US Demands Social Media Details From Visa Applicants (bbc.com) 378
Nearly all applicants for US visas will have to submit their social media details under newly adopted rules. From a report: The State Department regulations say people will have to submit social media names and five years' worth of email addresses and phone numbers. When proposed last year, authorities estimated the proposal would affect 14.7 million people annually. Certain diplomatic and official visa applicants will be exempt from the stringent new measures. However, people travelling to the US to work or to study will have to hand over their information. "We are constantly working to find mechanisms to improve our screening processes to protect US citizens, while supporting legitimate travel to the United States," the department reportedly said. Previously, only applicants who needed additional vetting -- such as people who had been to parts of the world controlled by terrorist groups -- would need to hand over this data.
I couldn't comply if I wanted to. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do people really just use a single email for everything? In 2019?
Shit, I made a throw-away for any one-off uses that demand an email for whatever. There's no possible way I could supply "5 years worth of email addresses".
And before people get all high and mighty, it isn't just the USA who are doing these shit things. This is "another brick in the wall", but the wall is being built in a lot more ways than this in a lot more places than just the USA. Demanding emails isn't the biggest problem, or the smallest either, but it's yet another.
If we don't reverse course we are headed straight into a permanent, world-wide dystopia of mass surveillance.
Re:I couldn't comply if I wanted to. (Score:5, Funny)
Consider the plight of the poor State Department employee that has to go through someone's submission of the name "Anonymous Coward".
Re: (Score:2)
I can condemn Jesus Christ: "Look! He hung out with hookers, deadbeats and drunks! He was also trying to subvert government! And look at the scam - serving water as wine!"
He sounds likes a typical politician.
What constitutes as social media? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that I have no idea what would constitute a "social media".
Two years ago, I visited US. I'm from a visa waiver country so I only needed to fill out the ESTA application. No problems there. They had the optional section of social media accounts. Since it was optional, I didn't fill it in, but I did take a look at the choices.
The dropdown had a bunch of choices, including Facebook and Linkendin and a few other obvious ones (even Google+). However, they also listed stuff like Github. Then of course, there was the option "Other". And therein lies the problem. I have accounts on several forums, including Slashdot, some small time phpbb bulletin boards such as Gentoo forums, WoW guild and so on. And bunch of bugzillas. Heck, does a good old mailing list constitute a "social media"?
In the same vein, "list all e-mail addresses for the last 5 years?". You mean the ones I create for signing up for a service and then throw away? I factually don't even know most of them since they have a lifetime of grand total of a few days or something.
I guess this is really more about finding discrepancies so they can throw those at you as an aggravating circumstance in case you later commit something nefarious after getting entry.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess this is really more about finding discrepancies so they can throw those at you as an aggravating circumstance in case you later commit something nefarious after getting entry.
Exactly so. Al Capone Tax Evasion. It's not about some TSA goon trolling through your social medias, it's about creating more laws that everybody will inevitably break. Bigger book to throw at you, if someone decides the book needs-a-throwin'.
I'll stick with Mastercard (Score:5, Funny)
may be hard to enforce (Score:2, Interesting)
How are they going to prove you have social media? About the only thing they can do is google your name, but if it's a common name good luck to them with that. Also what if they google someone's name and they get the wrong person? Google turns up around 6 names the same as mine when I google myself and none of them are actually me.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be super hard to enforce. But on the other hand, they likely already know everything about you because they bought all your data from facebook or some other data clearinghouse to add to what they profile first hand.
Re:may be hard to enforce (Score:5, Insightful)
How are they going to prove you have social media?
They don't care. They ask a bunch of "doh, that's against the law" questions and then if you are found guilty of whatever you're now not only guilty of smuggling drugs or working illegally but also of forging documents. It's basically a free felony, applied only to foreigners. I don't recall all the questions but I think one was if I was a Nazi war criminal, they don't expect anyone to say yes to that. They expect you to lie so if they catch you they have a charge to put you in jail with.
