US To Seek Social Media Details From Certain Visa Applicants (phys.org) 76
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: The State Department wants to review social media, email addresses and phone numbers from some foreigners seeking U.S. visas, as part of the Trump administration's enhanced screening of potential immigrants and visitors. The department, in a notice published Thursday in the Federal Register, said it was seeking public comment on the requirement. But it also said it is requesting a temporary go-ahead from the White House budget office so the plan can take effect for 180 days, beginning May 18, regardless of those comments. The proposed requirements would apply to visa applicants identified for extra scrutiny, such as those who have traveled to areas controlled by terrorist organizations. The State Department said it estimates that the rules would affect about 0.5 percent of total U.S. visa applicants, or roughly 65,000 people. Affected applicants would have to provide their social media handles and platforms used during the previous five years, and divulge all phone numbers and email addresses used during that period. U.S. consular officials would not seek social media passwords, and would not try to breach any privacy controls on applicants' accounts, according to the department's notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it is such a shithole then why are they trying to get in?
Re:Who cares (Score:4, Funny)
For superior health care, silly.
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not a Visa applicant, so whatever! This doesn't affect me!
If you do decide to be a Visa applicant, I would recommend you not post "Kill the Infidels" on your FB page.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
And yet, I don't see many Christians writing "Kill the witches" on social media. It's almost as if Christian thought evolved beyond the beliefs of the Jewish books that preceded Christianity, as if the cultural norms and practices of a religion are not necessarily constrained by its scripture.
If I did see a Christian unusual enough to write "Kill the witches" on Facebook, I'd think there was something wrong with him. If I were in charge of vetting him for entrance to a country, I would likely treat that a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As a Greek i have the privilege to read the New Testament in it's original language: Greek! I have not read anywhere the phrase "Kill the witches" or anything like this - on the contrary, i read many things about not killing, not even those who want to kill you.
And, as usual when i try to describe Muslims as they are (violent) in Slashdot, you try to suggest that Christians are like Jews (the ones who killed Christ... because He told people to not be like Jews who kill witches!).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
And as i wrote:
STOP ATTACKING CHRISTIANS WITH LIES EVERY TIME SOMEONE DESCRIBES THE VIOLENT NATURE OF MUSLIMS
Christians are the followers of Christ, as we know Him from the New Testament (where, among others, He instruct His followers to NON-violence) - killed by the Jews who follow the Old Testament (the one you are quoting from)
Muslims follow Muhammad, as we know him from the Quran and the hadids, and where, among others, he instruct his followers to "Kill the Infidels".
Is that clear enough for you Sir,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Conversely if the US government want to use visa applications for data mining, I suggest they make them a hell of lot cheaper https://ais.usvisa-info.com/en... [usvisa-info.com]. Charging people $160 to mine their data seems like you will definitely limit you opportunity to do so. I would suggest the US government pay people rather than them paying the US and then they can ask for all sorts of information ;D.
Just to be clear to readers... (Score:3, Interesting)
The proposed requirements would apply to visa applicants identified for extra scrutiny, such as those who have traveled to areas controlled by terrorist organizations...
This sentence should read...
The proposed requirements would apply to visa applicants identified for extra scrutiny, such as those who have traveled to areas controlled by terrorist organizations as defined by the USA.
Emphasis mine - Just to be clear since who a terrorist is to one entity, might be a "hero" of sorts to another.
Now, before I get crucified here, lets remember that the Taliban were once supported by the USA. During that time, some called them terrorists. What they are to the USA now, is well known.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may not be aware but if one is applying for a US visa, the granting of a visa is also dependent on whether this individual has *ever* been labeled or investigated on issues relating to terrorism by any entity, including foreign governments.
Re: (Score:2)
...lets remember that the Taliban were once supported by the USA. During that time, some called them terrorists.
Yup, the USA called them "Freedom Fighters" back then.
So what (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't travel to the US and don't do business with US companies. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't travel to the US and don't do business with US companies. Problem solved.
I'm sure your shareholders will support your noble position.
Re: (Score:2)
Give a speech, get invited on stage as a long time supporter? Local TV covered the event? In the local news paper? Was on social media?
Thought the USA would never keep a database of each and every face? Thought the UK would never have teams in place to share such details with other nations and police globally
Good idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This is a good idea. People who use "social media" should not be allowed in the country.
Except that would be troubling for the rest of the world if they had to absorb an influx of american refugees kicked out of the USA for social media usage.
Of course Trump would be fine. He would just have a staffer deny that he ever used social media (right after Trump's tweeting about how bad this Obama policy was)
Tourists too (Score:2, Interesting)
Speaking with a visitor to the US from the UK last month they told me that in order to enter the US they had to give up their account information for all social media sites and agree that they could be banned from entering the US if they changed their password anytime in the next two years. That sh!t is unacceptable, IMHO.
Re: (Score:1)
Why do so many people who complain about how overweening and disdainful of the Constitution the US government has become immediately turn around and want to put that same government in charge of the entire US health care system?
