Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Social Networks Technology

US To Collect Social Media Profiles From Immigrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees (zdnet.com) 85

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
The Department of Homeland Security plans to expand its social media profile collection program from US visa applicants to also include data from immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees. From a report: The DHS published a notice on the federal registry describing its future data collection practice this week. The agency plans to ask immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees to provide usernames -- without passwords -- for 19 social networking sites: Ask.fm (Q&A site), Douban (China-based social network), Facebook, Flickr, Instagram, LinkedIn, MySpace, Pinterest, QZone (QQ) (China-based social network, IM app), Reddit, Sina Weibo (China-based microblogging service), Tencent Weibo (China-based microblogging service), Tumblr, Twitter, Twoo (Belgium-based social network), Vine, VKontakte (VK), Youke (China-based video sharing portal), YouTube. These are the same social media profiles that the DHS had been collecting through the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency from US visa applications -- people who applied for entry in the US from a country where a visa card is required.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US To Collect Social Media Profiles From Immigrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees More

US To Collect Social Media Profiles From Immigrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees

Comments Filter:

  • How long before they start collecting this info from US citizens, or make it a requirement to disclose when citizens enter the USA.

    • I don't have a social media account. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Friday September 06, 2019 @03:37PM (#59166886) Homepage
      I don't have a social media account.

      Can't anyone say he or she doesn't have an account?

      • I have an account, but how would I know what the "username" is? My browser remembers that, and I can't look it up when I'm away from home (e.g. coming back from a foreign trip).

        • I have an account, but how would I know what the "username" is? My browser remembers that, and I can't look it up when I'm away from home (e.g. coming back from a foreign trip).

          It would be more than a little bit strange if you were an immigrant/asylum seeker/refugee coming home from a foreign trip.

      • I should have said in my comment above that I have much more interactive friendships than can be done on social media.
      • Eh, but doesn't Slashdot count?
      • most of them are very poor people fleeing violence (that we caused, I might add). They don't have food much less Facebook.

        • They weren't living in tents with no running water or electricity before deciding to come here. I'm sure things were decent-ish at one point but due to the ever increasing violence in central American, many people decided it was time to go north, come what may.

          The Amish aren't mass immigrating to the USA, but rather people that probably actually really did have access to Internet somewhere in their village. Plus, you can run facebook on some pretty old phone hardware these days.

          Are they poor and fleeing vio

      • I can show them my /. account I think. I haven't said anything too bad here, have I?

        But don't they already know this stuff? Okay, maybe they haven't bothered to match every /. account up with specific people unless we've said something crazy or threatening enough to draw their attention, but if we haven't done that why harass us at legal points of entry?

        It seems a bit onerous to do this though even to non-citizens. I think the problem is they don't have the resources to do a fair assessment of so many ac

      • You could say you didn't have a social media account.
        But if they find out later you lied to them, your immigrant/asylum/refugee status will probably suffer because of it.
        Lying to avoid background checks would be big red flag. It's probably enough by itself to deny visa's and such, [beltranbrito.com] even if the things you were lying to hide weren't bad enough by themselves to get you refused.

    • Well, at least you're sort of off and running in a significant direction, but you didn't mention the First Amendment, and so far no one else has. They want to see the social networks for a reason. Only reason I can see is because it's so easy to look where the light is brightest.

      This is fundamentally a sick idea, even for #PresidentTweety's pile of stupid ideas. It isn't for what you said or for what you might be thinking that they want to punish you. It's punishment for what someone you know has said? Next

      • Anyone who has long history of social network activity pretty much guaranteed to have at least something objectionable. Perhaps even not through fault of their own even. Could just engage in a conversation with a suspected terrorist or say something that is in essence benign but could be misunderstood out of context.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          I don't think it would take a long history at all, though it depends on how deep they look. Six degrees of Keven Bacon is the truth, and no, I'm NOT claiming that Keven Bacon is guilty of anything beyond appearing in a lot of movies.

