: Telephone Game: Racist Edition

[ooloorie]

I know nothing about K. S. Kyosuke, but I interpreted that to mean he (she?) had grown up in East Germany or at least the Eastern bloc, but had been able to travel to West Germany.

That wouldn't support his argument. We're talking about a (putative, non-existent) right to enter another country as a non-citizen.

The transgression of the "stinking Communists" was an entirely different one: they violated the (established) right of citizens to leave their country of citizenship.

And speaking as someone whose family actually suffered for decades under "stinking Communists" and who has actually lived as an immigrant much of his life, it is incomprehensible to me how anybody who claims to have been affected by the "stinking Communists" could fail to understand the distinction.

Re: Telephone Game: Racist Edition

[HeckRuler]

Jesus christ dude, they're both freedom of movement issues.

Re:Telephone Game: Racist Edition

[Cajun Hell]

And those people should be coming to America because?

Possibly the same reason you are in America, whatever that may be. People gotta be somewhere, and America (in spite of our embarrassing fuckwittery) has a lot of great things going for it. I realize it's subjective and we all have different opinions, but it's not unreasonable for people to prefer America. (And yes, it's not unreasonable for someone to prefer somewhere else instead.) We really do have our attractions. If you don't think those attractions make us the right choice for you (or someone else), that's fine, but if you don't think they exist then you're too dumb to be talking to.

If you can't think of a reason for choosing America, go ahead and leave. Plenty of people will be happy to take your place. Everyone can be a winner, even you.

Re: Telephone Game: Racist Edition

[ooloorie]

Jesus christ dude, they're both freedom of movement issues.

Freedom of movement is a well-defined and widely recognized right that encompasses (UN definition):

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

For your personal amusement, you can extend that list by whatever movement-related criteria you want, but your personal amusement does not create new human rights.

In particular, there is no "(3) Everyone has the right to enter any country they choose."

Not from "predominantly Muslim countries"

[SuperKendall]

The secretary of state issued the memo after a Hawaii judge blocked the Trump administration's revised travel ban on citizens from six predominantly Muslim countries.

The ban is for six predominately islamic extremist countries. Are you bigoted against Muslims or something?

Re:Not from "predominantly Muslim countries"

[coinreturn]

The secretary of state issued the memo after a Hawaii judge blocked the Trump administration's revised travel ban on citizens from six predominantly Muslim countries.

The ban is for six predominately islamic extremist countries. Are you bigoted against Muslims or something?

WTF? The countries are not "predominantly islamic extremist." That would require more than 50% of the population to be extremists.

Re:Not from "predominantly Muslim countries"

[SuperKendall]

That would require more than 50% of the population to be extremists.

Read it and weep.

Re:Not from "predominantly Muslim countries"

[coinreturn]

That would require more than 50% of the population to be extremists.

Read it and weep.

If you are claiming that the majority of Muslims are extremists, then the word extreme loses it's meaning.

I sure feel safer

[OrangeTide]

Knowing that we won't have to worry about people who say upsetting things on Twitter.

fixed that for you

[ooloorie]

Just as true...

The secretary of state issued the memo after a Hawaii judge blocked the Trump administration's revised travel ban on citizens from six predominantly white male countries.

FTFY

I keep hearing this....

[Anonymous Coward]

But shouldn't Saudi Arabia top that list, followed by Turkey and only then Iran and any other 'extremist' countries?

America's bedfellows are the biggest terrorist supporters in the Middle East, bar none.

Re:I keep hearing this....

[coinreturn]

The list was made in 2012 by the Obama administration and has not been amended.

If you had a problem with the list, you should have spoken up when the democrats made it.

Stop pushing that lie. It was created by a Republican Congress and put into a bill that Obama signed

Re:Complicity

[Sique]

The phone number is just a term for a search in all the big databases with surveillance data. If any of your phone number comes up close to some fishy affair, you are guilty by association.

So how do you enforce that?

