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

[SaladFingers]

6 minutes ago, mach said:

Just encrypt everything you have and tell them you can't remember anything. Unless they have some alien technology that scan brains and hypnotize EVERY travellers to know their passwords, or prisonate and beat up everyone for it. If that is the case then AVOID this country.

What is there to encrypt? All data will be on facebook's data centers, you don't choose what happens to it.

[knightslugger]

13 minutes ago, SaladFingers said:

Yes, they only need the permission. Nobody is going to physically log in to any third party platform made by some dude on his basement.

 

What is fraudulent about it? Since facebook is nothing official, how can they prove anything? I can impersonate you and create a profile with your name. How can anyone tell? How can anyone prove that my profile is indeed my profile? It's not my tax number, it's not my ID number, it's not my house address, it's simply an account on someone's website. It's thin air. You can't *require* it. If they want to look it up as means of background checking then it is on them, but it's plain silly to make it a "law".

if you attest that you have no social media accounts to gain access to this country via immigration, and it is later discovered that you did in fact have a social media account, that is fraudulent entry. I agree that it would be very unfortunate if someone did in fact create a social media account that was fake, and i can only imagine that some pretty basic investigatory querying would reveal that the account is a fake. You could certainly create a fake account of me, but you would have to know QUITE A BIT about me, personally, to make it look authentic.

 

We can require them to any number of things from the most useful to the most absurd. it is our prerogative since it is OUR country and our security comes first.

 

ETA: Terrorists seem to use social media a lot. it is only reasonable to conclude that investigating the history of a immigrant's social media content (if available) prior to entry can prevent terrorism within our boarders.

[mach]

3 minutes ago, SaladFingers said:

What is there to encrypt? All data will be on facebook's data centers, you don't choose what happens to it.

I mean when you refuse to provide them your passwords and they want to access your accounts forcefully. The easiest way would be getting into your devices. (apart from a gun to the head obviously)

 

Or if they already have access to those data centers, they won't ask you for passwords to begin with.

[SaladFingers]

1 minute ago, knightslugger said:

if you attest that you have no social media accounts, and it is later discovered that you did in fact have a social media account, that is fraudulent. I agree that it would be very unfortunite if someone did in fact create a social media account that was fake, and i can only imagine that some pretty basic investigatory querying would reveal that the account is a fake. You could certainly create a fake account of me, but you would have to know QUITE A BIT about me, personally, to make it look authentic.

 

We can require them to any number of requirements from the most useful to the most absurd. it is our prerogative since it is OUR country and our security comes first.

My question is, how will it be "discovered"? If I give you a false ID number, that can be discovered. Because I originally went through an identification process and there is tangible proof for who I am. My youtube account on the other hand, is thin air. Could be me, or not. You can't point a finger on someone or prove anything simply because of the very nature of how these accounts are being created.

 

I understand how someone can simply decide to lurk facebook and look up my name and then deny me access to the country. It's their country. But there is no real way to make this whole process absolute, and laws are absolute. If something is so easily tricked and so hard to be proven otherwise, it can't be officially required. They can ask for the regular information and then run a background check of their own.

[knightslugger]

3 minutes ago, mach said:

I mean when you refuse to provide them your passwords and they want to access your accounts forcefully. The easiest way would be getting into your devices. (apart from a gun to the head obviously)

 

Or if they already have access to those data centers, they won't ask you for passwords to begin with.

no one is forcing you to give up your passwords, just like no one is forcing you to immigrate to the united states. If they don't want to follow our rules, they can look elsewhere for travel.

[SaladFingers]

4 minutes ago, mach said:

I mean when you refuse to provide them your passwords and they want to access your accounts forcefully. The easiest way would be getting into your devices. (apart from a gun to the head obviously)

 

Or if they already have access to those data centers, they won't ask you for passwords to begin with.

But if they need to forcefully access your stuff they still don't need a password It's all there sitting in a data center. They just knock the door and take it. "Passwords" are for the software front end for you and me to use, nothing to do with protecting anything from someone that can have legal access to it.

[Teddy07]

whati f i say i dont have a social media account? I only have facebook and only use it to see if someone wrote me a message

[knightslugger]

2 minutes ago, SaladFingers said:

My question is, how will it be "discovered"? If I give you a false ID number, that can be discovered. Because I originally went through an identification process and there is tangible proof for who I am. My youtube account on the other hand, is thin air. Could be me, or not. You can't point a finger on someone or prove anything simply because of the very nature of how these accounts are being created.