Re: (Score:2)
My name is super-common too. Googling my name (in Incognito Mode to prevent Google from showing me just my own stuff), shows me to be a YouTuber, Musician, Adobe Evangelist, an actor in Robocop, a member of the Federalist Society, a plastic surgeon in Hollywood, and a professor in Toledo. And that's just the first three pages, none of which are the real me. Or are they? (I *knew* there was a reason why I had no free time.)
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA will just correlate the IP address you applied for the visa from with the ones someone with your name logged in to Facebook with.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook isn't difficult about sharing data. As in here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/... [thedailybeast.com]
No NSA intervention needed. Any homeland security guy can point at a social media post which is too critical and facebook will gladly comply and provide him with full account access.
Interesting Shift in Slashdot Culture (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been around Slashdot for awhile (though I'm by no means an "original user"). It used to be that any proposal for increased government control was met with outrage on Slashdot. A proposal that the government should get access to someone's "social media names and five years' worth of email addresses and phone numbers"? There would have been outrage whether or not said person was US Citizen or a visitor. Many posters would have been questioning how long until this requirement was extended to citizens "for security purposes" and/or how long until this was abused to keep people out who aren't threats but whose political opinions those in power don't like.
Now, though, there's a strong contingent of Slashdot users hailing the government collecting massive amounts of information on people as a good thing simply because it's not on them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the rise of the steam / mmo / walled garden loving generation. These kids have no qualms having corporations control or own their machines. Go to a site like reddit and tell them mmo's were part of the plan to get rid of software ownership and watch the downvotes cometh.
To think I'd get to see the end of software ownership and windows 10 with drm in it with VM's and encrypted computing push VIA UWP just because the average stupid fucking moron got internet. What a time to be alive. All that shit us
Re: (Score:3)
I hung around slightly longer than my id suggests . I'd phrase it in a less friendly manner. I'm disgusted by the new measures and by the response to them.
Thousands of email addresses (Score:5, Informative)
First off, in general, this entire thing seems problematic. Further, the company I work for scratched a convention here in the US because attendance was going to be so low by foreign attendants - they were the ones who told me of this new screening in the first place.
However, on to a logistical stupidity with with this requirement - I have thousands of email addresses. I make them up on the fly on my domains as needed. I want to register at Best Buy to buy something? Okay then, bestbuy@MYDOMAIN.com it is (where MYDOMAIN is the name of one of my actual domains). walmart@mydomain.com. On and on and on. For everything I've registered for a decade. Really, if I was a foreigner I would have to attempt to list them all? That is literally impossible for me to do, because I don't even keep a list.
Fak Soc IDs R US dot com (Score:2)
We are of being provider of fake social media accounting for visa applications. Please to send of $20 USD for each of the accounts, and we of provide it safe and securely from our origin in Africa.
Thanks be of to you!
Legitimizing data whores ... (Score:2)
... this is.
I don't have Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.
[Disclosure: I don't need a visa]
So, what I see happening here is a forced signup for leaky shit. Nice work if you can get it, and the major sites are getting it.
The goddam social media started out as a reality game platform and is morphing into a serious prerequisite on governmental levels.
That's so fucked up.
If other countries did the same... (Score:3, Informative)
If other countries did the same... Trump wouldn't be allowed to go anywhere...
Seems like an excuse... (Score:2)
First, from the article, it doesn't appear that they are demanding passwords. (Early proposals for doing this *would* demand passwords, but it seems like that was dropped.)
On the face of it, it seems like they're updating their procedures for the fact that most people have a lot of their lives online.
White I'm worried about is what they'll classify as "social media." It seems to me that it will likely be used to arbitrarily deny people entry when they can't find another reason.
Traveler: Why am I being denie
Re: (Score:3)
99.99% of people who apply for a visa will not have this happen. But I've worked with enough people (not just government) to know that, yes. If someone really doesn't like you, they'll put in the extra effort to find a way to make your life difficult. Government employees are no exception to this.
And like you said. If they don't do it when they process the application, they can do it after you've already arrived. (And that will go worse for you.) Hence the problem with inadequately defined policies. (Again,
It's not achieving much, and will fire back (Score:2)
What is "social media"? (Score:2)
Guess, I'll take my business elsewhere (Score:2)
It's not like I need to work with american companies but it have been advantageous so far. Standing in line for 2 hours in the cattle market that is immigration at Dulles have been barely tolerable but this is crossing the line.