[DrXym]

The US doesn't know who has visited those territories at any point in their lives. Nor does it know if these people have social media accounts or not. Nor does it know whether the accounts that it is told about are their genuine accounts or just some phony "legend" accounts that are intended to be innocuous. Providing the person doesn't walk through with their phone / laptop signed into an incriminating account its hard to see what the US can do.

To me it doesn't seem like it serves any purpose at all except to act as more bureaucracy and another excuse to turn "undesirables" away for infringing some petty and onerous rule.

Re:So how do you enforce that?

[angel'o'sphere]

The USA does know.
Most of those areas where ISIS rules are still part of an official country that requires a VISA to enter. Hence you have a stamp of that country in your passport and to get a VISA for the USA you have to show your passport ...

Here's a business idea

[Opportunist]

Are you worried that law enforcement, border control or even the prospective in-laws could want to take a look at your Facebook, your Twitter, your Instagram? We have the solution for you!

We whitewash your official social media pages, keep them updated with goodie-two-shoes stories (your choice how much saccharine is to be added) to make it look active and not a fake profile, while you open up your very own, private social media account where you can be yourself all you want. Your future mother-in-law wants to get access to your private Facebook pages, locked from public viewing? Your future employer wants to violate your privacy and demands you hand over your Facebook details? Now you can show them what they want to see. And decide what they should see.

We can even make it appear that you're friends with key people in your business, our SEO-professionals are standing by!

Re:Here's a business idea

[Opportunist]

What's that you say? You do not have a Facebook, Twitter or Instagram account yet? But you don't want to look like you're trying to hide something in your next job interview or your next trip abroad? No worries, we will provide you with a complete profile, either with a persona you choose or one that we create for you. Choose from a wide range of hobbies and volunteer activities that should impress any boss dishonest enough to snoop in your private area. We offer a variety of community services you can claim to be part of, ranging from religious to communal.

For an extra fee, we will adjust your profile to fit the profile of a prospective employer to make you more appealing to the person who will lead the interview! Some limitations apply (i.e. if you're a lardball, don't try to claim you're participating in Ironman, there's even limits to what we can fake).

Re: So now Trump controls where we vacation

[stealth_finger]

Are the pitchforks sharp? They need to be sharp enough to disembowel all the billionaires. It's hunting season!

No, but all the better, right?

Brilliant

[PoopJuggler]

This will absolutely work. Those idiot terrorists would never be clever enough to create fake profiles.

Re:So now Trump controls where we vacation

[wisnoskij]

No, it was the Obama administration which decided people who have visited Middle Eastern Warzones warranted extra screening. And social media checks have been a standard practice for border guards for years now.

Yes, of course!

[Ihlosi]

*ever*???

Yes, of course. The point of these questions is not just to acquire information, it's also to get you to provide false information, i.e. lie. Then you can be easily charged with lying to immigration authorities.

Personally, I know I wouldn't even be able to begin to comply with this kind of demand.

Well that's too bad.

Does that include aliases on bulletin board systems from the 1980's?

If someone else can still prove that you had this account, yes.

Re:So now Trump controls where we vacation

[Anonymous Coward]

What the Obama administration decided was that people from visa waiver countries who have visited certain countries, other than on diplomatic and some business visits, could not come to the US on the visa waiver program for 5 years. The "extra screening" was to apply for a visa in advance, and have the same screening as other non-visa waiver visitors.

Re: So now Trump controls where we vacation

[kilfarsnar]

I admire billionaires. I seek to be rich like they are. Why wouldn't you? Do you like being a poor chump?

Personally, it's because I believe that behind every great fortune is a great crime. You can't accumulate money at that scale without fucking people over in some way.

Re:So now Trump controls where we vacation

[kent_eh]

Non-citizens who want to take a vacation with our enemies

So, that includes Red Rross, MSF, and other NGO staff and volunteers who "took a vacation with our enemies" too?

