The best suggestion I found in this other thread was for every country to follow strict reciprocity with American visitors to their country. I'd love to see Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg's social media profiles get splashed on some national newspaper's front page because someone sneaked in a camera phone into the review room.
Call me a cynic, but I doubt anyone really cares. What this really will be useful is as a database of people of selected race, origin and views to help appear for certain agencies to be working and generate headlines like: "50 suspected terrorists were deported", "terrorists bombing plot stopped" (of course, dummy bomb was provided by the same secret service) to justify even more mass surveillance in near future.
I would like to upvote you, but I am genuinely afraid at some point HN is requested to share users' data, and someone at US GOV will ask me why did I sympathize with your message.
Or null results. What's to stop anyone from creating a secret profile and using a VPN (to avoid linking the terrorist persona's IP address with their main persona's IP address) just to talk to fellow terrorists?
Terrorists could even force every recruit to use a common, shared profile or just avoid popular social media altogether when needing to discuss terrorist acts.
I agree with you. Actual bad actors are not going to attempt to enter the US with sympathetic ISIS (etc) posts on their public Facebook page. What will happen though is many immigrants will end up having entry denied based on an immigration officers interpretation of a post they made on Twitter 3 years ago.
Yeah, and if ISIS were running an ISO 9001 certified terror plot, that's exactly how they'd do it.
But in the real world, a terrorist doesn't just spawn at the other end of de_dust. They know others in these social circles long before they're radicalised.
The current crop of terrorists also happens to be a few landings short of a pilot's license, so to speak: the "Four Lions factor" (named for the movie) refers to the hypothesis that the aggressors' incompetence has been a major factor foiling their plans. How are they going to use a VPN if they frequently blow themselves up because they get confused by time zones?
Not that I consider this policy good in any possible way. It's one more example of that country softly proclaiming "all men are created equal / with unalienable rights", then turning around and making visitors feel like Somalian hostages. But if I were tasked with unearthing terrorist networks, I'd definitely get entirely to excited at the prospect of getting access to the Facebook graph.
There are threats in the world but picking the needle out of the haystack is very difficult and my biggest concern is how data is interpreted. If you were attempting to enter the US, migrating from Turkey and I determined that 3 people within your social graph, one direct connection 2 secondary are known terrorist does that mean you are a terrorist based on no other information? It's really hard without direct evidence and we're playing with peoples lives. The vast majority of people are no threat and will be productive members of society.
I am afraid the guilt until proven innocent mindset in regards to immigrants is increasing in parts of the US. I wish everyone would settle down and relax for a minute but it seems like thing will only continue to increase as we begin to enter a new election year and then start what will be a very heated Presidential campaign.
Not to suggest that this is okay to do to immigrants, (legal ones at that!) but the next step is clear. If this works well and remains unopposed, the average citizen will be targeted next.
The average citizen already is targeted. People have been voluntarily and involuntarily sharing their personal details, daily habits, purchases, and browsing habits for years. It's probably safe to say that a lot of government agencies and companies know more about you than you do yourself (or at least they have that data).
This move will be heavily criticized (as it should), but there's a false sense of security out there. Outfits like Palantir exist, Facebook and others have never been shy about tracking people without permission, and through public check ins people basically broadcast their physical location. In another thread yesterday someone was saying that they were a former FB employee and FB regularly purchased customer histories from Amazon and tied that to their own internal databases. That sounds very realistic.
It's always strange how upset the tech community gets about actions like this when most of the companies people work for are doing it, and that information is getting sent to the government through things like national security letters, anyway.
Some real life slopes are actually slippery, and some metaphorical slopes are legitimately so as well.
Unless you have some reason to suspect the events at the end of the slope are too farfetched to actually happen, which I don't see any, this is not a "slippery slope fallacy", but a run of the mill prediction about an Overton window opening.
If you're between 10 and 60 years old, "I don't use social media" will likely not really be an answer at the border. Even a barely-used account will not really be an answer.
They're going to be able to say you're probably just hiding your real account. That could factor into denying you entry into a country.
If this becomes common with many countries, it could become de facto illegal to keep social media out of your daily habits.
I just finished reading the book The Circle[1] by (Dave Eggers) with my wife, which is about just that, making it illegal not to use social media. Though some of the characters were less intelligent than I am, and thus seemed unbelievable to me (a problem I have with real people too), I recommend the book.
Don't watch the movie. I read halfway through the book when the movie came out. I excitedly watched it in film form. But I only ended up disappointed. It turned me off not just from the film but from the book itself.
Didn't realize there was a book. I'll remember to steer clear. The book was fantastic. I remember after reading that it felt a little far-fetched, but enjoyable. That was over a year ago, and I'm finding it to be more and more accurate.
Which is deeply disturbing - I really don't use FB, Twitter, Instagram, etc.
