5 ms·

As a permanent resident with a pending citizenship application (who came on the visa mentioned at the end of this article), I find this incredibly alarming. I

• watty 9y ago
  Maybe I'm being contrarian but how is this a big deal? I'd expect the government to be collecting all public information for its citizens and those visiting the country - why not? This isn't private info, it's publicly posted social media information, which is VERY easy to set to private if you wish. If they were collecting private info or browsing data, sure.
  • criddell 9y ago
    Not a fan of the fourth amendment?
    • burkaman 9y ago
      Googling someone is not an unreasonable search or seizure.
      • criddell 9y ago
        If that's all they were doing, there would be no need for a law.
        • burkaman 9y ago
          What law are you referring to?
          • criddell 9y ago
            I don't know why you are being downvoted because I think you're right. They filed a proposal to modify some database. I'm not sure why they don't just apply it across the board to all travelers because it seems like adding conditions just increases complexity with no benefit.
    • Chris2048 9y ago
      Does it cover immigrants who are not US citizens?
      • damnyou 9y ago
        It covers everyone on US soil, including unauthorized immigrants.
  • coldtea 9y ago
    >Maybe I'm being contrarian but how is this a big deal? Ask a person in Argentina, Chile, Spain, and lots of other places besides. >I'd expect the government to be collecting all public information for its citizens and those visiting the country - why not? Because their social media lives are not its business -- citizens or not.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • koolba 9y ago
      If someone is communicating with known terrorist organizations or plotting a crime on social media, how is that not the governments business? I'm not saying they should have unfettered access to everything (far from it!), but gathering and analyzing this type of information is the very definition of their business. The real question is what levels of information gathering are going to allow without a warrant, and who do those laws apply to?
      • coldtea 9y ago
        >If someone is communicating with known terrorist organizations or plotting a crime on social media, how is that not the governments business? If someone is plotting a crime while having sex with their partner in their bedroom, how is that not the government's business? See how it gets problematic? Bad actors like that can communicate in 200000 ways. If governments want to target "known terrorist organizations" let them target them, and follow those people, monitor their houses, etc -- not monitor the general population in the off chance they see something. >I'm not saying they should have unfettered access to everything (far from it!), but gathering and analyzing this type of information is the very definition of their business. So, in 1980, before Facebook, they wouldn't be able to catch anyone? How about they monitor actual suspects with good old police work and leave the BS?
        • koolba 9y ago
          > If someone is plotting a crime while having sex with their partner in their bedroom, how is that not the government's business? That escalated quickly. So to you monitoring information posted to a third party is the same as listening in on you and your spouse while you're bumping uglies? > See how it gets problematic? No I don't as I reject your example outright. What goes on within the four walls of a person's bedroom has already been established as protected. In contrast, what gets sent out to a third party has been established as not protected. > Bad actors like that can communicate in 200000 ways. If governments want to target "known terrorist organizations" let them target them, and follow those people, monitor their houses, etc -- not monitor the general population in the off chance they see something. Sure and this is one of the many ways they can do it. Just because there are other options available doesn't mean they can't use this as an avenue. > So, in 1980, before Facebook, they wouldn't be able to catch anyone? I never said that nor implied it. I'm saying that social media posts are fair game and likely a valuable source of information for identified terrorists and potential terrorists. > How about they monitor actual suspects with good old police work and leave the BS? That's a false dichotomy. There's no reason you can't have modern data analysis of social media posts in addition to traditional police work. Technology is a force multiplier. Back in the day people would manually examine finger prints to find a match based on a categorization system. Now a computer does it nearly instantly.
  • therec 9y ago
    Do you really think that they will simply look at your public Facebook page? Tell me if I’m wrong but I think they can already do that without changing the law.
  • iagooar 9y ago
    Give us all your passwords please. You have nothing to hide anyway.
  • ryanb23 9y ago
    I would absolutely assume that they will look to collect browsing data.
  • gumby 9y ago
    Read the entry in the Federal Register. They are also collecting internet search results (not the queries, which is odd). In addition there is a constitutional prohibition on collecting arbitrary information on citizens (which the courts have extended to “US Persons”, basically citizens and green card holders) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/09/18/2017-19365/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/09/18/2017-19...
    • baursak 9y ago
      "US Persons" includes everyone living in the US regardless of immigration status.
      • gumby 9y ago
        Turns out not to be the case, and in particular not the case for immigration and surveillance purposes. In these cases it's explicitly US citizens and green card holders (plus certain corporations). See 22 U.S. Code § 6010: 'As used in this chapter, the term “United States person” means any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States, and any corporation, partnership, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States.' Title 22 is the foreign relations chapter
        • baursak 9y ago
          Thanks, you're right. Apparently there are several US Persons definitions!