I have enjoyed my trips to the US as the locals are a friendly bunch but their government is just bonkers these days. So I won't return. So long and thanks for all the burgers.
There are a lot of other interesting places in the world to do business, places that don't require the digit
Misdirection (Score:2)
What's worrying about all the commentary so far is that people are so focused on the legitimacy of the request (a perfectly valid issue, of course), but not thinking too much about how this will be used and whether there's any constructive purpose to it.
One person's social media might be all about cat videos. Someone else's might pretty clearly identify their political or religious affiliation. And one might be more parody than anything else. How is this useful in enforcing border controls?
Burn numbers and no social media (Score:2)
What? (Score:3)
Re:There is no problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Not seeing the problem here, it's not for citizens nor legal alien residents. Foreigners can undergo any amount of screening as far as coworkers, friends and communication and it's fine
So you believe that "Foreigners" don't have human rights?
I can see some problems: first, what about people who don't have social media accounts? They just don't get to visit the US? And of course it won't be possible for anyone to circumvent the screening by setting up multiple accounts using pseudonyms, because -- why? And there's the general problem that any resources devoted to ineffective security measures are not being devoted to effective security measures. Is there any evidence that reviewing social media accounts is effective in identifying whoever they're trying to identify? Or is this just a way to try to discourage people from coming to the US?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you believe that "Foreigners" don't have human rights?
When did "come visit the US" become a "human right"?
I can see some problems: first, what about people who don't have social media accounts?
What about them? "I don't have one" is an answer to the question.
And there's the general problem that any resources devoted to ineffective security
Is every question asked during an entry/application interview required to be an immediately verifiable security question? Answer: No. They can be as simple as a fact that can later be verified and used as proof that a crime was committed so that ejecting the criminal from the country is easier.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, "coming to the US" is a human right, ratified by the US under international treaties in certain cases (e.g. people seeking asylum). More importantly, privacy is a human right. As someone who likes to travel, and possibility of retaliatory regulations, I don't want more privacy invasions when I cross the border. And since there's no real benefit (trivial to fake a "clean" account, or deny it exists), I don't see the point.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, "coming to the US" is a human right, ratified by the US under international treaties in certain cases (e.g. people seeking asylum).
This discussion has nothing to do with people seeking asylum.
And since there's no real benefit (trivial to fake a "clean" account, or deny it exists), I don't see the point.
"I don't understand why" isn't an argument against it being done. Making it easier to deport the bad guys is a good goal -- and this is one way of doing that. I've already explained how.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:There is no problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Human rights exist everywhere,
Things that are actually rights, yes. The "right" to enter the US upon demand is not one of them. Therefore, being prevented from entering the US upon demand is not a violation of a human right because it is not a violation of a right of any kind.
Re:There is no problem (Score:4, Informative)
That's correct. You can opt to keep your finger and not enter the country. A country can set any requirements it decides for entry. You don't have to go there. Saudi Arabia, for example, doesn't allow non-Muslims to enter the area around Mecca. You must convert to Islam if you wish to go to Mecca (and then prove you have done so and are a faithful practicer of the religion). Would you like to scream about how that violates your right to freedom of religion? And freedom to travel?
Something that is beneficial to you is not a right. There's a big difference. We've reached a point in society where people equate the two. "I have a right to free birth control!" No, it's not a right. It may be a good benefit and one that is ultimately better for society, but that doesn't mean you have a right that a product or service should be provided to you.
Re: (Score:3)
Saudi Arabia, for example, doesn't allow non-Muslims to enter the area around Mecca. You must convert to Islam if you wish to go to Mecca (and then prove you have done so and are a faithful practicer of the religion). Would you like to scream about how that violates your right to freedom of religion? And freedom to travel?
Actually, yes, that is a nice example of an equal level of bullshit that is happening somewhere else.
Something that is beneficial to you is not a right. There's a big difference. We've reached a point in society where people equate the two. "I have a right to free birth control!" No, it's not a right. It may be a good benefit and one that is ultimately better for society, but that doesn't mean you have a right that a product or service should be provided to you.