By virtue of my choice of parents and their choice of locale when I was born, this particular bit of tyranny (I use that word advisedly) won't hit me, but when every other country on earth follows suit...
Waiting for the services to pop up selling fake social accounts as cover for the Officially Socially Atypical types.
Maybe 50 should be the upper bound. I'm in my fifties and have never had any sort of social media account. Many of my high school and college classmates are similarly situated. None of the major social media platforms were founded before I was in my mid-forties, which is why there was never any incentive to start any accounts.
I enjoy getting older. It spares me a lot of drama.
We are discussing with each other publicly on a website, sharing ideas and information. Each of us is doing so tied to an identity, such as it is. Just as we might on Reddit, facebook, instagram, etc. All are social media. HackerNews is by no means different.
In what way do you find it is not social media, or maybe I should ask how narrow is your definition of social media?
I tried to find how exactly DHS defines "social media" because that is actually what is relevant to this discussion, but I was unable. I think someone had posted their definition in one of the other threads on this topic, if you want to try to find it yourself.
First, there's no real name policy here. Second, the quality of content and discussion is much higher here than on Facebook. Third, the HN community is tiny compared to Facebook. For starters.
1. HN is not a place where I seek "likes," karma (I know some do though), or share gifs of cats. Since there is karma and some sort of static identity attached to comments, though, I suppose it could be considered a social site to some. OTOH, I do not hold a Swedish passport, and do not plan to travel to Sweden, so tying my passport or other ID to my identity here would not be obvious, unless you count the NSA or whoever having the ability to tie my real name to this account.
2. I doubt HN is on the DHS list of 'social media sites' with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and whatever other sites you kids are using these days.
P.S. Please don't misunderstand me: I love funny cat gifs. It is the main reason to allow the internet to continue to exist.
P.P.S. Yes, the above P.S. was included solely to influence border security when they crack my laptop / phone and find HN on my bookmarked sites with my login credentials saved and start scrolling through my comments here. Fortunately, I self-censor to avoid losing too much karma with any single comment, which should keep me safely in the mainstream of contemporary public mores and avoid arousing suspicion.
I'm sure there would be a gradual dropoff in suspicion from about 40 to about 60 - depending on how affluent you look, and on the personal opinions of the border agent.
Not sure how it could actually go that far. Some people just don't have social media accounts, you can't ban people entry for that. If that does happen, there's no way it's gonna stay legal and the simplest solution is a boycott of social media.
It's very easy to extra-judicially deny entry at the border, without much in the way of recourse. I imagine there would be backlash against it, but it's very likely that for some period of time, travel to, from, and between specific countries will be denied to people who "refuse" to produce a social media account.
It'll happen on a small scale while this is working itself out, certainly, but it is hard to imagine a true defacto or dejure uniform ban on people without social media accounts.
The right gets upset over insurance requirements, hard to imagine a real requirement to have a Twitter account.
I'd missed that it still affect naturalized citizens too. But by the time they've gained citizenship most of these immigrants will already have given up their information and had a long time to get accustomed to accepting this.
They also not make up nearly a large enough group for it to be likely to have much effect.
Actually the right gets upset rather about censorship and death threats currently, but you might not have seen it in the newspapers (that's what censorship means). I discovered it when James Damore was accused of hate speech and explicitly menaced, and the same happened last week when UC Berkeley launched police investigations for "hate speech" into every student who helped the Free Speech Week on the campus. So, no, people who are supposed to defend your freedom aren't even in a position of weighing for basic rights currently, especially if it's related to Twitter.
I studied mathematics in Mexico City as an undergrad and know plenty of people who tried to go to a math conference in the US but had their request for a visitor visa denied. (I've personally never been denied a US visa, and I think most of my friends have been able to go to the US whenever they want, but still plenty of people get denied.) The embassy doesn't give you a reason and there's nothing you can do about it. In the future the reason they don't tell you could easily be "It seemed fishy that he didn't have a twitter account" or "Last facebook post from a year ago? Must be a fake account". If you aren't told the reason it can be anything.
Question is what happens if one really does not use social media, at least mainstream playforms such as facebook. I'm guessing I'm not the only one around here with a small social media footprint...
Then this is crap. Yes, I have FB, but I _view_ it maybe once per month. I _post_ far less frequently. Twitter? Sure, I follow my local city tweets so I know about things like power outages and when the trees will be cleared after the hurricane.
Some of us just don't need the world to know everything about us all the time.
I'm convinced there's two types of people. Those who draw energy from other people and those of us who get peopled out after a short time and need to be alone for a while to recharge. Being social _exhausts_ me so I would rather my social interaction be in real life not making some privacy invading corporation money.
> I'm convinced there's two types of people. Those who draw energy from other people and those of us who get peopled out after a short time and need to be alone for a while to recharge.
That is exactly the definition of extroversion in the first case versus introversion in the second case.