          Personally, I'd like to earn a low Erdos Number. But it ain't gonna happen.

    • First they came for the Communists
      And I did not speak out
      Because I was not a Communist

      Then they came for the Socialists
      And I did not speak out
      Because I was not a Socialist

      Then they came for the trade unionists
      And I did not speak out
      Because I was not a trade unionist

      Then they came for the Jews
      And I did not speak out
      Because I was not a Jew

      Then they came for me
      And there was no one left
      To speak out for me

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Then the let in people from banned groups.
        Because they got UN approval to enter the USA.
        Time to speak out about banned groups and who gets to stay in the USA.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Police do that 24/7. So do all kinds of private groups. Every image gong back to the start of the different social media brands.
      So do other nations. So do their embassy staff.
      Who knew a person back when they attended college?
      One was a criminal, one was a friend of a criminal..
      No amount of removing years later will get that image back :)
      Get that tourist visa to a nice nation?

  • I figured that Slashdot users would be on the terrorist watch list considering how many weirdos post here.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 )

      Nah it's cool, most of the weirdos on here are white nationalists and Trump has decided that the USA's new most deadly terrorist ideology is nothing to worry about. [theatlantic.com]

      • He's right, and Carlson (for a change) was right too. In terms of a threat to Americans "scary right wing whack jobs" are probably somewhere between "eating tide pods" and "shooting self in face cleaning gun". Like most scare mongering, you should ask yourself cui bono. And don't get me wrong, right wingers do the same shit in fact they invented it and left wingers are just hopping on the bandwagon. Black helicopters, Obama derangement syndrome, FEMA conspiracy crap, etc... As for who benefits, it's the m

        • Statistically, yes, but they are still the most dangerous terror group by ideology and if the US government is going to be consistent, should be taken at least as seriously as jihadists, which are taken quite seriously. Even if terrorism in general causes a tiny fraction of all deaths. If they want to realize this and adjust their treatment of terrorism in general to suit, very well then.

          • It's like anything, big events skew perception. When another Timothy McVeigh strikes, like Bin Laden struck in 2001, I'm sure people will take it seriously for a while. As it stands it's just one-off criminality and pretending it's some organized, insidious threat to America is silly.

            It's like people who still talk about the KKK like they are dangerous, when in fact it's just a few slack-jawed missing-toothed cranks in the sticks muttering to themselves. It's not 1973 anymore, or even 1985.

            Should we add up

            • Living here in the midwest, I have a few times seen a rallying group of those types with the Confederate flag on their pickup bed. Meaning times I have seen three or more said vehicles together in a parking lot. They are weird cranks and hobbyists near as I can tell.

              As always, most of us are boring regular people. I collect oscilloscopes and old computers. Somebody else pretends at being a rebbel.

              We all have to do something to feel different.

            • Re:What, no Slashdot user name? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Friday September 06, 2019 @03:45PM (#59166930) Journal
              Should we add up all deaths from terrorists (right wing or other) since 2000 and see who is killing the most Americans? Of course, if we go from 2002 forward the numbers look different .

              That's how statistics work. You remove the outliers because they skew the results. If you like, we can move the date further back to 1980 and see how the numbers change. Guess what, the same group who is responsible for killing more Americans since the 9/11 attacks is at the top again.
              • and include all the lynchings, which were very much terrorism.

                • Do we get to include the gang wars as terrorism on those neighborhoods, and therefore should of course take note of the hot spots in Chicago, Los Angeles and New York? Only fair since I'm sure many people feel terrorized in those circumstances as well.

    • Most weirdos are now gone since AC posting is disabled. Unless you meant the Stallman types who are obviously here in numbers.

    • Re:What, no Slashdot user name? (Score:4, Funny)

      by lazarus ( 2879 ) on Friday September 06, 2019 @03:46PM (#59166936) Journal

      Agent: "We'll need your social media account names. Twitter, Instagram, FriendFace..."
      Me: "I only comment on Slashdot, and it's all reviewed first by CowboyNeil"
      Agent: "What?".
      Me: "Gotese.cx?"
      Agent: "Please step out of the car."

