5 ms·

I don't like this, I think it will have a chilling effect on free speech, but if you're posting in public I think you have to expect folks may pull up your post

I don't like this, I think it will have a chilling effect on free speech, but if you're posting in public I think you have to expect folks may pull up your posts. What I absolutely hate is compelling folks to disclose their handles. I do not labor under the delusion this handle is "anonymous" (many, many people know who I am) but I purposefully avoid tying my legal name to it precisely because of situations like this. I'm not a criminal or a terrorist, I just want to have authentic conversations about matters of public interest. It's hard to be authentic when there's someone snooping on your posts. waves to any border agents reading my post history in the future

dragonsngoblins 7y ago
What always worries me about this is I genuinely do not have any social media accounts, with the exception of HN and reddit, and I am vaguely terrified I will be turned away at a border somewhere for not giving up my facebook/twitter/snapchat/etc details because what 20 something year olf doesn't have facebook/twitter/snapchat/etc?
wavefunction 7y ago
If social media related things should preclude entry it should be enacted as legislation and not left to violent criminals (a border control officer is indicted every 36 hours). flips off any ICE/border agents reading my post history in the future
- drusepth 7y ago
  Do you have a source for "a border control officer is indicted every 36 hours"?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
    Page 17 of this report https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2018-Oct/opr-annual-report-fy16-17-employee-misconduct-corruption-stats_0.pdf https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/201... The JIC received 256 reports of arrest in FY 2016 involving 251 employees. Five of these 251 employees had more than one arrest in FY 2016. In FY 2017, the JIC received 254 reports of arrest, involving 245 employees. Seven were arrested twice and one employee was arrested three times in FY 2017. This misconduct occurred primarily off-duty but also included illegal activity while on duty, in cases of corruption.
    - wavefunction 7y ago
      Thanks for your fine source, I first heard it on national NPR who mentioned that it used to be 1 felony indictment every 24 hours, so things are at least 33% better as far as ICE/border control is concerned.
    - masonic 7y ago
      An arrest is not an indictment. Arrests often don't even result in prosecution at all.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
        That's a very good point.
parineum 7y ago
I don't see why this is so controversial. It seems like the proper way to do a background check in the current era. It really all depends on _what_ disqualifies someone from entry. The worry seems to stem from a general distrust of ICE and the current administration rather than this actual technique. I have to think that if someone bragging about criminal activity on Instagram/Twitter got through the border and murdered somebody, ICE would be criticized for not doing their due diligence.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Because a lot of conversions nowadays happen online. If you have to give them access to everything then they'll also know everything about you and there's absolutely no reassurance that this information isn't going to be used in malicious ways. Even the NSA couldn't keep its agents in check and they abused access to the data for personal gain. How are they going to stop border agents?
  - cced 7y ago
    Source on the mentioned abuse of access?
    - T3OU-736 7y ago
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-idUSBRE98Q14G20130927 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... seems to be relevant
- new299 7y ago
  > I don't see why this is so controversial. It seems like the proper way to do a background check in the current era. Because it's not normal to perform extensive background checks for people visiting your country? I'd think it pretty weird it they wanted to interview my family, friends, employer, previous employer. > The worry seems to stem from a general distrust of ICE and the current administration rather than this actual technique. No... I mean I find the actual technique offensive. They can find public profiles associated with my name by googling me. Why do you need to provide them information about which handles are associated with me? If it's because otherwise they might mismatch profiles <-> individuals, perhaps they just shouldn't be using this information to profile people?
tzs 7y ago
> I don't like this, I think it will have a chilling effect on free speech, but if you're posting in public I think you have to expect folks may pull up your posts. It's not just your posts that can get you in trouble at the border. They also check the posts of people you follow, and those too can get you in trouble. There was just such a case in the news this week [1]. A 17 year old Palestinian arriving to start his freshman year at Harvard had his visa cancelled when he arrived and was sent home because they found that some of his social media friends posted political views that opposed US positions. [1] https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/department-of-homeland-security/458956-harvard-freshman-deported-after https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/department-of-h...
- ohashi 7y ago
  That's literally at the beginning of the article linked.
- Cenk 7y ago
  Imagine not having friends whose social media posts are critical of the US.