>I'm convinced there's two types of people. Those who draw energy from other people and those of us who get peopled out after a short time and need to be alone for a while to recharge.
> If you're between 10 and 60 years old, "I don't use social media" will likely not really be an answer at the border. Even a barely-used account will not really be an answer.
Why not? According to an article I read, only about 75% of US teens use Instagram and a similar amount use Snapchat (the only media the article gave). Quite frankly, about 10-20% of even First World populations don't use social media or use it very lightly. That's not particularly uncommon.
> about 10-20% of even First World populations don't use social media
Does your number include old people? I imagine a border guard would be more willing to accept a retiree not using social media than a college-age student.
Where there is a problem there is (sometimes) a market opportunity: a service that periodically autoposts innocuous kitten photos into your Facebook feed, says "Happy Birthday!" to your friends, and the like.
As much as I’ve always loved to come to the US and as fascinating as some US conferences are (e.g. StrangeLoop might be my personal fav) – no international attendee or speaker can be expected to put up with this ever expanding amount of bullshit anymore.
If the science community or “our industry” really want to encourage and unlock the magic of diversity we need new venues for a whole lot of conferences either in Canada or the EU.
So if you decide to visit to do harm you're not subjected to the search, only if you plan to stay and contribute? That sounds silly, right? Thankfully it's an easy fix now the tech is in place -- you just flip the switch! Easier than boiling a frog!
The law is obviously offensively bad, and I do not support (dual citizen to the US), but I think the bigger problem here is any country can do this now -- and any of them that can get away with doing this will do it. The real solution is get the fuck off facebook.
By this logic, when this administration starts discriminating people who are into programming ("they cause cyber terrorism," might be the excuse) we shall all "get the fuck off programming"?
i follow your logic but respectively disagree - there are so many good reasons delete your facebook account at this point - and lets face it, when they say "social media" they mean facebook
I think your logic is flawed, Facebook is nothing more than a self maintained state surveillance dossier that naive fools have been tricked into participating in. As Zuckerberg famously said early on "I can't believe these idiots are giving me all their information" (paraphrased). No dictator or other authoritarian regime of all of history could have even ever dreamed in their wildest state of imagination that people would willingly participate in such a self-surveillance system. It's really rather bonkers and only a symptom of the human detachment from reality that surrounds them.
Don't forget the CIAs venture capital firm helped many of today's tech giants getnoff the ground, including Facebook. Along with NSLs, upstream node collection, and the history of The Company using famous actors/CEOs, Its worth remebering Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, are all much less independent private companies and are much more useful tools for the state.
In many cases social media accounts are like public records of your contacts. You're already giving your data to those companies and anyone who pays them to access it (depending on the TOS of the platform).
It feels different to me than "programming". But, I wouldn't be surprised if they checked my Github account or something... And if I don't want them to see my Github account, then yeah maybe I shouldn't have a public Github account.
Tourists are already treated like they're trying to be immigrants. Ask your Mexican friends that got denied entry trying to visit Disneyland because the border agent was in a bad mood.
Reading your other comments in this submission, it doesn't sound like you know many non-Americans who have experience with the US border.
> Reading your other comments in this submission, it doesn't sound like you know many non-Americans who have experience with the US border.
From my understanding it's different depending on where you're visiting from. And, yes, I know non-Americans who visit people here (not sure what comments of mine you got that idea from).
The intelligentsia of the east has always run west away from totalitarian regimes and these regimes have stood the test of time. All of central Asia has been controlled by totalitarian regimes since before democracy was invented. If the US becomes totalitarian, then where will the intelligentsia go? Is there going to be an ever shrinking realm of freedom? Perhaps north west Europe will be the last refuge? Hardly seems to be an appealing thought.
At this point in time i still wonder why people physically move from one part of the world to another to hear somebody speak. What is wrong with live streaming? (and record, download and re-play)
That might be, and some might run back to the hotel room right after the seminar/conference is finished. Though primary reason of traveling for a conference is to hear that person speak at the conference, anything extra before/after talks that happens is bonus, not primary reason of travel.
>Though primary reason of traveling for a conference is to hear that person speak at the conference, anything extra before/after talks that happens is bonus, not primary reason of travel.
Again, for you. I know many types whose primary reason is networking.
Not sure about others but I don't go to conferences mainly to hear somebody speak but everything around, meeting people and hearing all wonderful ideas from random people and more.
At the next conference you attend I encourage you to mainly focus on the people there, rather than the talks – more often than not, the topics of those talks will come up in even more interesting discussions anyways :)
I would guess mostly because of "networking" -- the fancy word for meeting people, chatting up about common interests (which is very likely the case since you're both at the same conference), and maybe making potential business contacts for the future.
People enjoy a) traveling, b) interaction, c) face to face meetings, d) networking, e) break off from normal routine, f) the ability to ask the speaker questions / talk after/before the event, g) free gimmicks like event t-shirts.
I don't know but in my world, a preference is not a requirement. I prefer to watch a movie in the cinema with uber sound systems etc. But i can watch the movie perfectly fine at home.
All points besides a, which is not really an argument but the point of discussion, can be done remotely, if you have to travel to a conference. It might not have your preference, but it certainly is possible and i think comparing travelling half the world, to hear somebody speak vs starting a livestream or recorded version of a conference at your convenience at home, i know what i prefer. Sure its not as interesting on birthday parties or similar, to say you watched a conference livestream vs i was in Tokyo over the weekend for a conference.
>I don't know but in my world, a preference is not a requirement.
Which is a moot point. Others live in their own world -- and so can act on their preferences. Besides, even you do tons of things that aren't "required", and thus are just preferences. Even your example is one such: "watching a movie" is not required or mandatory at all --regardless of whether you watch it a home or at the cinema.
>All points besides a, which is not really an argument but the point of discussion, can be done remotely, if you have to travel to a conference.
People don't travel to conferences because it's required or because they can't get the same knowledge in other ways. They travel to conferences because they like it, and because they get something out of going (even if it's not related to the content of the presentations, like meeting other developers/founders/etc face to face).
If your question is "what makes conferences mandatory to attend", then the answer is nothing. But you didn't ask that, you wrote "i still wonder why people physically move from one part of the world to another to hear somebody speak" -- and preference is a valid answer to that.
I travel to conferences because of the reason's I've stated -- and many other people do too. What exactly do we have to explain?
>It might not have your preference, but it certainly is possible and i think comparing travelling half the world, to hear somebody speak vs starting a livestream or recorded version of a conference at your convenience at home, i know what i prefer.
Which others might not prefer.
I'd rather travel and meet people than stay at home/office if I have the chance.
oh man i'm so sorry i said conferences are primarily there to listen to somebody speak about something interesting, I should have known only networking is going on there as you write.
Oh I think you will find the EU is not far behind and in some area's further ahead in this orwellian future. Germany for example on verge of rolling out facial ID recognition and trialing currently: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-security/german-p...
This with data retention laws imposed upon ISP's, they already have all your data, so no need to ask.
It isn't getting worse everywhere - that's just defeatist attitude.
For example, the EU data retention directive that Zenst mentions was struck down last year; the EU is adopting a new personal data protection regulation next year that will significantly improve personal data handling; the EU introduced the right to be forgotten, etc.
The EU data retention directive was invalidated last year as overreaching. Several countries still have national laws on their books that require data retention but those won't stand up when challenged.
from what i can tell, this would not apply to you (conference attendees / speakers), but even though they said immigrants seeking visa, perhaps they could mean a broader set of visas.
I couldnt tell from reading the article if they meant viewing their wall or private messages. Did anyone have any clarification on that?
Australia is nice this time of year. Why not send a conference or two down under?
Smart, well educated individuals, all motivated by the perpetual drive for international relevance and the existential dread of possibly being taken by the wildlife at any moment.
Australia has similarly draconian monitoring of it's citizens. The whole blow-up about metadata in the US surprised me, because I was already conditioned to believe the government was reading all our actual messages. A couple of years ago there was a violent confrontation between white Australians and Lebanese, and part of the news cycle around that was the media nonchalantly reporting on the contents of text message conversations the white supremacists in Australia were having. Australia probably has an even broader reaching surveillance state, but Australian media never reports on it because the Australian people and its government have a far less antagonistic relationship than that of US citizens and the government.
Well, Elon did announce his BFR Earth to Earth solution in Adelaide, South Australia, which resides near the bottom of the continent. Perhaps he had a market segment in mind.
If they want to know what's in my social media feed they can just ask. 70% of it is Happy Birthday well wishes and the rest is making fun of our bonehead in chief.
I expect FB/Twitter will have a sudden growth surge of "new" users as folks make a SFW and NSFW profile. A lot of my military and government employee friends are creating twin personas, or just dropping social media completely.
Immigration visa is for those that seek permanent residence, while visitor visas are nonimmigrant visas?
Each time I see this news, the distiction isn't made clear if this is intended to be for everyone visiting the country, or part of the process when a person is seeking permanent residence.
So you find it acceptable for the US government to demand access to everything I have on Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and Telegram(?), etc just because I am going to live there? That is insane.
This is not necessarily a new problem. College students for years have been warned about employers digging through social media. This led to the rise of apps like Snapchat & more privacy controls with who you share your social data with.
I've been asked by public figures & businesses how to help clear their name after being involved in several negative news stories. My advice has always been to generate as many positive news stories and website posts as you can so that your negative ones are buried & hard to find.
I would imagine both of these tactics will continue to increase.