Judging from how you write, yes, there's lots of things that are actually rights that you apparently don't think are rights, but this isn't even about them, this is simply about the society NOT doing something damaging to people. You would think this is not a difficult concept to grasp, but I guess the US is simply not as immune to Sovietization as I thought it was. How the tables have turned...
Re: (Score:2)
Matter of fact, I distinctly remember the soviets having less security crap for their internal flights than the US has right now.
Their airport busses though... actual truck semitrailers with doors.
Re: (Score:3)
Using Saudi Arabia as a comp for the alleged "Land of the Free" doesn't really reflect well upon the US.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So if you only could enter the US after having a finger chopped off, this wouldn't violate your right to security of person because you don't have the right to enter the US?
I realize you are trying to be slow, but actually, since you don't have the right to entry upon demand, then to avoid the loss of a finger simply don't enter. Your right to "security of person" is maintained.
We all wind up having to waive rights to be able to do things we want, and not all rights come without any costs. That's life. It doesn't change at the border.
Re: (Score:2)
You have not the right to routinely violate human rights on people who want to lawfully enter the U.S. in exchange for letting them come in. Human rights are rights, not tradeable goods in exchange for the right to enter.
Re: (Score:3)
No. You got it wrong. If you don't want someone entering the U.S., simply say no.
Which is a pretty good clue that these new questions for work or study visa applicants isn't an attempt at preventing them from entry.
You have not the right to routinely violate human rights
And YOU have not the right to pretend that asking someone their email address is a violation of their human rights. That's trivializing whatever real violations may be taking place, and it makes you look foolish. And it makes people ignore you when you actually hit on a real problem. The boy who cried wolf, remember?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you think secrecy about your communications that travel over US communication systems is a "human right," maybe we just don't want you as an immigrant?
Do you agree that that relationship is consensual, or do you imagine that the existence of national sovereignty violates your "human" rights?
That's just anarchistic bullshit that would be unable to be implemented.
If you try to circumvent the screening, the most likely outcome is that they will still identify your account, and you'll go to jail before being
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with security and is simply just another way to deter travel from developing nations, which Trump bluntly referred to as "shithole countries,"
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't provide it when applying for an ESTA last year.
Didn't cause me any issues at the time, or on the six subsequent occasions I've entered the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe selecting for new citizens who don't value their fundamental rights (e.g. to privacy) will lead to a block of people who vote them down for existing citizens (there are plenty who are already voting that way.) Hence, people who want to protect their privacy should hate this as an immigration screening question.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe selecting for new citizens who don't value their fundamental rights (e.g. to privacy) will lead to a block of people who vote them down for existing citizens
I guess it is progress when someone admits that people who are here on work or study visas are managing to vote in US elections somehow. I don't think you realized you just said that, however.
Perhaps you didn't notice that the new requirement was for people requesting work or study visas, not asylum or vacation visits?
Re: (Score:3)
If you think secrecy about your communications that travel over US communication systems is a "human right," maybe we just don't want you as an immigrant?
Then why did the US sign the UDHR, which states that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence"? Or is that also "anarchistic bullshit"?
The US Government already knows what people's social media accounts are. There is lots of stuff in a visa application that is asked because they already know the answers. That's by design. We want honest immigrants who believe in our system and want to be a part of it, not criminals with intent to lie.
How did you even jump from visas to immigrants? Lots of people who apply for visas don't want to be "a part of your system" (probably the vast majority, according to this data [state.gov]).
Re: (Score:2)
Now, hold up. The US constitution is a pile of chains and regulations on the government. What it specifically CAN do, and the bill of rights is what it specifically CANNOT do. There is nothing the constitution that throws in "but only in regard to citizens". Non-US Citizens enjoy the protection provided by the bill of rights just as much as you or I. This is hella important, to us, because of the nightmare scenario where the US government starts conveniently labelling people as non-citizens which have no ri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, that's a right. And the 4th amendment to the US constitution restricts the US government from violating it.
But coming into the USA is not a right. You have the right to stay where you are. If you want to come here, we've got a questionnaire and we may or may not let you in. The system, honestly, really really sucks. But it's our right, collectively, to say "no thank you, you are not welcome".
you believe that US ownership of wires trumps a person's privacy
Don't be a hyperbolic asshole fomenting conflict.