Re: So now Trump controls where we vacation

[NatasRevol]

That's pretty fucking sad.

Re:So now Trump controls where we vacation

[Marxist Hacker 42]

About bloody time. Anybody who "Vacations" in ISIS territory falls into one of three categories:
1. Liberal Christians about to become martyrs.
2. People who have become radicalized Islamic Jihadi going there to train for suicide missions.
3. Aid workers.

Examining their social media accounts will quickly sort them into one of these three groups, and allow us to stop #2 from traveling.

Re:So now Trump controls where we vacation

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Good. They've been our enemy a heck of a lot longer than we've recognized that they were an enemy- in many cases with hatred for the west going back over 1400 years.

The whole internet...

[ka9dgx]

Examing the nature of searches that take place at our boarders gives a hint of the strategy the US is using to weed out terrorists. It is apparent that the US government hasn't figured out:
1. It is possible to have multiple social media identities
2. The entire Internet is ISIS territory
3. Harassing people who want to enter the US is bad for business

Given the near total spectrum surveillance that we know the US has over the Internet thanks to Snowden, I'm surprised things are so ham-fisted. There are much better ways to do this, I hope (and it's all I can do, because of secrecy and lack of accountability) that the balance is more towards using this capability for good, and less on stalking ex's and personal gain.

Re:So now Trump controls where we vacation

[GameboyRMH]

Don't forget journalists, who will also have to hand over their social media logins...

Re: So now Trump controls where we vacation

[Anonymous Coward]

This belief of yours...is it motivating you to seek out legitimate means of making a fortune, and to act on them?

Or is it motivating you to not even bother trying, and hence to remain poor for your entire life?

Our values drive our decisions, which in turn determine our results. Sometimes a little optimism, even if naive, can drive the decisions that get good results.

Re: So now Trump controls where we vacation

[Zero__Kelvin]

You are assuming said screening involves you giving up your passwords for your accounts. If you are a US citizen they cannot do that legally. Of course they will look to see who has posted against Trump and harass them for a good long time before finally letting them back in.

absolutely. BUT ADD AQ/Taliban to that as well

[WindBourne]

Seriously, if somebody has visited a place like Pakistan, Iran, OR ANY NATION NEXT TO THESE, and is not from there, it is far more likely that they are up to more than simple vacationing.

Re:So now Trump controls where we vacation

[newslash.formatblows]

"take a vacation with our enemies"? That's either deliberate Trump-like misrepresentation, or plain old stupidity. You certainly made a good call posting it as AC.

Re:So now Trump controls where we vacation

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And it should be obvious by their social media activity who they are. Same thing applies for this fourth category.

Re:So now Trump controls where we vacation

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Completely agreed. But from THEIR point of view, even when we were arming them, we were the enemy.

Re: So now Trump controls where we vacation

[Marxist Hacker 42]

For the first 700 of those years, there were no crusades. But there were the invasions of North Africa, Gaul (Spain), Byzantium and Sicily, not to mention Israel. All Islamic

Re:So now Trump controls where we vacation

[Toad-san]

And there's something wrong with that? (The part about extra scrutiny for non-citizens who want to visit us.)

This doesn't address the American citizens who want to go visit the warm friendly beaches and cities of ISIS-occupied territory, of course. Not that they'd make it clear where they were going when they left anyway. (How _does_ one get a visa for Syria or western Iraq anyway?)

Re: So now Trump controls where we vacation

[mrvan]

For the first 700 of those years, there were no crusades. But there were the invasions of North Africa, Gaul (Spain), Byzantium and Sicily, not to mention Israel. All Islamic

622 - start of Islamic calendar
715 - conquest of Spain
1096 - First crusade arrives in the Levant

So if with 700 years, you mean about 400... sure :-)

(a 300 year difference might not feel like much in this context, but note that the US declaration of independence was well less than 300 years ago...)

