Slashdot Mirror
US To Seek Social Media Details From Certain Visa Applicants (phys.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: The State Department wants to review social media, email addresses and phone numbers from some foreigners seeking U.S. visas, as part of the Trump administration's enhanced screening of potential immigrants and visitors. The department, in a notice published Thursday in the Federal Register, said it was seeking public comment on the requirement. But it also said it is requesting a temporary go-ahead from the White House budget office so the plan can take effect for 180 days, beginning May 18, regardless of those comments. The proposed requirements would apply to visa applicants identified for extra scrutiny, such as those who have traveled to areas controlled by terrorist organizations. The State Department said it estimates that the rules would affect about 0.5 percent of total U.S. visa applicants, or roughly 65,000 people. Affected applicants would have to provide their social media handles and platforms used during the previous five years, and divulge all phone numbers and email addresses used during that period. U.S. consular officials would not seek social media passwords, and would not try to breach any privacy controls on applicants' accounts, according to the department's notice.
Now just an "estimated" lucky few will be felt up right up the social networks and required to list every email address and telephone number they ever had.
So that's not everybody, always. So that's totally okay, right?
I'm not a Visa applicant, so whatever! This doesn't affect me!
The proposed requirements would apply to visa applicants identified for extra scrutiny, such as those who have traveled to areas controlled by terrorist organizations...
This sentence should read...
The proposed requirements would apply to visa applicants identified for extra scrutiny, such as those who have traveled to areas controlled by terrorist organizations as defined by the USA.
Emphasis mine - Just to be clear since who a terrorist is to one entity, might be a "hero" of sorts to another.
Now, before I get crucified here, lets remember that the Taliban were once supported by the USA. During that time, some called them terrorists. What they are to the USA now, is well known.
I must be tired, first thing I thought when I read the title was: "What about Mastercard?"
Don't travel to the US and don't do business with US companies. Problem solved.
I don't recall any extra stamps being put in my passport when I visited certain neighbourhoods in Belfast and San Sebastian, so how are they going to police this?
This is a good idea. People who use "social media" should not be allowed in the country.
Speaking with a visitor to the US from the UK last month they told me that in order to enter the US they had to give up their account information for all social media sites and agree that they could be banned from entering the US if they changed their password anytime in the next two years. That sh!t is unacceptable, IMHO.
They are not interested in anti-social media.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Governments don't understand that social media can be easily forged to appear normal enough and puppet accounts are easy enough to manufacture. The equation of security awareness with user profiling is a foolhardy notion at best. The skilled will use this to their advantage while the unskilled may be inappropriately harmed by false positives.
True security awareness must be undetected by the masses and after continual thought on this subject, such awareness is as critical as it is dangerous. The body of data available online does not reveal anything through the noise and only works to eliminate unintelligent threats against any nation.
However, enough people are willing to fork over intimate details about who they are and what their beliefs are. And those who are but shadows in the social areas are more likely to also suffer the consequences of a false positive due to their care and caution against leaving a footprint.
What is an ideal citizen and who gets to decide that? What does it mean when opposing parties secure their power rather than secure true safety for a population?
We could face a total enslavement to AI eventually, even with cautious practices; these policies only help human beings to tighten our own collective noose.
Once a policy exists for one small demographic, in this case new immigrants, that policy can easily widen to 100% of all citizens. However, we should assume that even today, everything we say or do online is added to the international security blueprint. Very few get to decide how that information is used and most of them are sociopathic narcissists, because that appears to be one of the hallmark traits of many a politician.
What's better though, through knowing about this, is that we can identify a clear path through such adversity and find ways to protect citizens from such potential threats.
There are threats to sovereignty and safety and we can look carefully at protecting all people from injustice but only if we get a clear understanding about what injustice is, where it comes from and how it can be averted effectively.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
'Nuf sed!
Affected applicants would have to provide their social media handles and platforms used during the previous five years, and divulge all phone numbers and email addresses used during that period. U.S. consular officials would not seek social media passwords, and would not try to breach any privacy controls on applicants' accounts, according to the department's notice.
So consular officers won't do that, but I bet it'll all go through a NSA filter and since we're talking about foreigners they're free to do all the dragnet surveillance they want.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
In addition to being very invasive (phone number's often as good as a street address), this is a scheme to easily find all non-hermits at fault after they inevitably fail to list a phone number or email.
Could you conceivably remember every time you've ever picked up a phone, including i) *all* your old phone numbers, ii) the phone numbers of every hotel,hospital or home where you've been a guest, iii) anywhere else you've been reached or used the phone, iv) all remote work-related locations' or customer sites' numbers, v) any mobile phone you've momentarily used or borrowed, vi) any public phone, vii) technically, the actual outbound trunks used in multi-line commercial locations? For many people, analogous comments apply for email.
People think what they're being programmed to think. The programming isn't perfect, as it is frequently exposed by the bouts of hypocrisy it causes, but it's strong enough that those affected ignore the contradictions they hold.
"Certain Visa applicants"
You mean brown people.... all others will be patted on the back and allowed to enter
> very invasive (phone number's often as good as a street address)
Yeah I bet the next step is when Syrians and Iranians try to fly into the US, the US government will start asking for their name and address! It's just like Hitler!
Damn we *must* do something about our schools. We spend twice as much on schools as other countries, yet we're raising a generation of idiots.
Why do so many people who complain about how overweening and disdainful of the Constitution the US government has become immediately turn around and want to put that same government in charge of the entire US health care system?
"Hey, the government is an out-of-control power mad beast! Let's give it even more power!"
What the fuck?
yeah Government should get out of health care and privacy and law passing heck the government was bad at that Korean war thing why do we keep letting the government control all our wars? The government bad in one area is a government bad in ALL areas.
Just another second banana
Since you have explicitly mentioned the Taliban. The United States has been trying to get the Taliban to split from al qaeda since 1998. Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States, back in 1996. There were embassy bombings in 1998. The USS Cole was bombed in 2000, and of course September 11, 2001. The leader of al qaeda, Osama bin Laden, swore allegiance to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar before September 11. The allegiance continues to this day. al qaeda periodically appear in Taliban propaganda.
So, they are fanatical freedom fighters, whom are unreasonably good buddies with anti-american terrorists. It's a quandary.
Officially it *has* stayed out of wars since Korea!
(...)"U.S. consular officials would not seek social media passwords"(...) As if they needed any password to have full access to our data.