Michael McAllister

I just don't understand the need for the passwords. Social media accounts are typically public. They could easily look up the information.

This has been happening to all immigrants, not just undocumented ones either.

Your password is something you know. It's not a physical object. If they ask for social media accounts, what's to prevent them from asking for other information?

If you are being asked to hand over your social media password, a VPN is not going to do anything.

I don't understand this mentality. People travel. Essentially, if you leave the country on a trip, you will be forced to provide this information before being granted re-entry. That's beyond fucked.

To be clear, I don't support this. Just passing the information along.

The government has used that same rationale to erode the privacy of citizens for a long while. The intrusive nature of surveillance programs hasn't resulted in a safer country. Edward Snowden has talked extensively about this thinking, and it does not hold up under scrutiny.

According to TechCrunch, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) head, John Kelly, suggested that some travelers may be required to provide their social media passwords prior to being granted entry into the United States. Shortly after the new Administration took office, President Trump issued a hotly contested Executive Order which prohibits entry to residents of seven Muslim majority-countries. The Executive Order is currently on hold as judges debate its legality. In a broad sense, I find Kelly's statement to be troubling. The sentiment seems to be that if you travel to the United States, you forfeit your privacy altogether. While the Obama Administration had a similar policy, providing the information was optional. Update: This appears to already be happening. A woman named Fadwa Alaoui, a Moroccan-born Canadian citizen of the Muslim faith, was denied entry after border agents saw pictures of mosques on her phone. She had been traveling with her cousin and the two were asked to hand over their phones. According to Alaoui, they were grilled for 45 minutes each before ultimately being turned away. Update: Whether or not this will affect the password forfeiture policy, I do not know.

@LinusTech You're correct to an extent. In regards to Facebook, they do have the legal right to censor. The issue becomes one of principle and influence. Twitter and Facebook. Because these social media sites reach large audiences, to what extent should they exert this capability to shape how information is interpreted? While there are people who genuinely do not understand the difference between constitutionally protected speech and the freedom to say anything without consequence, this conversation gets dicey as it is a delicate balancing act. Headlines alone are extremely influential on the presumptions people have. According to the American Press Institute, 4 in 10 American adults do read past the headline during the week. These numbers vary by the time of day and delivery method being used. The popularity of memes isn't all that surprising. They provide quick, small bits of information which tend to reinforce preconceived notions. There has been, and always will be, forms of fake news. It's hard to say how to approach this without potentially going down a path that's irreversible.

Time Warner owns CNN. At best, they are center-left. You will never hear them talk about income inequality, net neutrality, or criticize free-trade agreements like TPP, which also pose a threat to a free and open Internet.

For those interested, the OP has been updated to include the aforementioned legislative text. Was able to dig it up.

Censorship is not the answer, but there is an ethical way to fight against misinformation. If the FCC were to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine of 1949, it would help. In contemporary America, the vast majority of news networks are owned by large, for-profit corporations. They broadcast whatever makes money, not necessarily information that is of interest to the public—infotainment.

To add to your thoughts: If numerous sources verify that a claim is false, they can provide clear evidence in their reporting and thus hurt the reputation of the original source. That is very different from censorship.

If Facebook or Twitter wishes to change their algorithms to censor, that is their platform. I wouldn't like the decision, but it's theirs to make. When the government steps in to do so, it has a whole other level of implications, which will not end well.

She used incredibly broad language. If a program on RT America criticizes the US government, is that suddenly foreign propaganda? Does the context not matter?

No, she didn't say government body. That's the logical implication when calling for bipartisan legislation to regulate fake news.

At an event celebrating retiring Sen. Harry Reid, Clinton intimated that she wants to regulate fake news. The former U.S. Presidential candidate went on to say in a speech that there should be a bipartisan, legislative effort to tighten down on fake news, particularly on social media such as Facebook, calling it a "danger that needs to be addressed and addressed quickly." The bill, dubbed the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act, has already made its way through the Senate. This scares the hell out of me. Certainly, there is a plethora of fake news on the Internet, but a government body should not be in the business of deciding what qualifies as real or fake news. Doing so poses a direct threat to adversarial journalism. The Intercept, for example, has written several articles critical of various administrations, both Republican and Democratic. If they were to discuss leaked documents which revealed human rights violations, the government theoretically could classify such an outlet as a propaganda outfit and proceed to shut them down. Furthermore, using social media platforms to have these serious discussions could lead to unintended legal consequences. I don't like the way this is going. This is not the America I want to be in, nor is it the America that I grew up in.

PSA: Unless you guys want the thread to be locked, try to stay on topic. Thanks.

As much as I like Bernie, he didn't get into the general. Trump will be the next president, regardless of personal feelings.

http://www.ibtimes.com/fbi-nsa-rule-41-changes-federal-rules-expand-governments-hacking-capabilities-2453034 Similar to the newly enacted UK legislation, Investigatory Powers Act, Rule 41 seeks to further expand the surveillance powers of intelligence agencies. The rule would further erode Fourth Amendment protections as warrants can be applied to large swaths of devices rather than a targeted device. This would also allow the NSA and FBI to deploy large botnets. What could possibly go wrong? As more of these draconian laws are enacted, the prospect of freedom and democracy seems to be a paper tiger.

No, it has the potential to be quite disastrous even in the best case scenario of 100% accuracy. For example, poorer neighborhoods tend to have higher populations of minorities, so the authorities could use this to needlessly pursue petty crimes as a way to garner more revenue for the city. Minorities tend to be of lower income and would be less likely to fight charges in court. If the fine cannot be paid, that person will end up sitting in jail simply for not having the ability to pay. This will ultimately defeat the purpose of the algorithm in the first place. Furthermore, if such a program is implemented only in poor areas, statistics will be biased against a particular race or income level of people rather than solely violent individuals who pose a genuine danger.

Both sides have had a share in manipulation. That isn't to excuse bots. David Brock did something similar but instead spent $1 million to hire online trolls for HRC under the moniker Correct The Record. Part of the purpose of my post was to demonstrate the interplay between government and corporate interests. In this instance, it involved Google which has a tremendous amount of influence. On the surface, this email chain appears innocuous. We really should be asking ourselves why this conversation is taking place. If I had ideas like that, how likely would it be that Hillary's campaign would consider them? If I donated $20, nothing would likely happen. That might be different if it were $200,000 through a super PAC.

@mark_cameron Due to influence from lobbyists, politicians rarely address the concerns of the public. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

I can request that a mod lock it, if you prefer.

Fair enough. Cost is an issue. State expenditures for drugs are relatively high. There are initiatives in a number of states that try to address this issue. In California, for example, Prop 61 will enable Medi-Cal to negotiate drug prices at the same rates as the VA.