There's a huge difference between an employer doing it and the government doing it. You can hide your SM for a potential employer. Doing that will make the government suspicious. You may get a chance to explainer yourself to an employer. An immigration decision will be made in a black box. You can apply for another job at a company not run by idiots - choosing to immigrate somewhere else isn't as straightforward.
EDIT: I get that this doesn't make Japan any better - it's still invasive, but it's pretty much the low bar these days, whereas collecting social media accounts is a massive step further.
Yes, I used to visit a lot for business, and would love to go back on holiday too, but at this rate I'm not sure I want to. So far it's mostly been that I don't really have a compelling reason to visit, and it's just been tipping the scales in favor of other vacation locations etc., but the more stuff like this, the less attractive it gets.
It doesn't even need to affect me directly - it just contributes to an overall impression of not being welcome.
Honestly, as an American, I wouldn't be so hopeful. People were 100% sure things would turn out differently just a year ago, and anyone who said differently was openly mocked for being delusional. Things are going to get far worse before they get better. Even then, just thinking a different president will fix anything is part of the problem.
A toxic culture starts from the top. DJT's seeming enjoyment of the driving of division between parties (and even within his own) is part of the problem. He is not the only problem and removing him isn't a cure but a hopeful/forward looking leader (from either party) doing everything he/she can to positive push the people together would be better for the country.
Besides the culture wars and this current (in my opinion) backward looking view on immigration I am not sure I'd agree that the ship is sinking. Overall things are good, there is just a lot of negativity & division that I think that is being driven by profitable propaganda on both sides.
See the problem here is that many think this is happening due to the current administration but that is not even remotely true. Irrespective of which administration it is red or blue, this is inevitable.
There is a real problem of profitable propaganda that the internet & unlimited media consumption has created. People get very excited over immigration and other hot button political issues and many exploit the people and the issues for personal gain.
Regardless of who the president is profitable propaganda will divide the country. The current administration validates these otherwise fringe views and magnifies the problem. DJT makes no attempt to heal the relationships between liberals & conservatives and instead really seems to enjoy driving division.
Why don't you post links to every single social media account you own here? And then we can go through them all and see what we find, and then we'll store it for use later. Make sure you don't leave any out.
I suspect that if you are not a citizen of one of the countries in the Visa Waiver Program then you will need a C-1 transit visa, so you'd likely need to provide the information the same as if you were visiting/working/studying/etc.
I wonder if we'll see a push to expand the definition of "social media" beyond Facebook and Twitter to include private group messaging platforms like SnapChat, Slack, and Hangouts, and forums like Reddit and HN.
Uh... isn't that the entire point of a background check? To see if people are dangerous before they get in?
If I get a gun permit, should the cops not look at every public aspect of my history? Should we make it easier for people to have guns? Now the next snarky comment will say "guns aren't people." Yeah. But a background check is a background check.
What happens when a terrorist gets in (surely that'll never happen again!) and we find out their social media history was full of death threats? Will everyone feel the same way?
It seems like we've gotten to a point of public debate in this country where people completely live in fantasy worlds where they can lop off anything that happens in the real world that damages their arguments. Terrorism exists. Blame whoever you want but it does exist. And publicly posted information should be the #2 (after criminal record) thing to search. I mean... we WANT to catch the bad guys, right? Are we pretending that bad people don't exist?
Social media accounts aren't "public history". They're probably the single most private sphere for many people. If you got to read all my private messages on Facebook, you'd know me better than my parent and my girlfriends together.
And a "background check" isn't a "background check". It's a completely vague concept, from some prospective employer calling one or two references all the way to the 8-months process of obtaining a security clearance.
That's really easy to see if you consider what kind of activities involve some sort of "background check": employment (see above), getting on a plane, opening a bank account, getting a loan, taking a tour of the Capitol: while each one of these is technically "voluntary", it'd be a distinction without a difference if they added this as a requirement for such activities.
This is the biggest mistake that people make. Social media is NOT a private sphere. There's nothing remotely private about posting things to a public service on the Internet over which you have no control. We need to stop treating them as such.
I also don't control the phone company, the post office, or my friends' email providers. Am I supposed to never communicate with them unless it's face-to-face?
I'm not talking nuclear launch codes here. It's impossible to lead a normal life without using communication services, and it's some sort of fantasy to think you could, for example, organize your social life without leaving enough clues to create a pretty accurate profile.
So I think what we need to stop doing is pretending it's realistic for everyone to run around cosplaying MI6.
There’s a distinction to be made between communication services and social media.
Personal communications should of course be private, but social media is not a form of personal communication. It’s a form of broadcast, usually to a company’s servers you have absolutely zero control over.
You don’t need to “cosplay MI6” to be diligent with what you share and what you don’t. You should just be prepared to assume that anything you post on social media can and will appear in the future.
While I don't like any government collecting more data then they absolutely NEED - many businesses (including startups) are collecting social media data on us for the purposes of marketing their products/services and no one bats an eye (not many outside the EFF at least). For the record, I'm not a fan of data collection for either purpose.
