Trump wants to require US visa applicants to disclose 5 years of social media hi

We're all doomed......we're all doomed Mr Mainwaring......

Sorry, I forgot you may know just as much as me about that stuff.  But then how do you square the circle that you fiercely guard your privacy but post to websites where there is no expectation of privacy?  Were you only talking about the government then? 

I put my money where my mouth is and post nothing to Face Book, for a lot of reasons including privacy.

I use Facebook because it lets me keep in contact with my friends and family back in the States. We're 7 time zones and 4,000 miles away from my immediate family and most of my friends. If I want to show my friends and family what I'm doing here in the UK, Facebook is the easiest way for me to do that.

Facebook has the rights to certain things because I have them that right.
The government... Not so much.

The US government has horrible stance on data collection which is why the US is not considered a safe place in general for data transfer out of the EU.  It will be interesting if/how the UK will maintain its data protection law in line with EU requirements or have laxer rules which will effect trade with EU in future.... one of those Brexit issues sure to come.

Um. No. Unless you also have to submit so many years of phone calls, text messages, post, etc. All that is is a huge invasion of privacy.

How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot and you were required to turn in 5 years of social media vetting?

Um. Yes. A country can do whatever it deems necessary to ensure those coming in aren't a threat. Those that aren't US citizens aren't entitled to the rights granted to US citizens, and if someone doesn't want to submit to the vetting, it's simple - they don't have to. They can stay wherever they are and keep their "privacy" (which is completely laughable if you think ANY of social media is "private" )

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

Then there's your recourse. Don't renew.

It's an invasion of privacy, that's what.

I have a US visitor visa which expires in 2021 (by which time there may be a new administration anyway and this may not be a thing anymore), and I'm sorry, but if I have to disclose 5 years of my social media accounts when it's time to reapply, I'm afraid I will not be renewing my visa.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

How can you think this is 'not that scary'? No one has a right to go through my private correspondence or anyone's private correspondence. Without a warrant. The government doesn't have a right to read my post, why should they have a right to read my Facebook wall, Twitter feed, or Instagram or messages?

My facebook profile is private. I don't post things to the public at large, heck I segment my friends list for things I want people I'm friends with to see.

I am not a public figure. My online footprint is my choice and I choose to keep it as private as I am allowed.

Guess you have missed what's been going on with Facebook. NOTHING on there is private, regardless of what you've apparently convinced yourself of.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

British teen, Luke Angel, banned from United States for life for offensive e-mail to President Obama

"I don't remember exactly what I wrote as I was drunk," he told The Sun. "But I think I called Barack Obama a pr---. It was silly - the sort of thing you do when you're a teenager and have had a few."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/british-teen-luke-angel-banned-united-states-life-offensive-e-mail-president-obama-article-1.438745

That’s consequences of speech. You’re free to say whatever you damn please, as long as it’s not inciting violence or “fighting words” (which may have been the case in that situation). And then your employer is free to fire you, people can not do business with you, you can be sued if it’s slanderous, etc. As one of my professors was fond of saying, it’s freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. Also, anything threatening towards the president is a crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Constitutional matters aside, I am not so sure that we are doing any better as far as rooting out whoever it is we are trying to root out (terrorists, sex fiends, political agitators?).

It is true that we don't really know how well our war on evil doers is going, because we don't really know about - or don't pay attention to - the successes, even those which simply act as a deterrent.

One issue I have with this is that data trawling is a poor substitute (smokescreen?) for nuts and bolts security/intelligence. It would be great if it were so easy as to sit in an office and poke a button and some algorithm would flag up a guy before he does something really bad. No one wants to be a victim of a terrible act. I am doubtful that this will happen very often.

But is this what it is all about?

Algos are only as good as the data, which is far from perfect. It’s good to automate that process with just the sheer traffic involved. But of course there is no substitute to an actual investigator looking over the flags. Which is of course where someone would try to look for a social media page in the first place. Making that easier to find so they can get on with other flagged records and spend time on real threats is probably a good thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You've gone off on a tangent here.

I'm saying that the government doesn't have the right to my information/data without good cause and therefore anyone coming into the country should get the same treatment.

That people coming into the country aren't subject to having their post/texts/phone calls shared prior to visiting, their social media shouldn't be either.

And they don't have a right to go through my phone. I don't have to give them access. They can make my life hell, but I don't have to let them. Same as with my laptop.

The search/investigation of every person crossing a border IS good cause.

You seem to be implying you want them to have probable cause sufficient to get a warrant. That would be the case once you clear customs and step out on the street. The court says all search of people crossing a border is inherently reasonable. It’s the same in the U.K.

If you’re going through a port of entry (in any country), the govt absolutely has a duty to look at absolutely everything they can possibly get hold of about you from any source in order to satisfy the questions every border guard is trying answer - are you a threat, potential to overstay, etc. You choose to expose yourself to that when you cross a border. And you choose at least some of the data they can get hold of when you decide to put it online.

I really am all for calling out the govt when they overreach, but that’s all really your own choices.