Re:There is no problem (Score:5, Insightful)
When you say you don't see a problem, what type of problem do you mean? Your answer appears to imply "legal problem". But perhaps you mean something more than this, eg you don't see this as a moral problem either? Or maybe you mean that you don't think there are practical problems associated with this policy either? So I'd be curious to know what you mean by problem.
FWIW, I think there's unlikely to be a big legal problem, but there certainly are significant moral and practical problems. For example, among the practical problems are the risks to US citizens who go abroad themselves, who may be subject to reciprocal measures. That's just one issue; there are plenty more.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, among the practical problems are the risks to US citizens who go abroad themselves, who may be subject to reciprocal measures.
US citizens are already subject to reciprocal measures. And those countries who implement them know they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Brazil, for example, which is quite up front about the reason for it's ridiculous visa processing fee, who doesn't get as many US tourists as they might otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should aim to be better than Brazil.
I am better than Brazil.
I'm interested in what moral philosophy you subscribe to where Brazil doing it makes it okay.
I'm interested in how you think I said anything was ok. The OP commented that there might be "reciprocal measures" because of this; I simply pointed out that "reciprocal measures" already exist. Any country that wants to limit US citizen visitation already does so and doesn't need this as an excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should aim to be better than Brazil.
Given that Brazil's policy appears to be treating US citizens the way that the US treat Brazilians being better than Brazil would in fact be quite trivial.
Re: (Score:2)
So, last January the fee dropped from $160. It was $200 when I got mine, and you had to courier your passport to one of two Brazilian embassies in the US. They were explicit in saying that the fee and red tape were a direct response to US requirements. As in, like I said, "reciprocal measures" are
Re: (Score:3)
And why shouldn't every country require this of anyone visiting? If the country didn't want to put forth the effort in additional screening, that's perfectly fine, but all should have the option and imho use this option. If someone wants to visit somewhere for whatever reason, I don't see how asking for a little more info is likely to stop them.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a certain threshold when all the effort just isn't worth it. If you're visiting family or for business, sure, you might jump through the hoops, but if it's just for a vacation, hell no. I definitely prefer places that don't require a visa at all, give them on arrival or most require a quick visit to the embassy.
Last year I had to go to Canada to meet with some friends of mine there. The visa process was so horrible and expensive, I never would've gone there if it wasn't the only opportunity to see t
Re: (Score:2)
Stops me perfectly well.
There are other places to visit that don't have these ridiculous measures.
This is why I don't bother to visit Russia either even though I speak the language quite fluently.
Re: (Score:2)
There are other places to visit that don't have these ridiculous measures.
I'm sorry that someone asking you your email address and phone number is such a burden.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just dont have social media accounts. Slashdot and nextdoor are the closest things to a social media account I have. I hate texting, but admit that imessage/texting has some benefit of asynchronous communication thats a bit faster than email responses.
What I don’t get is how do they expect this to work? I mean if somebody fails to mention a Facebook username where they post Death to America death to the great Satan, etc. how will they know? You would have to be pretty stupid to give out
Re: (Score:2)
I mean if somebody fails to mention a Facebook username where they post Death to America death to the great Satan, etc. how will they know?
Because at the time you actually become a "person of interest" (i.e., suspect in something) there will be a full investigation. That will likely include a warrant to search your phone and computer, and at that point your social media accounts will become known.
And THAT is when they have another nail for the deportation coffin. By lying on your visa application you have committed a federal crime that is trivially easy to prove. Anyone who thinks there will be someone in the back room looking up every twitt
Re: (Score:3)
I really don't want every country to do what Venezuela did and force Americans to go through "enhanced screening", including turning over all accounts, passwords, 2FA codes, and such, just due to retaliation. I really don't want to have to carry a different phone when I go outside the US just so Lower Elbonia's US only detention room doesn't get free reign over my social media, work accounts, and other contacts.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> I really don't want every country to do what Venezuela did
Well good thing that isn't what the story is about, or part of this discussion. Way to go, trying to move the goalpost into the parking lot. SMH
Re:There is no problem (Score:4, Insightful)
It's completely fine if you don't mind foreigners not visiting the US, not cooperating with you, conferences and standards bodies moving away etc. From the rest of the world, I'd like to say thanks for the free boost to our businesses.