Some of the comments seem a little disjointed from the details. According to the article, only information that's publicly available online is collected, and specifically for those immigrating to the US, not tourists, conference attendees, etc. There are likely a lot of reasons for many people not to want to travel to the US, but this would probably be low on the list.
as long as they only collect information that is publicly accessible and associated with your real name (because they probably could de-anonimyse a lot of posts made under pseudonyms/nicknames...)
What information does the government keep in the "immigration files" of naturalized citizens?
There's a little bit of documentation that makes sense to me, something from the country of origin and a distillation of the naturalization paperwork that confirmed it was completed. But I don't see what information beyond that would be worth keeping.
For any Americans thinking 'well, at least this doesn't affect me as a natural born citizen', you should be aware that one of the most common principles applied to visa and passport control activity by countries is 'reciprocity'. That is, countries look at how the US treats their citizens at the American port of entry, and turn around and apply that same standard to Americans.
So the next time you turn up at the Canadian border and are asked to produce your facebook account details... this is why.
I don't think this will fly under EU privacy law. This is so ineffective and intrusive that it will fail the test for proportionality and subsidiarity. At least, that's what I hope.
Funny how 'reciprocity' doesn't seem to apply to taxes or extradition..
edit:
Taxes; Even in the EU, forms will ask about American tax status, because an American citizen living abroad must still file taxes. I must provide this information, despite never having been an American Citizen.
Which will probably lead to a massive uptick in the number of fake, or ghost profiles on social media. Before entering the U.S., people will create fake social media profiles that are sanitized, and make them appear as God fearing, peaceful individuals. Then some company will get the bright idea of doing this for them, resulting in an utter waste of U.S. time, and resources.
I find it comical that the security apparatus becomes ever more orwellian at the same time maybe 5% of the US population just ran across the Mexican border.
252 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 389 ms ] threadAm I the only one this paranoid??
Terrorists could even force every recruit to use a common, shared profile or just avoid popular social media altogether when needing to discuss terrorist acts.
But in the real world, a terrorist doesn't just spawn at the other end of de_dust. They know others in these social circles long before they're radicalised.
The current crop of terrorists also happens to be a few landings short of a pilot's license, so to speak: the "Four Lions factor" (named for the movie) refers to the hypothesis that the aggressors' incompetence has been a major factor foiling their plans. How are they going to use a VPN if they frequently blow themselves up because they get confused by time zones?
Not that I consider this policy good in any possible way. It's one more example of that country softly proclaiming "all men are created equal / with unalienable rights", then turning around and making visitors feel like Somalian hostages. But if I were tasked with unearthing terrorist networks, I'd definitely get entirely to excited at the prospect of getting access to the Facebook graph.
I am afraid the guilt until proven innocent mindset in regards to immigrants is increasing in parts of the US. I wish everyone would settle down and relax for a minute but it seems like thing will only continue to increase as we begin to enter a new election year and then start what will be a very heated Presidential campaign.
This move will be heavily criticized (as it should), but there's a false sense of security out there. Outfits like Palantir exist, Facebook and others have never been shy about tracking people without permission, and through public check ins people basically broadcast their physical location. In another thread yesterday someone was saying that they were a former FB employee and FB regularly purchased customer histories from Amazon and tied that to their own internal databases. That sounds very realistic.
It's always strange how upset the tech community gets about actions like this when most of the companies people work for are doing it, and that information is getting sent to the government through things like national security letters, anyway.
Unless you have some reason to suspect the events at the end of the slope are too farfetched to actually happen, which I don't see any, this is not a "slippery slope fallacy", but a run of the mill prediction about an Overton window opening.
As a prediction it's fine, but the original post said:
> the next step is clear
and
> the average citizen will be targeted next
There was no suggestion that this was just speculation.
If you're between 10 and 60 years old, "I don't use social media" will likely not really be an answer at the border. Even a barely-used account will not really be an answer.
They're going to be able to say you're probably just hiding your real account. That could factor into denying you entry into a country.
If this becomes common with many countries, it could become de facto illegal to keep social media out of your daily habits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_(Eggers_novel)
By virtue of my choice of parents and their choice of locale when I was born, this particular bit of tyranny (I use that word advisedly) won't hit me, but when every other country on earth follows suit...
Waiting for the services to pop up selling fake social accounts as cover for the Officially Socially Atypical types.
I enjoy getting older. It spares me a lot of drama.
Are you not posting here?
In what way do you find it is not social media, or maybe I should ask how narrow is your definition of social media?
I tried to find how exactly DHS defines "social media" because that is actually what is relevant to this discussion, but I was unable. I think someone had posted their definition in one of the other threads on this topic, if you want to try to find it yourself.