 

I understand how someone can simply decide to lurk facebook and look up my name and then deny me access to the country. It's their country. But there is no real way to make this whole process absolute, and laws are absolute. If something is so easily tricked and so hard to be proven otherwise, it can't be officially required. They can ask for the regular information and then run a background check of their own.

how will it be discovered: Regular and routine investigatory querying. Just as a convict visits their probation officer on a regular basis (or should anyway) so too should a  visa holder.

 

To proof of ownership: it would be a fairly simple thing to investigate videos on youtube and ask simple question about the content found and it's genesis. A creator will know when, where, why, whom, and/or with what in which the content was created. Reviewing a vacation video: Where were you on October 17th 2014? Was it cold or hot? these are things that are easy to answer, but hard to fabricate the answers to. simple, basic, investigatory inquiry.

 

For an investigator, it is easy to spot a lie given the right question.

 

8 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

whati f i say i dont have a social media account? I only have facebook and only use it to see if someone wrote me a message

then you just lied.

[mach]

8 minutes ago, SaladFingers said:

But if they need to forcefully access your stuff they still don't need a password It's all there sitting in a data center. They just knock the door and take it. "Passwords" are for the software front end for you and me to use, nothing to do with protecting anything from someone that can have legal access to it.

Yes I know they can and will do it if you're a person on their watchlist. It can't be done to every travellers who refuse or cannot provide them their password can't they?☺

[Misanthrope]

I'll say I just have Twitter and give em credentials to an account filled with nothing but gay interracial porn.

[SaladFingers]

2 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

how will it be discovered: Regular and routine investigatory querying. Just as a convict visits their probation officer on a regular basis (or should anyway) so too should a  visa holder.

 

To proof of ownership: it would be a fairly simple thing to investigate videos on youtube and ask simple question about the content found and it's genesis. A creator will know when, where, why, whom, and/or with what in which the content was created. Reviewing a vacation video: Where were you on October 17th 2014? Was it cold or hot? these are things that are easy to answer, but hard to fabricate the answers to. simple, basic, investigatory inquiry.

 

For an investigator, it is easy to spot a lie given the right question.

 

then you just lied.

I'm not talking about someone posting videos and willingly exposing private data, I'm talking about a random account made by someone for whatever reason containing little to no personal information. I can go and create a facebook profile with your name and post as you. What kind of check is there to prevent me from doing so? None, since facebook isn't a governmental institution, it's a website made from someone like you and me. Again, it's anyone's right to look me up and draw any conclusions, right or wrong, and boot me off the country. But asking for account details itself is hilarious at best..

[ivan134]

17 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

how will it be discovered: Regular and routine investigatory querying. Just as a convict visits their probation officer on a regular basis (or should anyway) so too should a  visa holder.

 

To proof of ownership: it would be a fairly simple thing to investigate videos on youtube and ask simple question about the content found and it's genesis. A creator will know when, where, why, whom, and/or with what in which the content was created. Reviewing a vacation video: Where were you on October 17th 2014? Was it cold or hot? these are things that are easy to answer, but hard to fabricate the answers to. simple, basic, investigatory inquiry.

 

For an investigator, it is easy to spot a lie given the right question.

 

then you just lied.

[knightslugger]

1 minute ago, SaladFingers said:

I'm not talking about someone posting videos and willingly exposing private data, I'm talking about a random account made by someone for whatever reason containing little to no personal information. I can go and create a facebook profile with your name and post as you. What kind of check is there to prevent me from doing so? None, since facebook isn't a governmental institution, it's a website made from someone like you and me. Again, it's anyone's right to look me up and draw any conclusions, right or wrong, and boot me off the country. But asking for account details itself is hilarious at best..

agreed, absolutely nothing stops you from filling an Instagram channel with videos of butterflies and claiming it as someone's social media account... but how would you prove that? If it was filled with ISIS recruiting videos and someone send it off to DHS saying hey i think this is owned by @SaladFingers... an investigation would immediately commence I AM SURE and rightly so. but again, to an investigator a fabrication is easy to spot. As an immigrant, you don't have any constitutional protections... your personal effects are not protected. If an investigator wants to check the content on your cellphone, computer, or tablet ... you either comply or you are detained and/or deported. pretty simple. If you are adamant that the content is not yours and you had a desire to remain in the USA, chances are you would comply. I do not know why a person would be driven not to given those desires.

