9 ms·

> "The government should not be using algorithms to scrutinize our social media posts and decide which of us is 'risky.' This article isn't super clear about w

> "The government should not be using algorithms to scrutinize our social media posts and decide which of us is 'risky.' This article isn't super clear about what agencies are using this for what purposes, beyond looking at visa applicants, but visa applicants aren't US citizens and aren't in the US, so they don't have the same set of rights that citizens do, nor should they.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
Are you aware that citizens within 100 miles of borders including Great Lakes are ok for border patrol to spy on, have their vehicles searched without warrant, etc? That area covers over 65% of the total US population btw
blululu 3y ago
That’s because that information is not available. The ACLU is working on finding that. The law applies to every one equally on US soil. Visa applicants can often be located in the US so they would have standing in a US court.
- lsmeducation 3y ago
  Does this even have to be a citizenship issue? The DHS is providing evidence that could alter the judgement of many of these people's cases. Do you have to be American to request that evidence be vetted? If anything, one wrong algo and you can re-open or close buckets of cases at once.
- gene91 3y ago
  > Visa applicants can often be located in the US Since 9/11, one cannot apply for a US visa if they’re in US. In the context of US immigration, “visa” grants entry, “status” grants stay. If you’re in US, and need to change “status” to a different category (business/leisure, student, etc), you have two primary choices: (1) apply for “change of status” in US, or (2) leave US, apply for a new “visa” in the new category, and enter US using that new “visa”.
  - dixie_land 3y ago
    Thank you! Many people comment without realizing this. Your entry into the states (visa) and your stay (status) in the states are two completely different things. When you enter with a visa, the CBP officer note your status and its validity date on your I-94. All a visa does is afford you the opportunity to present yourself at the port of entry and request to enter, it bears no guarantee nor right to enter.
tombert 3y ago
> so they don't have the same set of rights that citizens do, nor should they I take issue with the "nor should they" aspect of what you said. While I'm aware it's not a binding document, the United States [1] claims that these rights should be inalienable. This, to me, would imply that these rights should apply to everyone. Obviously this gets into more nebulous territory if the person isn't within the states, but I still fundamentally think the right to free speech should apply. EDIT: [1] Declaration of Independence.
- airstrike 3y ago
  As much as I'd like these rights to apply to me, inalienable means they can't be taken away, not that they apply to aliens, terrestrial or otherwise.
  - tombert 3y ago
    > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights I'm not religious, so I don't believe in a "creator" in the most literal sense, but doesn't this imply that (from the government's perspective) that these rights were given by God, and cannot be taken away by a government? Again, I'm aware that the declaration is not a legally binding document, but I feel like it symbolizes the ideals of what the US was supposed to be.
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      perhaps it means that "some aspects of (human) life on Earth are recognized as fundamental -- by definition they are beyond politics, and beyond any current versions of laws in any written human language" so .. the US Constitution is saying explicitly (using words including diety) .. we recognize that human law is not enough to fairly and completely spell out rights .. therefore these OTHER rights are "inalienable"
    - jaywalk 3y ago
      Where in the Declaration does it state that entering the US is an inalienable right? I'm confused.
salamanderss 3y ago
In my experience with CBP the only real thing being a citizen buys you is they have to let you in -- eventually -- and maybe over a 1+ day detention complete with forced fingerprinting etc. But they will lie and tell you they don't.
- kccqzy 3y ago
  Well they also claim to provide shortened data retention in case they did let you in. I believe photos they take of you must be deleted in twelve hours or something like.
ASalazarMX 3y ago
> visa applicants aren't US citizens and aren't in the US, so they don't have the same set of rights that citizens do, nor should they. That was a strong Kool-Aid. There are universal human rights, there is no need to grant applicants USA constitutional rights to respect the former. It's a matter of decency and honesty, you are not free to infringe the privacy of others just because they weren't born in a different soil than you. Of course, human rights are constantly abused at several degrees all over the world, but geez, at least try to be discrete about it.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > universal human rights, there is no need to grant applicants USA constitutional rights to respect the former I don’t see how denying a visa constitutes infringing on someone’s freedom of speech at the level of a human rights violation. > infringe the privacy of others These are public social media posts. Not private messages.
  - ASalazarMX 3y ago
    Don't be intentionally (I hope) obtuse. I'm not saying everyone should get a visa, I'm saying universal human rights should be repected by all governments that supposedly recognized them. Allow or deny the visa, but respect the applicant's dignity. Privacy is one of those analienable universal human rights recognized by the UN, and demanding to see the social networks of other is infringing it, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. It's not only a faceless government employee(s) probing and ogling your social life, social networks allow private messaging, which becomes non-private after these unreasonable demands. Don't normalize the erosion of human rights.
- adrr 3y ago
  Should we disband the CIA and NSA since all they are focused on spying on non citizens.
  - gustavus 3y ago
    > the CIA and NSA since all they are focused on spying on non citizens. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one.
gustavus 3y ago
"All men are endowned by their creator with certain unalienable rights." - some old Virginian dudes and a bunch of angry Bostonians
turquoisevar 3y ago
Most modern western nations have set up rules, often enshrined in their constitution, for what their government can and can’t do regardless of who they’re doing it to and where they’re doing it. Then there’s the US who has consistently held that those rules only apply on US soil (hence Guantanamo) and that the rules only really apply when it comes to US citizens (lawful permanent residents get a slightly more diminished “store brand” version of the protections).
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Most modern western nations have set up rules, often enshrined in their constitution, for what their government can and can’t do regardless of who they’re doing it to and where they’re doing it Practically all of these have a gaping martial exemption.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    You’d be surprised how little exemptions exist, but since I can’t prove a negative I’ll take whatever you have w/r/t these exemptions by western nations. That said, as far as I know, martial law has only been declared at the federal level once, in 1863 during the Civil War, so I’m not sure what that has the do with anything.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Then there’s the US who has consistently held that those rules only apply on US soil (hence Guantanamo) First, Johnson v. Eisentrager (the one case on which your “consistently held” seems to be anchored), was narrower than that, only holding that US courts lacked jurisdiction to hear challenges from enemy military prisoners who at no point had been held in the US. Second, it and the idea that those detained by the US government have no rights cognizable under US law or enforceable in US courts were subsequently contradicted by Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (US citizens detained in conflict, even entirely overseas, retain Constitutional due process rights), Rasul v. Bush (military detainees have right to habeas corpus review of detention in federal court; this and subsequent cases in this list all deal with non-citizen detainees), Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (in a habeas challenge as allowed under Rasul v. Bush, finding the military commissions instituted at that time at Guatanamo illegal under both the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ), and Boumedienne v. Bush (section of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 purporting to strip detainees of habeas corpus rights was unconstitutional and detainees retained those rights.)
brindlejim 3y ago
Agree with this comment and disagree with the article. The US owes nothing to the people who want to immigrate here, certainly not due process. If they don't like the US, its policies or citizens, the US should find that out. It is the duty of US immigration to scan their posts for anti-US sentiment, as well as adherence to any ideology that is corrosive to democratic society. They are effectively applying for a job as US citizen, and should comport themselves accordingly.