  • havetocharge 9y ago
    To me, the big deal is the extension of this profiling to naturalized citizens. The extension of the divide between the citizen classes based on an arbitrary factor, as a matter of national policy, is a negative development.
  • lazyant 9y ago
    "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu (disputed)
  • SonicSoul 9y ago
    the scary part is not the collection. it's the intention or end outcome of having that information. i.e. How likely are they to try to find something against you if you're tweeting against current admin. god knows what lists are created as a result of this. and this can also easily lead to uncovering less public information about you. More data you have about a person easier it is to triangulate anonymized data about them.
    • ajeet_dhaliwal 9y ago
      This is the reason it's scary, it's not the collection in of itself. It's also sad because there are history textbooks, novels, movies and so much information about the past about why this sort of thing is dangerous and like idiots we all allow it to happen again and again even when freedom is the mantra of the constitution of the country. Who dare's to Tweet or write something that either is critical of the government or can be interpreted that way and risk being locked out? Critics and thoughts silenced by fear.
      • philk10 9y ago
        Nail hit right on the head. As an old-timer who's been through a lot this wont stop me, younger people who think they have more to lose and not the experience to deal with it - possibly.
  • appleflaxen 9y ago
    It's a big deal because it's almost impossible to use this information in a way that won't have a huge cost to 1) the people visiting the US and 2) the US public (via tax support for enforcement which is driven by this policy) Wolfram Alpha says that 322 people visit the US in a year. Let's assume the technologists in charge of this (who are really no different than any other corporate engineer - capable, but fairly disinterested in their work and apathetic/unaffected by the results) manage to make the process 99.9999% effective in screening out the innocent, and 100% effective in screening terrorists who enter the US. Well, that world-class accuracy gives you 99.9999 * 322 million => 322 people a year who are caught in the dragnet (and in all likelihood, it will be multiples of this number; likely thousands of individuals). So now we are interrogating, investigating, and suspecting 322 innocent people in order to catch the... oh, wait; there really haven't been any terrorist attacks like 9/11 since... 9/11. The Boston Bombers were home-grown. Anti-abortion extremists, religious fundamentalists, bullied schoolchildren, and paranoid schizophrenics have all tried or been accused of trying to wage terrorism on the US, but there's not a single event[1] that it looks like this policy could have prevented. But we're investigating 322 individuals (and their families, friends, and close contacts) in order to do it. And at what cost? We will never know, because those numbers are classified due to their sensitive nature. In the end, none of this matters: the government was never interested in terror prevention in the first place. They just needed a new bogey man to replace drugs, the Russians, whatever as a reason to ignore the constitution. The war on terrorism is a farce. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States... * edit: added the parenthetical note on numbers, multiples of estimate
    • ljf 9y ago
      This. The most deadly terrorist group to hit the USA was the KKK, with over 3000 black Americans lynched and also over 1000 white Americans killed. Plus countless lives ruined, terrorised, and affected. These were Americans killing Americans, and similar to the pattern we've seen throughout the 1900s and into the 2000s, it is most likely that future terrorists will also be home grown. As to this system, was there anything to be gained by keeping these out of the USA, for a tweet?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312 {Off-topic: Because the KKK were (mainly) killing black people and their supporters in Southern states, 'we' don't really think of them as terrorists, nor the people that still push their agenda today as terrorist sympathisers.}
• russdill 9y ago
  This recent reveal of warrants makes it even more chilling http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/353043-trump-admin-targets-private-facebook-info-in-warrants http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/353043-trum...
• philk10 9y ago
  Same - resident alien going for citizenship next year. Active on Twitter and FB with plenty of political posts. Really looking forward to sending in my application next year....
• Chris2048 9y ago
  You can play this game all day. Nazi Germany asked its own citizens for papers in-country (e.g. train trips). And you are right, context matters. Perhaps the existence of "sanctuary cities" in current day America is more relevant to yet-another-Nazi-Germany-comparison (TM). > It's not much a leap to imagine.. But what are the facts? For example, is Snap-chat one such social media platform that will be check based on unverified accounts?
• snarf21 9y ago
  This is scary and keeps getting worse. As a citizen, I'm even worried about traveling and coming back. Do I want my phone confiscated because a friend from high school tagged me in a political post a random border patrol agent disagrees with? or worse? Remember, they have not stopped any terrorist attacks in the US with all the new surveillance since 9/11 (to my knowledge). "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin
  • Deadstartups 9y ago
    Exactly - this is the same reasoning I use as a counter argument to gun-control propositions.