 

I agree, chances of getting caught are low, but the consequences should outweigh the desire to hide it.

 

Asking for account details is one of several tests.

[christianled59]

I supported the ban and closing our borders, but I definitely don't support this password bullshit. 

[SaladFingers]

4 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

agreed, absolutely nothing stops you from filling an Instagram channel with videos of butterflies and claiming it as someone's social media account... but how would you prove that? If it was filled with ISIS recruiting videos and someone send it off to DHS saying hey i think this is owned by @SaladFingers... an investigation would immediately commence I AM SURE and rightly so. but again, to an investigator a fabrication is easy to spot. As an immigrant, you don't have any constitutional protections... your personal effects are not protected. If an investigator wants to check the content on your cellphone, computer, or tablet ... you either comply or you are detained and/or deported. pretty simple. If you are adamant that the content is not yours and you had a desire to remain in the USA, chances are you would comply. I do not know why a person would be driven not to given those desires.

 

I agree, chances of getting caught are low, but the consequences should outweigh the desire to hide it.

 

Asking for account details is one of several tests.

 

The DHS can and will look up everything they find suspicious, there's no denying that. What I'm trying to point out though, is that there is no "framework" for this to work as a pre-defined law. It's the same with applying for a job. For sure they are going to look up your name, but it's a hit or miss for them, because there's nothing obligating you to have software accounts left and right. It's the same situation here. Yes, a great amount of intelligence can be gathered, but you can't really force me to give my account up "if I have one". It just doesn't compute.

[knightslugger]

1 minute ago, SaladFingers said:

 

The DHS can and will look up everything they find suspicious, there's no denying that. What I'm trying to point out though, is that there is no "framework" for this to work as a pre-defined law. It's the same with applying for a job. For sure they are going to look up your name, but it's a hit or miss for them, because there's nothing obligating you to have software accounts left and right. It's the same situation here. Yes, a great amount of intelligence can be gathered, but you can't really force me to give my account up "if I have one". It just doesn't compute.

but i can certainly deny you access to my country if you do not, and i think we both agree that is reasonable.

 

again, this is in the context of KNOWN accounts. If we don't know, and you lie successfully, (and let me be clear, there is nothing to prevent you from lying and there never will be) i can only hope that it is only a matter of time until you let your guard down and slip up causing an investigation.

 

i can't imagine that this would be a one sided investigation either. I have no idea what other countries do or have in place to keep track of their citizens.

[SaladFingers]

5 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

but i can certainly deny you access to my country if you do not, and i think we both agree that is reasonable.

 

again, this is in the context of KNOWN accounts. If we don't know, and you lie successfully, (and let me be clear, there is nothing to prevent you from lying and there never will be) i can only hope that it is only a matter of time until you let your guard down and slip up causing an investigation.

 

i can't imagine that this would be a one sided investigation either. I have no idea what other countries do or have in place to keep track of their citizens.

I agree with everything you said. It's just that I'm pretty sure even before this news showed up, investigations were done on every level possible anyway. That is why it seems absurd. It's as if accepting facebook profiles to become official documents. There lies the trouble. It is one thing to gather intelligence however you see fit and another to have people fill up forms with their linus tech tips nickname, for example.

[Qwweb]

The whole issue is stupid and I am waiting for someone to bring suit against the US in the form of Universal Jurisdiction, in these forms;

 

Clause 1: In the form of dehumanization, extrajudicial punishments, unjust imprisonment, and political and racial repression Nuremberg Trial

Clause 2: In the failure in providing special protections for women, children, and civilian medical personnel, and provide measures of protection for journalists. Protocol 1 Arts. 76,77,15, and 79 of the Geneva Convention

Germany: Crimes Against Humanity, and War Crimes; Clause 1&2 (Germany has implemented the principle of universal jurisdiction for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes into its criminal law, which implemented the treaty creating the International Criminal Court into domestic law.)

Belgium: CAH, WC; Clauses 1&2 (Belgium's Parliament passed a "law of universal jurisdiction", allowing it to judge people accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.)

Canada: CAH, WC; Clauses 1&2 (anyone who is present in Canada and alleged to have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity anywhere at any time, can be prosecuted [in Canada].)