You may want to reconsider the implications this has for US citizens though. If rights are not universal, that means that they can be taken away from you as well. Either everyone has them, or they are not rights but rather privileges that you enjoy at the pleasure of your masters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If rights are not universal, that means that they can be taken away from you as well.
I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the "right" to enter another country has been "universal", until you, now. I don't think it would be hard to come up with a list of countries that limit my entry as a US citizen. I guess my right to enter their country without hindrance has been taken away already.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not the right to enter the country, the right to privacy and protection from unreasonable searches.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure that ultimately, this step is in preparation of closing the borders. After all, the US does not need the world, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Now that we are energy independent?
yeah. Pretty much.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, background checks have ALWAYS been a part of U.S. visa applications since they were first required in 1924. Originally, done with "police or morality check", a written document from place of origin stating the immigrant wasn't a criminal. Guess what, that's still required as are other things. It's smart, normal and proper.
Re: (Score:2)
Your are talking about the Visa Waiver program. Guess what 157 countries on planet Earth have in common? Answer, they are NOT part of the Visa Waiver program. Doesn't change the truth of what I posted, you have no point.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem oblivious to the fact that background checks have been done with visa applications since they were first required a century ago, and first done by required written police or morality check issued by authorities in area of origin. A background check is very old and very history and proper process.
Nothing stupid about it, it's normal.
Re: (Score:2)
It should also be normal when trying to buy a gun. If this is about "national security", then demanding all social media accounts going back five years in order to purc
Re: (Score:2)
it's not for citizens nor legal alien residents.
. . . yet.
It's coming . . first for legal alien residents. Then for citizens residing outside the US.
. . . and then for all US citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Under normal political climate, I wouldn't have trouble with this. But with the current administration I am concerned.
Primarily because it may be used political purposes vs. general safety purposes.
The Trump Administration has been abusing national security excuse for nearly every action that it can't get by via the normal Checks and balances built into the system.
Visa Applicants bring paying customers into the US economy, as well are working in US Companies, to help those companies bring in money to the c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Under normal political climate, I wouldn't have trouble with this. But with the current administration I am concerned.
Under 'normal political climate', you should be assuming the worst about the the *next* administration.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you like to submit this information the next time you visit the UK? Spain? Canada?
Do they need a visa to visit?
Put it this way: Do you think Americans have to go to the Canadian Embassy and put in an application before visiting? Or can we just drive to the border and cross it using identification?
People visiting from friendly countries don't need a visa to visit.
People visiting from countries that do need a visa just to visit, those people almost always stay here in the end, and should be screened.
As long as it is a one-time review, not ongoing access, it seems reasonable and helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
You need a visa to visit any country, but we have agreements with some countries to instant issue a visa (Canada being a very notable example)
Re: (Score:3)
They just waved me through after a brief conversation.
Go to the Mexican border, and they don't even need to do that. You can just walk through a turnstile into Tijuana, showing no ID, and talking to no one.
Crossing European borders is often no different than crossing American state borders. Just a sign that says "Bienvenue en France".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People visiting from friendly countries don't need a visa to visit....people visiting from countries that do need a visa just to visit, those people almost always stay here in the end, and should be screened.
As long as it is a one-time review, not ongoing access, it seems reasonable and helpful.
Hi, I was a foreign worker in the US from a "friendly" country. In my time as a foreign worker, I had 5 visas over a 14 year period, meaning that if the request was for five years of information per visa, it would amount to 19 years of information including all phone numbers and email addresses used since arriving in the US. Does that count as ongoing? From a safety point of view, what is the value in screening "friendly" foreign workers but not "friendly" foreign visitors? Don't both groups pose a simil
Re: (Score:2)
I was a foreign worker in the US from a "friendly" country. In my time as a foreign worker, I had 5 visas over a 14 year period,
Not visa-waiver friendly. The U.S. has a Visa Waiver Program which allows certain citizens from certain countries to travel visa-free, provided that they meet a number of requirements, mostly related to health and criminal convictions. Your country may be "friendly", but it apparently is not VWP-friendly.