      • Agent: "What?"
        Me: "You know, slashdot."
        Agent: "What's the URL?"
        Me: "Atch tee tee pee colon slash slash slashdot dot com"
        Agent: "...slash slash slash slash...no that's too many slashes. What?"
    • Yeah, hugely disappointing given that most likely Slashdot predates all those sites. Maybe it has something to do with Slashdot being actually anti-social without any gurus, influencers, just a place where everybody disagrees with everybody... Still as I remember there is an option to reveal any additional handles at will.

  • Hmmm (Score:2)

    by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
    What if I don't use social media at all? Does this make me a terrorist?
    • An American can opt out of it, but an immigrant might want to set one up or people (in this case DHS) will question their willingness to integrate.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      The person wanting to enter the USA may have been seen supporting a banned group in another persons social media account.
  • Not that it matters much for me because I do not have any intention to travel to the US. There are a lot countries who do not treat you like a criminal when you want travel to them.

  • Not sure of the point of the tone. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RightSaidFred99 ( 874576 ) on Friday September 06, 2019 @03:06PM (#59166700)
    Am I supposed to be outraged that people being granted the privilege of coming to this country are duly investigated before being allowed in? What next, complaints about criminal background checks? A fairly basic premise to any sane country is "let in people who will benefit your country's citizens, don't let in people who won't".

    • ... that people being granted the privilege of coming to this country are duly investigated before being allowed in? What next, complaints about criminal background checks?

      People being granted the privilege of coming to this country are ALREADY duly investigated with criminal background checks by submitting non-criminal certificate issued by the local police (i.e. the police force run by "dictator" and "totalitarian" governments [*] )

      Am I supposed to be outraged ...

      No, not at all, as long as you admit hypocrisy is perfectly fine.

      * as defined by US government, politicians, and media.

      • Thanks, grandpa. I'm sure in 1985 a criminal background check was all you guys Down at the Force had to work with.

        Nowadays we have The Interwebs and people post all kinds of stuff online that would be interesting and useful to know. By George, you can even use social networks to trace relationships to known terrorists or other criminals, what a time to be alive grandpa!

        Hypocrisy is absolutely fine. For example, the US having nukes and telling other countries they will bomb them if they develop nukes is hypo

        • By George, you can even use social networks to trace relationships to known terrorists or other criminals

          And that's the problem right there, if you look hard enough you will always find such links to online social media accounts, that is just the nature of the beast.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by aliquis ( 678370 )

      Personally I don't think all my communication is their business.

      I guess a bigger problem though is that I don't even know all my social media logins. I don't remember what I called all the accounts and I don't know what e-mail address I linked them too.

      I'd assume they'd flag just about anything which could be anything and with my online presence I would likely be doomed because of that even though I would pose no threat.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Asylum seekers rights are not dependent on your investigation of them, only that they may be persecuted. So for them at least it's nothing to do with if they can come in or not, only if they are watched after their claim is accepted.

      The bigger issue though is that social media is a cesspool and not that easy to control. If you opt out by not having social media accounts that looks suspicious too. Many people will suspect that this is purely to give the immigration authorities more spurious reasons to refuse

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rastos1 ( 601318 )
      So you think that once the system is in place and proven to work well, that it will not be expanded to citizens?

  • Burden of proof (Score:3)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Friday September 06, 2019 @03:07PM (#59166708)

    Only a few people are realizing that we are shifting from a system where the government had to prove things about you to one in which you have to prove things to the government.

    They will make it easy to deprive you of citizenship. Think about it, itâ(TM)ll be very easy to do that. They will start with depriving citizenship of rapists, murderers, or people who donâ(TM)t support something they define as âoeAmericanâ.

    âoeIf you donâ(TM)t support that, it must mean you are in favor of murder.â

    Nothing in the constitution says you canâ(TM)t be deprived of citizenship for even the most minor crimes.