If your phone or laptop unlocks by fingerprint, they can force you to open it cause they can force you to give fingerprints without a warrant. Facial recognition should be the same but there hasn’t been a case yet. Just turn off that function. They can’t force you to enter your code. They can crack it in 10mins but they will get a warrant for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Any of you watch Hunted?

It was AWESOME.  And gave you an idea of how much the government can find out about each and every one of us.  Ain't nothing a secret.

I haven’t seen it, but one of my groomsmen is an HSI agent and I know the kinds of things they can do. It’s pretty incredible. Most people would probably be a bit freaked out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Algos are only as good as the data, which is far from perfect. It’s good to automate that process with just the sheer traffic involved. But of course there is no substitute to an actual investigator looking over the flags. Which is of course where someone would try to look for a social media page in the first place. Making that easier to find so they can get on with other flagged records and spend time on real threats is probably a good thing.

But we have known of many of the threats. Bin Laden had tried to take down the towers a few years before. There was chatter all over the place. No human sat down with a cup of coffee and looked at it and said, "Wait a minute, something's not right here."

Because if this is what we are talking about, I am not sure that running an algorithm would have stopped that guy in Las Vegas. Or the guy here who choked his wife.

In a sceptical world I am just questioning what this is about. Is it about stopping these sorts of things, or is it an easy way to catch a person who might have inadvertently let his car insurance lapse ten years ago? Or affect immigration reform by proxy. Or sell this data on to some corporation.

I don't know how much serious crime has been stopped in Britain via CCTV, but it has certainly been a cash cow for popping people who may be travelling 10 miles an hour over the speed limit. But a guy with a sharpened screwdriver just pulls his hood up.

But we have known of many of the threats. Bin Laden had tried to take down the towers a few years before. There was chatter all over the place. No human sat down with a cup of coffee and looked at it and said, "Wait a minute, something's not right here."

Because if this is what we are talking about, I am not sure that running an algorithm would have stopped that guy in Las Vegas. Or the guy here who choked his wife.

In a sceptical world I am just questioning what this is about. Is it about stopping these sorts of things, or is it an easy way to catch a person who might have inadvertently let his car insurance lapse ten years ago? Or affect immigration reform by proxy. Or sell this data on to some corporation.

I don't know how much serious crime has been stopped in Britain via CCTV, but it has certainly been a cash cow for popping people who may be travelling 10 miles an hour over the speed limit. But a guy with a sharpened screwdriver just pulls his hood up.

Comparing pre to post 9/11 or a decade further on is night and day.

There are trillions of data points flying around in systems that are (often intentionally and for good reason) not well interconnected. There are not enough people on earth to process that much information, nor hope to do it while a flight is in the air from Toronto to NYC.

No algorithm is perfect, and a perfect algo with imperfect data is going to make mistakes.

Still, you do the best you can. If a computer can pass 90%+ or travelers who present no problems, and flag the 10% to human review with the reasons they were flagged, that’s certainly better than humans trying to pour through 100% and make judgements without any outside data to help them.

Of course it’s not perfect. But it’s the best they can do at present and a heck of lot better than nothing.

It’s asking people from non global entry countries to provide social media user names and email addresses they’ve used in the last five years. It isn’t username and password. They can’t see anything more than a correctly aimed google search would lead them to. It’s just faster and more accurate. And still that’s only going to be even looked at after the person has been flagged to human review for some other reason.

There are some interesting predictive software applications targeted at fake news and extremism detection. Some of those could be weaponized with this information, but they could without it too.

There’s really no way for this to impact immigration reform by other means, or discrimination, or whatever else.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes but 911 is driving the rationale.

We made Bin Laden. We know who was funding him. We still do business with them. We kiss them on the cheek when they come and visit. They fly F15s and tornados.

Remember McVeigh?

It turns out that he was part of, or associated with, a web of right-wing terrorists. And maybe this should be acknowledged better - the FBI successfully infiltrated this web and erradicated that particular threat.

Not using mass surveillance. Nobody was prying open every letter sent by every person. They didn't want to catch one particular bozo. They infiltrated and turned people and built up solid cases against people. Work and intelligence.

As far as I have read not a single undocumented immigrant was flagged by some data/mail sweep, or anyone detained because the tag on their boat trailer was out of date. The point was to shut a particular threat down. Which they did.

Yes but 911 is driving the rationale.

We made Bin Laden. We know who was funding him. We still do business with them. We kiss them on the cheek when they come and visit. They fly F15s and tornados.

I’m well aware. The gnat annoyance of my enemy that can be built up to achieve our objective of the moment... then tossed away on the what have you done for me lately pile and they sometimes become the gnat buzzing in our ear.

We do have to work with some bad guys at times who are the lesser of two evils and happen to serve our interests. However, the US is too often cavalier in how we do these things and especially how we wind them up.

We got the same mess planted in Syria and Iraq today. We’ve allowed Iran to become a mess. A lot of mistakes, some that were pretty obvious at the time.

Still, we have to be pragmatic. The point is to advance US interests, not to give everyone else Jeffersonian democracy and freedom. At least it is their own internal tyrant now rather than the east India company & such enforcing direct rule over colonies. They have a lot more self determination than they once did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk