4 ms·
Isn't the excitement a bit overblown here? What I understand from the rule change is that it would allow the DHS to search for you on Google and look at your F
by ar0 9y ago
Isn't the excitement a bit overblown here?
What I understand from the rule change is that it would allow the DHS to search for you on Google and look at your Facebook and Instagram profile before granting you a greencard. Frankly, every potential employer will most likely do the same. I'm not at all anti-immigration, but this seems to be reasonable "vetting" even in my book. Or am I missing something here?
- dudul 9y agoThis also applies to naturalized Americans. Why do they need "vetting" after being granted citizenship?
- mtgx 9y agoOr for the permanent citizens. Isn't the so-called "vetting" supposed to happen before they arrive to the U.S.? If they do post-arrival vetting, for how long will they be allowed to do it? 1 year? 5? 20? It's just another BS excuse to use mass surveillance against as many people as they can. They start with immigrants, then they invent some other reason for some other category of Americans, and so on. This is the "problem" with surveillance technology getting ever cheaper. It gives them an irresistible desire to apply it more and more, even where it's not absolutely necessary, as the cost is no longer an impediment, so "might as well." I have the same opinion on killer drones or killer robots for that matter. The cheaper they will become to use, the more they will be used. Eventually they'll run out of "real targets" and start sending them after less important targets, too. Killer drones are not "the same as an airstrike", as I've seen many say on various forums, for this very reason, just like mass surveillance done today is not the same as the targeted surveillance done decades ago against real targets, as some were implying immediately after Snowden released his documents.
- tosstossy 9y agoYou don't see a problem with the results of a search in something trivially manipulated like Google and Facebook potentially limiting an individual's mobility and freedom?
- danschumann 9y agoYou assume it's trivial. What's the threshold? If they post things that say they are glad when Americans die, is non-trivial enough for you? Or are you concerned facebook and google would post things 'for' them that make them look bad?
- tosstossy 9y agoImagine someone is attempting to immigrate to escape a hostile family intolerant of their ideals. Like an atheist attempting to leave a Muslim environment. If the contents of their "social network" may prevent their entering another country what's to prevent their family from filling their social network with terroristic nonsense to try prevent their escape? This is just a simple example... Social media is not an official record and is trivially influenced and manipulated by the general public without recourse. Any information empowered to substantially restrict individual freedoms should correspondingly be protected from inaccuracies, e.g. court documents and police records.
- Spivak 9y agoIs it really different than looking at their personal website or blog?
- pjc50 9y agoIt's not just ""vetting"", which is deeply suspect in the first place ("let's go through this person's facebook and apply our arbitary prejudices to it"), but it can also be retroactive. It's entirely concievable that someone could be in the US for years, have a family, make a political facebook post (maybe "take a knee") and then be deported.
- wazanator 9y agoBecause Google search results for your name may vary. E.g. I have a friend who has the misfortune of sharing the same name with a convicted pedophile.