    After they implement that and if they donâ(TM)t like you, it will be that you have to prove you are a citizen, rather than them having to show you arenâ(TM)t. They can make it a lot harder than you think.

    • You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution.

      • Really? I am not sure the 14th amendment guarantees it canâ(TM)t be taken away. If there is a way you can renounce it (and there is), then there is a way they can take it .. granted they would have to show you committed a crime in which that was the penalty. If the constitution truly guaranteed irrevocable citizenship there would be no process to renounce it. Furthermore, even if they canâ(TM)t revoke it entirely they can revoke it principle â" permanently deprive you of all the rights it pro

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        More to the point, Trump and his fellow travelers have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution.

    • >>agency plans to ask
      >we are shifting from a system where the government had to prove things about you to one in which you have to prove things to the government.

      If you want to entire the country then the government is asking to see who you are online. You are not asked to prove anything.

      >They will make it easy to deprive you of citizenship

      immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees are not citizens.

      > depriving citizenship of rapists, murderers

      We can deprive murderers and rapists their right to

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      I think someone should mod you up, even though your insistence on using Unicode is mangling your comment rather badly. (Or is it some kind of Apple thing?)

    • It's known more simply as "Guilty until proven innocent"

        There is a GOOD reason why the law was written long ago as "Innocent until proven guilty".

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Don't be a criminal.
      Dont support banned groups.

      Lots of good people are waiting to enter the USA legally who did not support banned groups, a faith of war.
  • What kind of IDIOT creates all their social media accounts in their own name? I would think that creating a social media persona for career purposes and another one for the friends that help you hide bodies would be standard practice by now! P.S. Good luck linking this slashdot account to me, feds!
    • From your username, you are obviously Hugh Lockwood [wikipedia.org].

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Re "What kind of IDIOT creates all their social media accounts in their own name?"
      People who spent years supporting banned groups, offering advice, help and positive comments after the actions of banned groups?
      Years later they expect the US to accept them over good people waiting to enter the USA?

  • When the government collects information like this, it's only to do bad things to you. It's never for good.

    Remember, always for bad.

  • There goes a bunch more of our tourism dollars.
    We are turning into a surveillance society. I wouldn't want to visit here if I was from another country.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Chromal ( 56550 )
      What, you don't want to have your intimate life details rifled through by a mouth-breathing ideologically hard-right low-IQ low-wage government official who thinks liberalism is either degenerate, terrifying, or both and was called to a career in fatherland security because it appealed to their desire to have power over others?

    • Speak for yourself. As someone living in one of those tourist destinations, I would be more then happy if half of them stayed home. Most of the extra revenue generated goes straight to the top anyway, but if half the fucking tourist just stayed home I may be able to go enjoy the beach without so many non-locals.

      This is especially true during July and August. Just go away. Don't visit California at all in fact. We are so crazy here it is unbelievable so please, just stay away.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Re "There goes a bunch more of our tourism dollars."
      Why support people from nations that don't like the USA?
      Lots of good tourism to the USA from good nations like Brazil, India, Spain, France, Canada, Israel, the UK, Italy, Mexico.
      Great people with a growing interest to visit and see more of the USA.
      What to grow the number of people visiting the USA? Start with great nations and with people who like the USA :)
      Count the visa in per day. Count the people out when their tourism visa is no longer valid.

      • It's not whether they support the USA.
        For example I recently heard that China was asking questions on VISAS about incomes, how much money you have, etc.
        That's reason enough for me to not go to visit China.

        If I'm say European and I don't want my social media in the hands of US spooks, why would I give all that info to them? It's like saying "here, take a recording of all the phone calls I've made in the past few years". I'm not going to settle for that, even if I've never done anything wrong. There are plent

      • Lots of good tourism to the USA from good nations like Brazil, India, Spain, France, Canada, Israel, the UK, Italy, Mexico.

        Which country's tourists spend the most money? [weforum.org]
        OOPS it's China. Way to shoot your tourism industry in the foot.

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close