3 ms·

>It will be an optional data field to request social media identifiers to be used for vetting purposes, as well as applicant contact information. Collecting soc

>It will be an optional data field to request social media identifiers to be used for vetting purposes, as well as applicant contact information. Collecting social media data will enhance the existing investigative process and provide DHS greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity and connections by providing an additional tool set which analysts and investigators may use to better analyze and investigate the case. >optional My question is: How is this at the #1 spot with 8 votes?

jonnybgood 10y ago
Yes, the title is misleading.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
vidarh 10y ago
"Why did you not fill in this field Mr. Smith?" "Well, it's optional, I didn't think..." "So what do you have to hide, Mr. Smith? Did you perhaps think we will find something illegal?" When something is "optional" but it's there so that if provided the DHS can get visibility to "possible nefarious activity and connections", how likely is it that they will start seeing failure to provide it as a sign that you need to be investigated more closely? > My question is: How is this at the #1 spot with 8 votes? Because Asia is going to bed and it's early Sunday morning in Europe, and it was submitted a short while ago, and hence it has little competition that hasn't started "aging out".
- jonnybgood 10y ago
  > how likely is it that they will start seeing failure to provide it as a sign that you need to be investigated more closely? The rationale that I've gathered from this is that they're going to investigate you anyways by trying to find your social media profiles, etc. This is a long process, so to make the process quicker you can opt-in your social media handles. In other words, it's already happening, but has a lot of inconveniences. Not saying this is right or wrong, but it's just from what I've gathered.
  - NhanH 10y ago
    That rationale is suspiciously close to "FB should just turned over all and any data of everyone to the US government". In certain cases with regard to the government, inconvenience is a feature, not a bug.
    - xg15 10y ago
      I disagree with that sentiment. As a citizen, I'd like the government to work on my behalf as efficiently as possible and to not work at all otherwise. So I think the real issue is that there is almost no control or transparency regarding what agencies like FBI or DHS do with the data. This should change. Once there is actual oversight (and no rubber-stamp court) I'll give them the permitted data as efficiently as possible. Going the other way - allowing them full and uncontrolled access provided they just jump through a few arbitrary hoops to get the data - seems to me would only muddy the waters and increase costs without providing any actual advantage to the citizens.
      - NhanH 10y ago
        Control, transparency and check-and-balance are all inconveniences though. Having to ask a judge for warrant is definitely inconvenient, same as proving beyond reasonable doubt (instead of just, let's say probable doubt). I didn't say that inefficiency should be the goal for the government. However, for certain scenarios, that's the trade off we have to make. > Going the other way - allowing them full and uncontrolled access provided they just jump through a few arbitrary hoops to get the data Fortunately, most of the time those "hoops" involves a human in it, hopefully being able to stop bad things from happening. Again, there is no silver bullet, and shitty paper stamping process won't be helping either.
        xg15 10y ago
        Yes, most effective checks are inconvenient but not all inconveniences are effective checks. My worry is that but focusing on "it must be inconvenient" your setting the priorities wrong. This might just result in a heap of useless labour and frustrated employees - but wouldn't shed any light on which "attack scenarios" you actually defended against, if any. In some cases, it might make misuse actually easier if the inconveniences affect both agencies and their control instances. A nice example of a process that's apparently deliberately kept inefficient by lobby power is the US weapons "registry": http://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns http://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-man...
madaxe_again 10y ago
I take it you're not familiar with how "optional" works. You can optionally not fill it in. They can optionally deny you entry. My wife's grandfather was asked to volunteer for a construction project in siberia. He declined. They drafted him, then sent him anyway - and still called him a volunteer. That was optional too.

jonnybgood 10y ago

Yes, the title is misleading.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

vidarh 10y ago

"Why did you not fill in this field Mr. Smith?" "Well, it's optional, I didn't think..." "So what do you have to hide, Mr. Smith? Did you perhaps think we will find something illegal?" When something is "optional" but it's there so that if provided the DHS can get visibility to "possible nefarious activity and connections", how likely is it that they will start seeing failure to provide it as a sign that you need to be investigated more closely? > My question is: How is this at the #1 spot with 8 votes? Because Asia is going to bed and it's early Sunday morning in Europe, and it was submitted a short while ago, and hence it has little competition that hasn't started "aging out".

jonnybgood 10y ago
> how likely is it that they will start seeing failure to provide it as a sign that you need to be investigated more closely? The rationale that I've gathered from this is that they're going to investigate you anyways by trying to find your social media profiles, etc. This is a long process, so to make the process quicker you can opt-in your social media handles. In other words, it's already happening, but has a lot of inconveniences. Not saying this is right or wrong, but it's just from what I've gathered.
- NhanH 10y ago
  That rationale is suspiciously close to "FB should just turned over all and any data of everyone to the US government". In certain cases with regard to the government, inconvenience is a feature, not a bug.
  - xg15 10y ago
    I disagree with that sentiment. As a citizen, I'd like the government to work on my behalf as efficiently as possible and to not work at all otherwise. So I think the real issue is that there is almost no control or transparency regarding what agencies like FBI or DHS do with the data. This should change. Once there is actual oversight (and no rubber-stamp court) I'll give them the permitted data as efficiently as possible. Going the other way - allowing them full and uncontrolled access provided they just jump through a few arbitrary hoops to get the data - seems to me would only muddy the waters and increase costs without providing any actual advantage to the citizens.
    - NhanH 10y ago
      Control, transparency and check-and-balance are all inconveniences though. Having to ask a judge for warrant is definitely inconvenient, same as proving beyond reasonable doubt (instead of just, let's say probable doubt). I didn't say that inefficiency should be the goal for the government. However, for certain scenarios, that's the trade off we have to make. > Going the other way - allowing them full and uncontrolled access provided they just jump through a few arbitrary hoops to get the data Fortunately, most of the time those "hoops" involves a human in it, hopefully being able to stop bad things from happening. Again, there is no silver bullet, and shitty paper stamping process won't be helping either.
      - xg15 10y ago
        Yes, most effective checks are inconvenient but not all inconveniences are effective checks. My worry is that but focusing on "it must be inconvenient" your setting the priorities wrong. This might just result in a heap of useless labour and frustrated employees - but wouldn't shed any light on which "attack scenarios" you actually defended against, if any. In some cases, it might make misuse actually easier if the inconveniences affect both agencies and their control instances. A nice example of a process that's apparently deliberately kept inefficient by lobby power is the US weapons "registry": http://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns http://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-man...

madaxe_again 10y ago

I take it you're not familiar with how "optional" works. You can optionally not fill it in. They can optionally deny you entry. My wife's grandfather was asked to volunteer for a construction project in siberia. He declined. They drafted him, then sent him anyway - and still called him a volunteer. That was optional too.