dragonsngoblins 7y ago

What always worries me about this is I genuinely do not have any social media accounts, with the exception of HN and reddit, and I am vaguely terrified I will be turned away at a border somewhere for not giving up my facebook/twitter/snapchat/etc details because what 20 something year olf doesn't have facebook/twitter/snapchat/etc?

wavefunction 7y ago

If social media related things should preclude entry it should be enacted as legislation and not left to violent criminals (a border control officer is indicted every 36 hours). flips off any ICE/border agents reading my post history in the future

drusepth 7y ago
Do you have a source for "a border control officer is indicted every 36 hours"?
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
  Page 17 of this report https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2018-Oct/opr-annual-report-fy16-17-employee-misconduct-corruption-stats_0.pdf https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/201... The JIC received 256 reports of arrest in FY 2016 involving 251 employees. Five of these 251 employees had more than one arrest in FY 2016. In FY 2017, the JIC received 254 reports of arrest, involving 245 employees. Seven were arrested twice and one employee was arrested three times in FY 2017. This misconduct occurred primarily off-duty but also included illegal activity while on duty, in cases of corruption.
  - wavefunction 7y ago
    Thanks for your fine source, I first heard it on national NPR who mentioned that it used to be 1 felony indictment every 24 hours, so things are at least 33% better as far as ICE/border control is concerned.
  - masonic 7y ago
    An arrest is not an indictment. Arrests often don't even result in prosecution at all.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
      That's a very good point.

parineum 7y ago

I don't see why this is so controversial. It seems like the proper way to do a background check in the current era. It really all depends on _what_ disqualifies someone from entry. The worry seems to stem from a general distrust of ICE and the current administration rather than this actual technique. I have to think that if someone bragging about criminal activity on Instagram/Twitter got through the border and murdered somebody, ICE would be criticized for not doing their due diligence.

Mirioron 7y ago
Because a lot of conversions nowadays happen online. If you have to give them access to everything then they'll also know everything about you and there's absolutely no reassurance that this information isn't going to be used in malicious ways. Even the NSA couldn't keep its agents in check and they abused access to the data for personal gain. How are they going to stop border agents?
- cced 7y ago
  Source on the mentioned abuse of access?
  - T3OU-736 7y ago
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-idUSBRE98Q14G20130927 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... seems to be relevant
new299 7y ago
> I don't see why this is so controversial. It seems like the proper way to do a background check in the current era. Because it's not normal to perform extensive background checks for people visiting your country? I'd think it pretty weird it they wanted to interview my family, friends, employer, previous employer. > The worry seems to stem from a general distrust of ICE and the current administration rather than this actual technique. No... I mean I find the actual technique offensive. They can find public profiles associated with my name by googling me. Why do you need to provide them information about which handles are associated with me? If it's because otherwise they might mismatch profiles <-> individuals, perhaps they just shouldn't be using this information to profile people?

tzs 7y ago

> I don't like this, I think it will have a chilling effect on free speech, but if you're posting in public I think you have to expect folks may pull up your posts. It's not just your posts that can get you in trouble at the border. They also check the posts of people you follow, and those too can get you in trouble. There was just such a case in the news this week [1]. A 17 year old Palestinian arriving to start his freshman year at Harvard had his visa cancelled when he arrived and was sent home because they found that some of his social media friends posted political views that opposed US positions. [1] https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/department-of-homeland-security/458956-harvard-freshman-deported-after https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/department-of-h...

ohashi 7y ago
That's literally at the beginning of the article linked.
Cenk 7y ago
Imagine not having friends whose social media posts are critical of the US.