3 ms·

> Do you think the US government should not look at what people publicly say as part of their entrance criteria to the US? If so, what about those people who pu

> Do you think the US government should not look at what people publicly say as part of their entrance criteria to the US? If so, what about those people who publicly say they want to harm an individual or group of people? Should what they say not be considered for entrance? The US government has a responsibility to protect it's individuals as part of the entrance selection criteria to the US. It's the endless debate of security v.s. privacy and potential abuse of policy. Governments across the globe are trying to use the technology boom as an opportunity to redefine the borders on this topic that I believe were perfectly fine before. And it's all smoke and mirrors to distract from the fact that it's just literally 'because technology'. Example 1: the postal service opening your mail is a big no-no without a warrant, but suddenly 'because technology' it's okay to do to internet traffic? Example 2: Two people having a private conversation has been possible since the dawn of time, but suddenly 'because technology' the government has the inalienable right to eavesdrop and backdoor every conversation at any time? Example 3: The right to not self-incriminate is incredibly important, but suddenly 'because technology' you can be forced to give up encryption keys and open laptops using information that only exists in your head, or risk being detained indefinitely? I believe that if your argument boils down to 'it's X but with technology' then the government shouldn't have any extra rights or deny any of yours. I personally think the real issue with the social media border inspection is the self-incrimination and possibly warrentless searches. I don't have an issue with a border agent looking you up on Facebook, finding your public profile and seeing you posted messages inciting violence against gays, and denying you entry. I do have issues with the government forcing Facebook to give up private messages without a warrant. I also have a problem with you being forced to divulge all your social media accounts or risk being denied entry based on the fact that you lied. This is just plain self-incrimination.

geodel 6y ago
> Example 1: the postal service opening your mail is a big no-no without a warrant, but suddenly 'because technology' it's okay to do to internet traffic? Considering piracy supporters appear very self righteous about watching HBO shows, Disney movies and so on just because internets allows them to do so for free. And forums such as this are quite encouraging of this behavior. I feel most arguments are essentially "If it works in my favor, it is good and I will call it ethically right thing to reinforce this behavior otherwise it is obviously bad and others should not be allowed to do so.
mfer 6y ago
You bring out some good issues. Three things come out to me... 1. What we post through most social media platforms is direct messages rather than private messages. It's a subtle semantic difference but an important one. The things we say there isn't private. I remember reading about banks getting access to direct messages on FB. I'm not suggesting governments should pilfer this information. I am suggesting we should not have an expectation of privacy. 2. There is a semantic difference between "because technology" being used to avoid warrants and a government looking at what one says in public. I think this is important because pushing for and informing the public on one does not inform or solve the other. The "because technology" angle needs far more general society discussion. 3. There is another angle to the security/privacy discussion. In order to keep privacy one may need to not engage with certain things in certain ways. For example, if I don't want my neighbors to know what I'm doing in my yard I need to live in a place with a natural boundary, like a rural area. Being in a rural area means I'm not living in a city. It's a trade-off and always has been. I totally understand the issue with abuse and the 'because technology' situation.

geodel 6y ago

> Example 1: the postal service opening your mail is a big no-no without a warrant, but suddenly 'because technology' it's okay to do to internet traffic? Considering piracy supporters appear very self righteous about watching HBO shows, Disney movies and so on just because internets allows them to do so for free. And forums such as this are quite encouraging of this behavior. I feel most arguments are essentially "If it works in my favor, it is good and I will call it ethically right thing to reinforce this behavior otherwise it is obviously bad and others should not be allowed to do so.

mfer 6y ago

You bring out some good issues. Three things come out to me... 1. What we post through most social media platforms is direct messages rather than private messages. It's a subtle semantic difference but an important one. The things we say there isn't private. I remember reading about banks getting access to direct messages on FB. I'm not suggesting governments should pilfer this information. I am suggesting we should not have an expectation of privacy. 2. There is a semantic difference between "because technology" being used to avoid warrants and a government looking at what one says in public. I think this is important because pushing for and informing the public on one does not inform or solve the other. The "because technology" angle needs far more general society discussion. 3. There is another angle to the security/privacy discussion. In order to keep privacy one may need to not engage with certain things in certain ways. For example, if I don't want my neighbors to know what I'm doing in my yard I need to live in a place with a natural boundary, like a rural area. Being in a rural area means I'm not living in a city. It's a trade-off and always has been. I totally understand the issue with abuse and the 'because technology' situation.