Before Entering US, Travelers May Have To Provide Their Social Media Passwords, Suggests DHS Head

[Michael McAllister]

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.

 

Quote

“We want to get on their social media, with passwords: What do you do, what do you say? If they don’t want to cooperate then you don’t come in,” he told the committee, NBC News reported.

 

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.

 

Quote

"He said, 'Do you practise? Which mosque do you go to? What is the name of the imam? How often do you go to the mosque? What kind of discussions do you hear in the mosque? Does the imam talk to you directly?'" Alaoui said.

 

Update:

 

Whether or not this will affect the password forfeiture policy, I do not know.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Michael McAllister
update

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

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.

Countries have absolute rights to do anything with anything going in and out of their borders. 

[Tieox]

I can honestly see the days of MSN Messenger returning and the utter abandonment of social media for use of family and personal communications.

[BH2062]

I doubt they will do that, im sure that's against the law

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, BH2062 said:

I doubt they will do that, im sure that's against the law

It's probably not since countries have absolute rights on their borders, but I doubt they'll do it either way. 

[SaladFingers]

What a pile of BS. Since when are social profiles something "official"? I don't even have one, but even if I did, it would be a troll account.

[Guest Kloaked]

3 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

 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.

It sucks but we're getting to the point where people need to stop looking at some of this stuff as an invasion of privacy and more of a safeguard for everyone else. You have a right to privacy, yes. Other people also have the right to not be murdered when something as simple as discovering one's affiliation with a dangerous group could have been known had we looked into their personal information.

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, SaladFingers said:

What a pile of BS. Since when are social profiles something "official"? I don't even have one, but even if I did, it would be a troll account.

They're "official" enough to get you fired and not get you a job at all. 

 

3 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

It sucks but we're getting to the point where people need to stop looking at some of this stuff as an invasion of privacy and more of a safeguard for everyone else. You have a right to privacy, yes. Other people also have the right to not be murdered when something as simple as discovering one's affiliation with a dangerous group could have been known had we looked into their personal information.

To be clear, if the government wanted to do this with people living in the US, I'd have a problem with it. There are big problems with invading personal privacy rights -- mainly that eventually it will go too far and you'll end up having no privacy at all (and being told how to live your life). The only reason why this is okay (not that it will happen) imo is because it's specifically regarding the borders (a place where CBP already has the right to do basically anything they want). 

[BH2062]

I guess but I don't think it will happen but you never know

[Oshino Shinobu]

4 minutes ago, BH2062 said:

I doubt they will do that, im sure that's against the law

When has that stopped a government from breaching its citizens' privacy? 

[SaladFingers]

4 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

They're "official" enough to get you fired and not get you a job at all. 

Oh yeah? That's on the employer. If they want to stalk people on third party websites created by some random dude, so be it. What if I don't have anything for them to spy on?

 

Plus, why would they need people's passwords when they have access to the site's database anyway? To "log in"? This whole thing sounds like it's coming from a completely technology illiterate person.

[BH2062]

I guess but I guess from their point there protecting the country.

but to take peoples Facebook accounts is a step too far

[Guest Kloaked]

3 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

They're "official" enough to get you fired and not get you a job at all. 

 

To be clear, if the government wanted to do this with people living in the US, I'd have a problem with it. There are big problems with invading personal privacy rights -- mainly that it eventually will go too far and you'll end up having no privacy at all. The only reason why this is okay (not that it will happen) imo is because it's specifically regarding the borders (a place where CBP already has the right to do basically anything they want). 

That's what I'm referring to since the OP is referring to immigrants.

2 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

When has that stopped a government from breaching its citizens' privacy? 

Under certain circumstances it is legal for the government to look into you without your consent thanks to the Bush administration, from my understanding. Patriot Act and everything.

[steffen_anywhere]

That's a laughable solution, honestly... You can't call this a background check. This honestly sounds like a joke, just because of how unprofessional it is. I didn't know that it was optional during the Obama Administration, but that's almost as stupid imo... The idea in general... it's like giving the 'tax authorities' (depending on your country, there will be an actual proper title for this) your bank account details. They don't need them to do their job, they can get all the info they need without account access. They don't have to be able to make transactions from your account tho, just as the DHS doesn't need to post/message with your credentials on Facebook etc...

[EminentSun]

How can you get someone to provide their social media, I could just make a second account and give them that when I go through security. Not everyone has social media and anyone can have many accounts. How can they know if I have 1 or 20 accounts?

 

Ignoring what effects this may have on security, how can you possibly enforce this?