(Please also note that Israel was founded in 1948 so is well outside this timeline, and if you mean the biblical Jewish kingdoms, they were conquered by the Romans well before the Muslims. AFAIK there were no jewish-ruled territories conquered by the Muslims, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)

I literally couldn't satisfy this requirement

[Miamicanes]

If DHS ever expanded this to include American citizens who travel abroad and need to re-enter the US, I'd never be able to leave the country without risking prison for omitting hundreds of email addresses and website logins from the disclosure form. Why? I've used SO MANY email addresses and website logins over the years, I couldn't accurately disclose 90% of them EVEN IF I TRIED. And frankly, it would be a cold day in hell before I ever did it voluntarily, because even IF I trusted the government to act with 100% professionalism and good faith, there's always the risk some future activist hacker group might get a hold of it and ruin the lives of a few hundred million people for shits & giggles by posting it all online.

As it stands, I'm effectively trapped in the US -- unable to even visit Canada, Mexico, or the Bahamas -- because a fucking 3-day vacation would derail my life for weeks before and after the trip. At the VERY LEAST, I'd have to buy a throwaway phone and laptop, spend days configuring both, and dump them at a loss on eBay afterwards (on the likelihood that Customs & Border Control installed advanced persistent malware on one or both capable of surviving anything I could realistically do to remove them, and neither would ever be trustworthy again).

Ironically, the one website account I'd have few qualms about disclosing to them is Facebook, mainly because I use it so infrequently, and disclose so little, they'd probably think it was a throw-away burner account even though it's actually my real one.

Re:So now Trump controls where we vacation

[mjwx]

You need a visa to return to the US after vacation? Or did you miss that part of the full title.

Non-citizens who want to take a vacation with our enemies have volunteered for a little extra scrutiny when they then want to visit us.

I think you've missed the bit where they don't need an additional law to check a citizens social media... They've been doing that for years now.

Due to the fact that visas are an intricate system of international agreements, they have to follow procedures to do this kind of thing to non-citizens.

Also, how dumb are the people who come up with this kind of security theatre. So a terrorist goes through years of training and indoctrination just to blab about bombing the US on Facebook. Its dumber than the laptop ban. So Achmed the tablet bomber cant fly direct from Ankara to London with his rigged Ipad... I'm sure he's said, "OK fellas, they've stopped us. We cant bomb the great Satan any more so lets just give up" instead of flying from Ankara to Sofia where he can bring is tablet, then from Sofia to London, again, with said tablet. I mean it's not like Bulgaria is right above Turkey or anything.

If this was a credible threat, why is it not being applied to everyone... from everywhere.

Besides, I'm certain they'd never think of creating a clean social networking profile to fool customs and immigration.

Re:So now Trump controls where we vacation

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I really don't want that job.

Learning to see things from other people's point of view is how I have learned to cope with my High Functioning Autism. It is a useful people skill that has led to promotions at work. I suggest you try it.

Re: So now Trump controls where we vacation

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Thank you for both correcting my point with more accurate data while making my point.

I meant really the Christian Israel under the Byzantine Church, but the point is well made- Christendom was slow to anger by 4 centuries of insult, and it was the Islamics who attacked first.

Re: So now Trump controls where we vacation

[kilfarsnar]

This belief of yours...is it motivating you to seek out legitimate means of making a fortune, and to act on them?

Or is it motivating you to not even bother trying, and hence to remain poor for your entire life?

Our values drive our decisions, which in turn determine our results. Sometimes a little optimism, even if naive, can drive the decisions that get good results.

It's driving me to work a well-paying professional IT job and not think much about raising a fortune. I save for retirement, but that's different. Where I live we still have a decent sized middle class. My choices are not between making a fortune and being poor.

Re: So now Trump controls where we vacation

[michael_wojcik]

I admire billionaires. I seek to be rich like they are. Why wouldn't you? Do you like being a poor chump?

Yes, there's a valid dichotomy. My four-year-old granddaughter constructs more-nuanced arguments than that.

Do you like being a poor thinker?