You are subject to quite broad authority when passing through a point of entry in any direction. We’ve seen stories here before of the UK border force pulling people aside so they could go through diaries or phone messages to see if there was a genuine relationship and if the foreign national is planning to leave or may overstay. The same happens with US Customs. It is not an invasion of privacy. You volunteered yourself and everything you carried for thorough search when you entered another country. They of course must have some basis for suspicion, but your alternative to the search is getting back on a plane headed the other direction.
I don’t know if people get this, but every single passenger on every single international flight between global entry countries undergoes a background check before they land, often before they board. You know that checks against no-fly lists, but it also runs a criminal history check. It’s imperfect when it’s a fresh national flying from London to the US, but the automated system does the best it can. It then spits out persons of interest, who are then reviewed further. That could already easily include looking at their social media. You voluntarily put that stuff in the public domain. You don’t really have a privacy claim over what people who aren’t friended with you can see. And if when you touch down they think there is reasonable suspicion to perform a further investigation, then they will.
The UK does the same thing. So does France and Germany and every country in the global entry group. That’s why citizens of those countries are able to travel without having to apply in advance for a visa. The only reason India or China or Saudi Arabia or Kenya or wherever else are not in that group is because they cannot or choose not to spend the resources necessary to satisfy they participating countries that the pre-screening information they send will meet the standards.
All this proposal would do is expedite the process and help eliminate false positives with less resources wasted. I understand it is a stiffer touch than all the things going on out of sight and out of mind. And if you don’t want to do it then they don’t have to allow you entry.
Of course these things could be abused. Just like having cctv cameras all over the place could be abused - could be and is a massive invasion of privacy. But, you don’t walk around a city in the UK worried that some perv is checking you out on the cameras or looking through your windows. That probably does happen a lot more than you think, but you don’t flinch at that. Yet, that is a greater invasion of privacy without consent and without reasonable suspicion, versus a passenger voluntarily placing themselves at a port of entry.
I’m very happy to be appalled when civil liberties are trampled. I don’t hesitate to push back on govt overreach, and I do fear the potential for abuse when power increases. And I do like my privacy. But this just really isn’t that scary.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