Finland: CAH; Clauses 1 (Finland allows prosecutions for crimes against humanity wherever they are committed)

UN International Court of Justice (The Hague): Clauses 1&2

 

All of these do not violate diplomatic immunity or sovereignty as they are laws that are in place to safeguard the international Laws of War and the definition of a "crime against humanity" reads, 

Quote

Unlike war crimes, crimes against humanity can be committed during peace or war. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder, massacres, dehumanization, extermination, human experimentation, extrajudicial punishments, death squads, forced disappearances, military use of children, kidnappings, unjust imprisonment, slavery, cannibalism, torture, rape, and political or racial repression may reach the threshold of crimes against humanity if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.

 

[knightslugger]

8 minutes ago, SaladFingers said:

I agree with everything you said. It's just that I'm pretty sure even before this news showed up, investigations were done on every level possible anyway. That is why it seems absurd. It's as if accepting facebook profiles to become official documents. There lies the trouble. It is one thing to gather intelligence however you see fit and another to have people fill up forms with their linus tech tips nickname, for example.

I don't think that's what it is doing (becoming an official document). maybe if it became evidence and only as evidence, but a profile as you've alluded to, can only be *at most* an indicator at first blush.

 

@Qwweb you're joking. this is immigration, not WWII.

[SaladFingers]

1 minute ago, knightslugger said:

I don't think that's what it is doing (becoming an official document). maybe if it became evidence and only as evidence, but a profile as you've alluded to, can only be *at most* an indicator at first blush.

 

@Qwweb you're joking. this is immigration, not WWII.

Fair enough.

[Qwweb]

22 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

you're joking. this is immigration, not WWII.

The laws regarding universal jurisdiction were set up from 1993-2010. Crimes against humanity by definition can occur during a time of peace and/or war and can be perpetrated by anyone, against anyone. The included below examples of what constitutes a "crime against humanity" 

30 minutes ago, Qwweb said:

 Murder, massacres, dehumanization, extermination, human experimentation, extrajudicial punishments, death squads, forced disappearances, military use of children, kidnappings, unjust imprisonment, slavery, cannibalism, torture, rape, and political or racial repression may reach the threshold of crimes against humanity if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.

The arguements for extrajudicial punishment, unjust imprisonment, and political or racial repression are the most compelling of these as the travel ban prioritizes those claiming refugee status as a result of "religious persecution provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality." Full quote from the executive order below;

Quote

 (b)  Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.  Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

But back to the original topic of the thread, making it mandatory to give access to your social media accounts raises several questions. Would the wording of the clause allow for search and seizure without a warrant (violating the 4th amendment)? Does this violate the right to refusal of self incrimination (violating the 5th amendment)? Does this affect those with diplomatic passports/visas (violating the sovereignty of a nation)?

[knightslugger]

13 minutes ago, Qwweb said:

extrajudicial punishment, unjust imprisonment, and political or racial repression

and those arguments for this are what? What's the extra-judicial punishment? deportation?

What is the unjust imprisonment? jail, cuz YOLO?

what is the racial or political repression? You come from a land we dislike? cuz you're middle-eastern?

 

No. No. NO.

 

a person seeking REFUGEE STATUS who states religious persecution as their reason for fleeing is categorized either as majority or minority. minorities almost always get preferential treatment no matter what it is.

 

FURTHERMORE:

 

18 minutes ago, Qwweb said:

Would the wording of the clause allow for search and seizure without a warrant (violating the 4th amendment)? Does this violate the right to refusal of self incrimination (violating the 5th amendment)? Does this affect those with diplomatic passports/visas (violating the sovereignty of a nation)?

NON-US CITIZENS ARE NOT AFFORDED CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS. Your argument is dead.

 

[silberdrachi]

Im glad i live in the us, because immigrating here is fucked up. I suppose im also happy i dont do much on social media other than using fb messenger (EDIT: does LTT forums count as social media?). Im glad i dont run a parody twitter account, or a joke FB page or something. Though i do belong to a paintball team that has the word "milita" in the name, hope i dont get deported.

 

I get why they are asking people for the info, but i think forcing them to give up login information is a step too far. Though i dont agree with a lot about what is said about immigration lately, so its possible im biased?

[knightslugger]

1 hour ago, silberdrachi said:

hope i dont get deported.

Why would you, you're a US Citizen right?

[silberdrachi]

8 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

Why would you, you're a US Citizen right?

 

Thats the joke. Clearly not funny enough i guess.