"Hey, the government is an out-of-control power mad beast! Let's give it even more power!"
What the fuck?
yeah Government should get out of health care and privacy and law passing heck the government was bad at that Korean war thing why do we keep letting the government control all our wars? The government bad in one area is a government bad in ALL areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know why this is modded down, but that's a really stupid codicil: breaches happen all the time and requests to change your password are frequent. Yet doing so (to, ironically, increase security) means that because the goons won't be able access your account any more therefore you are a security risk and must be banned. Fucking idiotic.
How Fortunate (Score:3)
Failure to Understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments don't understand that social media can be easily forged to appear normal enough and puppet accounts are easy enough to manufacture. The equation of security awareness with user profiling is a foolhardy notion at best. The skilled will use this to their advantage while the unskilled may be inappropriately harmed by false positives.
True security awareness must be undetected by the masses and after continual thought on this subject, such awareness is as critical as it is dangerous. The body of data available online does not reveal anything through the noise and only works to eliminate unintelligent threats against any nation.
However, enough people are willing to fork over intimate details about who they are and what their beliefs are. And those who are but shadows in the social areas are more likely to also suffer the consequences of a false positive due to their care and caution against leaving a footprint.
What is an ideal citizen and who gets to decide that? What does it mean when opposing parties secure their power rather than secure true safety for a population?
We could face a total enslavement to AI eventually, even with cautious practices; these policies only help human beings to tighten our own collective noose.
Once a policy exists for one small demographic, in this case new immigrants, that policy can easily widen to 100% of all citizens. However, we should assume that even today, everything we say or do online is added to the international security blueprint. Very few get to decide how that information is used and most of them are sociopathic narcissists, because that appears to be one of the hallmark traits of many a politician.
What's better though, through knowing about this, is that we can identify a clear path through such adversity and find ways to protect citizens from such potential threats.
There are threats to sovereignty and safety and we can look carefully at protecting all people from injustice but only if we get a clear understanding about what injustice is, where it comes from and how it can be averted effectively.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments don't understand that social media can be easily forged to appear normal enough and puppet accounts are easy enough to manufacture.
Until our robot overlords ascend to power, governments are, fundamentally, groups of people. In this case, the question is what the Trump administration (which controls the State Department) does, or does not, understand.
Let's say someone comes to the USA with the intent of committing a major terrorist attack and they don't give their full list of email addresses and social media accounts to the Department of State. There's some question of whether the State Department would be able to detect this. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the State Department does some "extreme vetting" and turns up an extra social media account that is strongly critical of USA foreign policy in the Middle East.
What does the State Department do? Does the State Department send the person back to their own country to refine their plan? "Sorry, you said bad things about the USA on your blog so we can't let you into the USA legally. If you're really serious about carrying out your attack then you'll have to find a way to sneak into the USA illegally - across the border with Canada or something"
And does the Trump administration really think that this social media policy is going to be effective? Or does the Trump administration know that this won't actually prevent major terrorist attacks but they're counting on their supporters to be too simple-minded to realize it? I honestly don't know what the case is here. They do say that the best liars find ways to believe their own lies.
thing is being refused entry is a really bad black mark. For some people it's not just "go home and start over" it's more like "Welcome to the no entry list unless you fellate me". It's not easy to get past that for everyone. In theory a hidden social media account (again presuming it's was even possible for the government to detect) could get you functionally blackballed from entry.
If you talk to the people from the Muslim ban who couldn't get in they aren't itching to leave the country again precisely
Left hand, right hand (Score:2)
Affected applicants would have to provide their social media handles and platforms used during the previous five years, and divulge all phone numbers and email addresses used during that period. U.S. consular officials would not seek social media passwords, and would not try to breach any privacy controls on applicants' accounts, according to the department's notice.
So consular officers won't do that, but I bet it'll all go through a NSA filter and since we're talking about foreigners they're free to do all the dragnet surveillance they want.
Unless you're a hermit, you've broken the law! (Score:2)
In addition to being very invasive (phone number's often as good as a street address), this is a scheme to easily find all non-hermits at fault after they inevitably fail to list a phone number or email.
Could you conceivably remember every time you've ever picked up a phone, including i) *all* your old phone numbers, ii) the phone numbers of every hotel,hospital or home where you've been a guest, iii) anywhere else you've been reached or used the phone, iv) all remote work-related locations' or customer sit
Next they'll start asking people's names (Score:2, Troll)
> very invasive (phone number's often as good as a street address)
Yeah I bet the next step is when Syrians and Iranians try to fly into the US, the US government will start asking for their name and address! It's just like Hitler!
Damn we *must* do something about our schools. We spend twice as much on schools as other countries, yet we're raising a generation of idiots.
brown people (Score:4, Insightful)
"Certain Visa applicants"
You mean brown people.... all others will be patted on the back and allowed to enter
Yeah, right. (Score:1)