wahnfrieden 3y ago

Are you aware that citizens within 100 miles of borders including Great Lakes are ok for border patrol to spy on, have their vehicles searched without warrant, etc? That area covers over 65% of the total US population btw

blululu 3y ago

That’s because that information is not available. The ACLU is working on finding that. The law applies to every one equally on US soil. Visa applicants can often be located in the US so they would have standing in a US court.

lsmeducation 3y ago
Does this even have to be a citizenship issue? The DHS is providing evidence that could alter the judgement of many of these people's cases. Do you have to be American to request that evidence be vetted? If anything, one wrong algo and you can re-open or close buckets of cases at once.
gene91 3y ago
> Visa applicants can often be located in the US Since 9/11, one cannot apply for a US visa if they’re in US. In the context of US immigration, “visa” grants entry, “status” grants stay. If you’re in US, and need to change “status” to a different category (business/leisure, student, etc), you have two primary choices: (1) apply for “change of status” in US, or (2) leave US, apply for a new “visa” in the new category, and enter US using that new “visa”.
- dixie_land 3y ago
  Thank you! Many people comment without realizing this. Your entry into the states (visa) and your stay (status) in the states are two completely different things. When you enter with a visa, the CBP officer note your status and its validity date on your I-94. All a visa does is afford you the opportunity to present yourself at the port of entry and request to enter, it bears no guarantee nor right to enter.

tombert 3y ago

> so they don't have the same set of rights that citizens do, nor should they I take issue with the "nor should they" aspect of what you said. While I'm aware it's not a binding document, the United States [1] claims that these rights should be inalienable. This, to me, would imply that these rights should apply to everyone. Obviously this gets into more nebulous territory if the person isn't within the states, but I still fundamentally think the right to free speech should apply. EDIT: [1] Declaration of Independence.