  • copperred 9y ago
    Here's a list of unsuccessful attacks post-9/11. Not much info on how they were thwarted or if the surveillance played a role: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrori...
  • mikk14 9y ago
    While I share the sentiment, misquoting people who were saying almost the opposite of what you meant is not going to go very far. Franklin wasn't talking at all about what you were thinking he was talking. It was about an argument on taxation. http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous...
    • snarf21 9y ago
      I agree that this quote may have been misappropriated. However, I think it has taken on new life and new meaning and is cautionary in terms of "be careful what you are giving up...". 9/11 attacks were successful in their goals based on exploiting the FAA guidelines for hijackers, not because we didn't spy on these people. No one imagined them turning a plane into a bomb. I think non one believes that if hijackers tried to take over a plane with box cutters today that they wouldn't be subdued or killed within minutes.
• spoiledtechie 9y ago
  Since you weren't actually a citizen entering this country, you don't have the same rights as citizens do. Now you do, since you went through the process, but you certainly didn't before. Secondly, if you had nothing to hide, then whats wrong with sharing? You should separate the difference between citizen and non citizen. We know NOTHING about those people coming from outside the country. Immigrants in the past, didn't want to come and kill people. They came for a better future. The same can't be said about the current immigrant. So we must review and make ourselves more aware of the kind of person that is trying to because a citizen.
  • kelukelugames 9y ago
    I am scared. President Trump's twitter account shows he is petty, vindictive, and thin-skinned. I won't be surprised if immigrants who are critical of him are punished. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/28/aclu-fight-doj-request-info-6000-anti-trump-facebook-users/ https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/28/aclu-fight-doj-request-i... PS. Immigrants in the past came to kill all of the locals. ;)
    • spoiledtechie 9y ago
      No they didn't. They didn't actively come here to kill the locals. Work on your history. They actively came for gold and a new life. The locals and they didn't get along to be very simple about it. War was waged between the two.
  • Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    This applies to naturalized citizens as well, though. So yes, citizens are affected. Anyone that is a naturalized citizen can be treated like a lower class. Folks with green cards, which we know a bit about, are affected. It doesn't matter what your status is so long as you weren't born here.
• homosaphien 9y ago
  > with a pending citizenship application It can stay pending for a long time, mine took forever
• logfromblammo 9y ago
  The rational part of your brain is waving around two huge red flags: "can't happen here" and "nothing to hide". You should slap it around a bit, so that it stops believing in those intrinsic, unsupported assumptions. Not like a literal concussion type of slap--slap it with a hit of salvia divinorum or a provocative essay or introspective meditation or something. Everyone has something to hide. It doesn't even have to be anything particularly shameful. You could have the most glorious junk in the history of humanity, but you still cover it up with some form of garment when you leave the house. You could have a perfectly ordinary and treatable rash on your backside, but you don't necessarily tell anyone about it outside your doctor's office. You might be going on an awesome vacation for three weeks, but you might not want the local housebreaking crew to know that. It can happen here, as it can happen anywhere that humans come together. This is beyond tolerable, and as we are a civilized people, we have a graduated response to such behavior. First, we publicly announce our opposition to this policy, in the hopes that a reasoned debate will cause it to be abandoned. This is the "soap box". Second, we inform our designated representatives that this is an important issue, and should they wish to continue to hold our proxy, they will vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. Should they do otherwise, we do our best to replace them with someone who will. This is the "ballot box". Third, we tangle it up with formal legal challenges, requiring that the policy be measured against existing legal standards. We sit on grand juries to indict or no-bill those suspected of breaking our laws, and upon petit juries to convict or not-convict those who faced trial. This is the "jury box". Finally, we can take our tools, fashion them into weapons, and physically assault those who have already failed to yield to reason, ignored those whom they purport to represent, and scoffed at the law. This is the "ammo box"--ultima ratio regum. It can happen here. It is always happening everywhere, and here is no exception. We must constantly work at preventing it. That is the burden of democracy. Everywhere it has happened, it was because the momentum overwhelmed the resistance, and because those graduated responses were removed Alvin York style--from back to front, so that the opposition wouldn't notice until it was too late. You can't forget that when reason fails--and it does fail against the unreasonable--you have to be prepared to instead use rhetoric, tradition, or raw force to get what you want.
  • pulisse 9y ago
    Everyone has something to hide. It doesn't even have to be anything particularly shameful. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Richelieu