[Oshino Shinobu]

I do wonder how they would enforce this, or at least what they'd get out of it. As far as I can see, they'd only get the passwords for legitimate accounts for people who aren't doing anything that the government would be interested in. It seems like the government is under the impression that threats to national security are going to be using their personal facebook account to carry out their criminal acts. 

 

I don't really know what they expect to gain from this other than the passwords to a bunch of people's social media account which has nothing of use in terms of protecting national security. I can only see this either being entirely pointless, or it being abused to track down minor crimes. 

 

It's becoming increasingly apparent at how little the US and UK government know what they're doing. They introduce laws related to technology but don't seem to think about the most simple and obvious things, like the fact that someone, just maybe, might have social media accounts that are not tied to them for when they're carrying out their criminal acts. 

[PlayStation 2]

If you come into any country, you have to adhere to the laws; otherwise, you get booted the fuck out or thrown in jail.

That being said, does getting their password have a real use?

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, SaladFingers said:

Oh yeah? That's on the employer. If they want to stalk people on third party websites created by some random dude, so be it. What if I don't have anything for them to spy on?

Those third party websites are often very good indications on the competency of a prospective employee, so it would actually be very foolish of them not to look into it. 

1 minute ago, steffen_anywhere said:

That's a laughable solution, honestly... You can't call this a background check. This honestly sounds like a joke, just because of how unprofessional it is. I didn't know that it was optional during the Obama Administration, but that's almost as stupid imo... The idea in general... it's like giving the 'tax authorities' (depending on your country, there will be an actual proper title for this) your bank account details. They don't need them to do their job, they can get all the info they need without account access. They don't have to be able to make transactions from your account tho, just as the DHS doesn't need to post/message with your credentials on Facebook etc...

As I said above, your actions on social media are often a very good indication of your views on certain hot topics and what you may be involved in. A lot of the attacks (terrorist and normal criminal activities) that occur worldwide are often mentioned/discussed on social media before they even happen. Of course, this only applies to people who are active on social media. 

 

2 minutes ago, BH2062 said:

I guess but I guess from their point there protecting the country.

but to take peoples Facebook accounts is a step too far

They're already allowed to inspect your HDD if they want to. As soon as you try to cross a country's borders you give up most of your privacy rights (at least until you've been allowed in). 

 

[Michael McAllister]

5 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

It sucks but we're getting to the point where people need to stop looking at some of this stuff as an invasion of privacy and more of a safeguard for everyone else. You have a right to privacy, yes. Other people also have the right to not be murdered when something as simple as discovering one's affiliation with a dangerous group could have been known had we looked into their personal information.

 

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.

[Oshino Shinobu]

4 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

Under certain circumstances it is legal for the government to look into you without your consent thanks to the Bush administration, from my understanding. Patriot Act and everything.

Under some circumstances, sure. But the mass gathering of citizens' data was deemed illegal. The operations of GCHQ here in the UK were also deemed illegal by the EU but our government quickly passed a law to make it legal by some loop hole. 

[Sauron]

13 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Countries have absolute rights to do anything with anything going in and out of their borders. 

And outsiders have all the rights to go elsewhere and bring no business to the us

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

And outsiders have all the rights to go elsewhere and bring no business to the us

Yes. But if you choose to enter the US, then you submit to anything that CBP wants to do. 

[SaladFingers]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Those third party websites are often very good indications on the competency of a prospective employee, so it would actually be very foolish of them not to look into it.

Yes, but that can't be official. It's not like asking for your ID. If you don't have a profile, they are not able to stalk it, plain and simple. If they don't want to hire you, so be it. There is no "law" about that.

 

And again, nothing on facebook is private. Its database is accessible to the US government. So why would they need your login details?? To "log in" using the UI of the website? Are they really *that* clueless?

 

What's next, citizens will be required to get an ID and a facebook profile? This is so ridiculous its hilarious.

[Michael McAllister]

6 minutes ago, steffen_anywhere said:

That's a laughable solution, honestly... You can't call this a background check. This honestly sounds like a joke, just because of how unprofessional it is. I didn't know that it was optional during the Obama Administration, but that's almost as stupid imo... The idea in general... it's like giving the 'tax authorities' (depending on your country, there will be an actual proper title for this) your bank account details. They don't need them to do their job, they can get all the info they need without account access. They don't have to be able to make transactions from your account tho, just as the DHS doesn't need to post/message with your credentials on Facebook etc...

 

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

[BH2062]

if your worried get a VPN but I think its ok