Feel free to read through Wikipedia's article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media
1. HN is not a place where I seek "likes," karma (I know some do though), or share gifs of cats. Since there is karma and some sort of static identity attached to comments, though, I suppose it could be considered a social site to some. OTOH, I do not hold a Swedish passport, and do not plan to travel to Sweden, so tying my passport or other ID to my identity here would not be obvious, unless you count the NSA or whoever having the ability to tie my real name to this account.
2. I doubt HN is on the DHS list of 'social media sites' with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and whatever other sites you kids are using these days.
P.S. Please don't misunderstand me: I love funny cat gifs. It is the main reason to allow the internet to continue to exist.
P.P.S. Yes, the above P.S. was included solely to influence border security when they crack my laptop / phone and find HN on my bookmarked sites with my login credentials saved and start scrolling through my comments here. Fortunately, I self-censor to avoid losing too much karma with any single comment, which should keep me safely in the mainstream of contemporary public mores and avoid arousing suspicion.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive
Who said so? Border controls have right to turn non-citizens away on border if they suspect you are lying or not disclosing all information to them.
The right gets upset over insurance requirements, hard to imagine a real requirement to have a Twitter account.
The people who are affected are not voting.
EDIT: missed that it affects naturalized citizens too, but see below.
They also not make up nearly a large enough group for it to be likely to have much effect.
Crazy world.
To me it’s not all about that. It’s this dragnet and the meta data (profiles of people who connect to you become fair game)
Some of us just don't need the world to know everything about us all the time.
I'm convinced there's two types of people. Those who draw energy from other people and those of us who get peopled out after a short time and need to be alone for a while to recharge. Being social _exhausts_ me so I would rather my social interaction be in real life not making some privacy invading corporation money.
That is exactly the definition of extroversion in the first case versus introversion in the second case.
Let's call them introverts and extroverts.
Why not? According to an article I read, only about 75% of US teens use Instagram and a similar amount use Snapchat (the only media the article gave). Quite frankly, about 10-20% of even First World populations don't use social media or use it very lightly. That's not particularly uncommon.
> Quite frankly, about 10-20% of even First World populations don't use social media or use it very lightly.
10-20% is still small enough to start by assuming everybody uses them, and treat the 1 in 5/10 persons as a weirdo that merits extra examination.
Does your number include old people? I imagine a border guard would be more willing to accept a retiree not using social media than a college-age student.
Recruiters seems to always find me somehow though, haven't figure that one out yet.
I guess at the border, I'll give them my Github account? They'll probably put me on some blacklist.
(Might actually be an interesting project.)
If the science community or “our industry” really want to encourage and unlock the magic of diversity we need new venues for a whole lot of conferences either in Canada or the EU.
http://fortune.com/2017/06/01/u-s-border-social-media/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093796/Emily-Buntin...
Otherwise this would be a recommendation to lie to customs/immigration officers... and I strongly recommend not doing that.
It is also being extended to legal aliens and citizens (naturalized - like me)
It feels different to me than "programming". But, I wouldn't be surprised if they checked my Github account or something... And if I don't want them to see my Github account, then yeah maybe I shouldn't have a public Github account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normality
I'd hope some or even many countries would opt out of these restrictions as an incentive to tourism and business.
Reading your other comments in this submission, it doesn't sound like you know many non-Americans who have experience with the US border.
From my understanding it's different depending on where you're visiting from. And, yes, I know non-Americans who visit people here (not sure what comments of mine you got that idea from).
wouldn't that be a form of free speech suppression?
Again, for you. I know many types whose primary reason is networking.
So live streaming doesn't really solve that.
All points besides a, which is not really an argument but the point of discussion, can be done remotely, if you have to travel to a conference. It might not have your preference, but it certainly is possible and i think comparing travelling half the world, to hear somebody speak vs starting a livestream or recorded version of a conference at your convenience at home, i know what i prefer. Sure its not as interesting on birthday parties or similar, to say you watched a conference livestream vs i was in Tokyo over the weekend for a conference.
Which is a moot point. Others live in their own world -- and so can act on their preferences. Besides, even you do tons of things that aren't "required", and thus are just preferences. Even your example is one such: "watching a movie" is not required or mandatory at all --regardless of whether you watch it a home or at the cinema.
>All points besides a, which is not really an argument but the point of discussion, can be done remotely, if you have to travel to a conference.
People don't travel to conferences because it's required or because they can't get the same knowledge in other ways. They travel to conferences because they like it, and because they get something out of going (even if it's not related to the content of the presentations, like meeting other developers/founders/etc face to face).
If your question is "what makes conferences mandatory to attend", then the answer is nothing. But you didn't ask that, you wrote "i still wonder why people physically move from one part of the world to another to hear somebody speak" -- and preference is a valid answer to that.
I travel to conferences because of the reason's I've stated -- and many other people do too. What exactly do we have to explain?
>It might not have your preference, but it certainly is possible and i think comparing travelling half the world, to hear somebody speak vs starting a livestream or recorded version of a conference at your convenience at home, i know what i prefer.
Which others might not prefer.
I'd rather travel and meet people than stay at home/office if I have the chance.
This with data retention laws imposed upon ISP's, they already have all your data, so no need to ask.
That said, I can't imagine a more unwelcoming tourist entry into a "western" country than the US at this point in time.
For example, the EU data retention directive that Zenst mentions was struck down last year; the EU is adopting a new personal data protection regulation next year that will significantly improve personal data handling; the EU introduced the right to be forgotten, etc.
I couldnt tell from reading the article if they meant viewing their wall or private messages. Did anyone have any clarification on that?
Smart, well educated individuals, all motivated by the perpetual drive for international relevance and the existential dread of possibly being taken by the wildlife at any moment.
Because it's even worse in this regard.
>Smart, well educated individuals
Well, let's not generalize.
Do you have some stories of conference speakers or attendees being treated this way in Australia?
12h if you're in the West Coast, a shorter trip if you're in Japan and that's "the closest" most people will be
I was wrong then. I should start using social media as I'm not U.S. emigrant.</sarcasm>
I expect FB/Twitter will have a sudden growth surge of "new" users as folks make a SFW and NSFW profile. A lot of my military and government employee friends are creating twin personas, or just dropping social media completely.
Each time I see this news, the distiction isn't made clear if this is intended to be for everyone visiting the country, or part of the process when a person is seeking permanent residence.
cr1895: Thanks!
They were seeking (an important) clarification, not making a judgment whether it was acceptable.
You just assumed they found it acceptable and called that insane.
I've been asked by public figures & businesses how to help clear their name after being involved in several negative news stories. My advice has always been to generate as many positive news stories and website posts as you can so that your negative ones are buried & hard to find.
I would imagine both of these tactics will continue to increase.
Do I want to visit a frightening, privacy invading, oppressive airport, or Japan?
I went to Japan.
I'll do my very best to avoid travel to USA if possible. Strange that this is what USA wants.
Trump has put up a wall, even if it is not yet physical.
EDIT: I get that this doesn't make Japan any better - it's still invasive, but it's pretty much the low bar these days, whereas collecting social media accounts is a massive step further.
It doesn't even need to affect me directly - it just contributes to an overall impression of not being welcome.
Regardless of who the president is profitable propaganda will divide the country. The current administration validates these otherwise fringe views and magnifies the problem. DJT makes no attempt to heal the relationships between liberals & conservatives and instead really seems to enjoy driving division.
Visa Waver Program: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-...
Let that sink in for a moment.
Also, if you know/follow/connected-with an immigrant or naturalized citizen on a social platform, then YOUR data could be covered in this dragnet.
If I get a gun permit, should the cops not look at every public aspect of my history? Should we make it easier for people to have guns? Now the next snarky comment will say "guns aren't people." Yeah. But a background check is a background check.
What happens when a terrorist gets in (surely that'll never happen again!) and we find out their social media history was full of death threats? Will everyone feel the same way?
It seems like we've gotten to a point of public debate in this country where people completely live in fantasy worlds where they can lop off anything that happens in the real world that damages their arguments. Terrorism exists. Blame whoever you want but it does exist. And publicly posted information should be the #2 (after criminal record) thing to search. I mean... we WANT to catch the bad guys, right? Are we pretending that bad people don't exist?
And a "background check" isn't a "background check". It's a completely vague concept, from some prospective employer calling one or two references all the way to the 8-months process of obtaining a security clearance.
That's really easy to see if you consider what kind of activities involve some sort of "background check": employment (see above), getting on a plane, opening a bank account, getting a loan, taking a tour of the Capitol: while each one of these is technically "voluntary", it'd be a distinction without a difference if they added this as a requirement for such activities.
I'm not talking nuclear launch codes here. It's impossible to lead a normal life without using communication services, and it's some sort of fantasy to think you could, for example, organize your social life without leaving enough clues to create a pretty accurate profile.
So I think what we need to stop doing is pretending it's realistic for everyone to run around cosplaying MI6.
Personal communications should of course be private, but social media is not a form of personal communication. It’s a form of broadcast, usually to a company’s servers you have absolutely zero control over.
You don’t need to “cosplay MI6” to be diligent with what you share and what you don’t. You should just be prepared to assume that anything you post on social media can and will appear in the future.
There's a little bit of documentation that makes sense to me, something from the country of origin and a distillation of the naturalization paperwork that confirmed it was completed. But I don't see what information beyond that would be worth keeping.
So the next time you turn up at the Canadian border and are asked to produce your facebook account details... this is why.
edit:
Taxes; Even in the EU, forms will ask about American tax status, because an American citizen living abroad must still file taxes. I must provide this information, despite never having been an American Citizen.
Extradition; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_trea...