airstrike 3y ago
As much as I'd like these rights to apply to me, inalienable means they can't be taken away, not that they apply to aliens, terrestrial or otherwise.
- tombert 3y ago
  > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights I'm not religious, so I don't believe in a "creator" in the most literal sense, but doesn't this imply that (from the government's perspective) that these rights were given by God, and cannot be taken away by a government? Again, I'm aware that the declaration is not a legally binding document, but I feel like it symbolizes the ideals of what the US was supposed to be.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    perhaps it means that "some aspects of (human) life on Earth are recognized as fundamental -- by definition they are beyond politics, and beyond any current versions of laws in any written human language" so .. the US Constitution is saying explicitly (using words including diety) .. we recognize that human law is not enough to fairly and completely spell out rights .. therefore these OTHER rights are "inalienable"
  - jaywalk 3y ago
    Where in the Declaration does it state that entering the US is an inalienable right? I'm confused.

salamanderss 3y ago

In my experience with CBP the only real thing being a citizen buys you is they have to let you in -- eventually -- and maybe over a 1+ day detention complete with forced fingerprinting etc. But they will lie and tell you they don't.

kccqzy 3y ago
Well they also claim to provide shortened data retention in case they did let you in. I believe photos they take of you must be deleted in twelve hours or something like.

ASalazarMX 3y ago

> visa applicants aren't US citizens and aren't in the US, so they don't have the same set of rights that citizens do, nor should they. That was a strong Kool-Aid. There are universal human rights, there is no need to grant applicants USA constitutional rights to respect the former. It's a matter of decency and honesty, you are not free to infringe the privacy of others just because they weren't born in a different soil than you. Of course, human rights are constantly abused at several degrees all over the world, but geez, at least try to be discrete about it.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> universal human rights, there is no need to grant applicants USA constitutional rights to respect the former I don’t see how denying a visa constitutes infringing on someone’s freedom of speech at the level of a human rights violation. > infringe the privacy of others These are public social media posts. Not private messages.
- ASalazarMX 3y ago
  Don't be intentionally (I hope) obtuse. I'm not saying everyone should get a visa, I'm saying universal human rights should be repected by all governments that supposedly recognized them. Allow or deny the visa, but respect the applicant's dignity. Privacy is one of those analienable universal human rights recognized by the UN, and demanding to see the social networks of other is infringing it, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. It's not only a faceless government employee(s) probing and ogling your social life, social networks allow private messaging, which becomes non-private after these unreasonable demands. Don't normalize the erosion of human rights.
adrr 3y ago
Should we disband the CIA and NSA since all they are focused on spying on non citizens.
- gustavus 3y ago
  > the CIA and NSA since all they are focused on spying on non citizens. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one.

gustavus 3y ago

"All men are endowned by their creator with certain unalienable rights." - some old Virginian dudes and a bunch of angry Bostonians

turquoisevar 3y ago

Most modern western nations have set up rules, often enshrined in their constitution, for what their government can and can’t do regardless of who they’re doing it to and where they’re doing it. Then there’s the US who has consistently held that those rules only apply on US soil (hence Guantanamo) and that the rules only really apply when it comes to US citizens (lawful permanent residents get a slightly more diminished “store brand” version of the protections).

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Most modern western nations have set up rules, often enshrined in their constitution, for what their government can and can’t do regardless of who they’re doing it to and where they’re doing it Practically all of these have a gaping martial exemption.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  You’d be surprised how little exemptions exist, but since I can’t prove a negative I’ll take whatever you have w/r/t these exemptions by western nations. That said, as far as I know, martial law has only been declared at the federal level once, in 1863 during the Civil War, so I’m not sure what that has the do with anything.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Then there’s the US who has consistently held that those rules only apply on US soil (hence Guantanamo) First, Johnson v. Eisentrager (the one case on which your “consistently held” seems to be anchored), was narrower than that, only holding that US courts lacked jurisdiction to hear challenges from enemy military prisoners who at no point had been held in the US. Second, it and the idea that those detained by the US government have no rights cognizable under US law or enforceable in US courts were subsequently contradicted by Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (US citizens detained in conflict, even entirely overseas, retain Constitutional due process rights), Rasul v. Bush (military detainees have right to habeas corpus review of detention in federal court; this and subsequent cases in this list all deal with non-citizen detainees), Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (in a habeas challenge as allowed under Rasul v. Bush, finding the military commissions instituted at that time at Guatanamo illegal under both the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ), and Boumedienne v. Bush (section of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 purporting to strip detainees of habeas corpus rights was unconstitutional and detainees retained those rights.)

brindlejim 3y ago

Agree with this comment and disagree with the article. The US owes nothing to the people who want to immigrate here, certainly not due process. If they don't like the US, its policies or citizens, the US should find that out. It is the duty of US immigration to scan their posts for anti-US sentiment, as well as adherence to any ideology that is corrosive to democratic society. They are effectively applying for a job as US citizen, and should comport themselves accordingly.