Also, for simple business and tourist travel, most people are issued a 10-year b1/b2 visa. If you've had multiple visas, you either applied in different classes (work vs tourist vs student for example), o
Re: (Score:2)
A social media account with no history would be, IMO, even more suspicious than not having one at all, because it suggests that you know enough about social media to create an account, which means you probably already had one, and created a second one because you have something to hide.
Re: (Score:3)
That the visa waiver is itself a visa is a bit confusing, to be sure.
Somebody said
Would you like to submit this information the next time you visit the UK? Spain? Canada?
and I replied with
Do they need a visa to visit?
Put it this way: Do you think Americans have to go to the Canadian Embassy and put in an application before visiting? Or can we just drive to the border and cross it using identification?
So clearly, I was suggesting that I do not expect to have to give that information to visit Canada.
The UK however asks all sorts of absurd questions when Americans visit, designed to detect and reject entry not only to people who intend to immigrate, but even to people who might be statistically more likely to try! I can't just walk into the UK by showing ID. Which are also the least dangerous visitors, of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but do you honestly think Mohamed Atta would provide his atta_wtc911 Facebook userid?
As counter-intuitive as it may seem, yes he probably would. People who are radical enough to commit suicide actually believe they are fighting a noble cause. Outside of serious mental issues like depression, I can't imagine someone being that committed without being proud of their stance. I would expect it to be a simple matter to feed the "massaged for Western consumption" version of the page to an AI to find that it was massaged, and what the person is really up to.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confused. The Constitution and Bill of Rights don't apply to questions our government asks some foreigner in a foreign land on a questionnaire. Never did, never will.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is compelled to answer visa questions. You can sit in your foreign country and never answer any U.S. visa questions. Of course, you won't be allowed to come here. So there is no problem. The Constitution is utterly irrelevant in that case.
Re: (Score:2)
This dragnet is not about catching "terrorists", but about building complete surveillance. And if you meet "foreigners", you're as much a target as they are. Congrats.
Re: (Score:2)
So what about shitposting on 4chan that don't require any account?
Maybe this would spell the end of 4chan if they are required to run accounts.
Meanwhile anyone willing to do clandestine communication will figure out other ways.
And when you look at how the terrorists have been recruited - it's not on social media but on various meetings.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to quit pretending this is about "terrorism". They're just scraping the sea floor for more data.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
then kill them in defense. That's my right.
All the best. Happy hunting!
In the meantime, be sure to show up for your shift on time. It'll be much appreciated.
Re: (Score:2)
If we do away with the electoral college, then 40+ states will have exactly zero say in who gets elected as president.
Good luck getting their representatives to agree to such a change.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I am arguing one way or the other, but what you say is factually incorrect. The bottom 40 states are representing 48% of the population. So they do have a reasonable impact on the election. Probably Wyoming would lose the most power, the electoral college gives 0.55% of the power to Wyoming, while it only has 0.17% of the US population.
But the amount of electoral college votes are already somewhat proportional to the population in that state.
What is crazy in my opinion is that the election at the s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes. It is undemocratic. The fact that you think you are providing information with that statement indicates that you have no idea what a federal republic is or even why we have an electoral college. Take a civics class so you do not continue posting complete nonsense.
Hint: The EC was never about demagogues. It was always about balancing the power of large, populous states against small ones, ie making the votes of country folk count twice as much as votes of city folk, as an enticement to get the coun
Re: (Score:2)
Without the electoral college, neither Trump nor Clinton would have run the same campaign. Maybe Clinton would have won, maybe Trump would have won by a bigger margin.
Re: (Score:2)
But, do they have time to delete all their links?
But, I get your point. There is also the issue of how many accounts? I'm on /. I used to be on Facebook. I have a StackOverflow account. There's GitHub. And email. I've had an address for every company I've worked for. That is about 4 over the past five years. Then there are Google emails for spam holes, and then emails I actually use.
Would they be upset if the only account I handed over was a Pornhub account? I'll just claim it takes all my free ti