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

[Nineshadow]

5 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

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). 

So it's ok to violate the privacy of foreign citizens, just not those of US citizens.

Sure thing...

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, Nineshadow said:

So it's ok to violate the privacy of foreign citizens, just not those of US citizens.

Sure thing...

That's not what I said, and I'd fully expect this to apply to US citizens as well -- anyone entering the country. 

 

A government has complete and absolute rights to do (almost) whatever it wants with anyone trying to enter the country. The US, UK, Australia, and Canada just to name a few big ones all allow their border agents to search ANYTHING on your possession without need for suspicion or a warrant/subpoena. 

[dizmo]

I'm glad I don't have any social media accounts. Though that'd probably raise an even bigger issue at the border. "What do you mean you don't have Facebook? Everyone has Facebook." No, fucker, I don't need the headache.

[knightslugger]

6 minutes ago, Nineshadow said:

So it's ok to violate the privacy of foreign citizens, just not those of US citizens.

Sure thing...

For the purposes of national security and immigration?

 

uhh, yeah?

[Nineshadow]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

That's not what I said. A government has complete and absolute rights to do (almost) whatever it wants with anyone trying to enter the country. The US, UK, Australia, and Canada just to name a few big ones all allow their border agents to search ANYTHING on your possession without need for suspicion or a warrant/subpoena.  

They might as well search immigrants' brains I guess, what's the difference?

 

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Nineshadow said:

They might as well search immigrants' brains I guess, what's the difference?

 

As far as I'm concerned, if you're not a citizen of a country and you want to immigrate to that country, then you should absolutely have to have your brain scanned -- what better way is their to vet immigrants than to see exactly what their intentions are.

[Zodiark1593]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

Unless, you know, it violates the human rights convention.

Considering the United States is still a world superpower, it can just as well say "F-off", and there isn't much any other country can do about it. 

[Nineshadow]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

As far as I'm concerned, if you're not a citizen of a country and you want to immigrate to that country, then you should absolutely have to have your brain scanned -- what better way is their to vet immigrants than to see exactly what their intentions are.

Oh, I have an idea! Let's then apply a machine learning algorithm to recognize terrorists from the brain scans! That's bound to work!

All jokes aside, while I do understand the intentions(or some of them) behind this, I just don't...like it. There's something not ok about it. But I guess in the lack of a better choice, you have to pick the lesser evil. That's from the view of the government, of course.

[MrDynamicMan]

15 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

As far as I'm concerned, if you're not a citizen of a country and you want to immigrate to that country, then you should absolutely have to have your brain scanned -- what better way is their to vet immigrants than to see exactly what their intentions are.

Til that you advocate for thought crime. 

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

Til that you advocate for thought crime. 

Only for people looking to immigrate. If you're a citizen of a country or just looking to visit a country, then no (of course, there are people who "visit" and then never leave, but thats another issue).

[Sauron]

27 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Considering the United States is still a world superpower, it can just as well say "F-off", and there isn't much any other country can do about it. 

Aside from cutting import, boycotting transoceanic business and charging enormous export fees? There's plenty the rest of the world can do to get the US in line. We no longer live in a world where every country is indepentent from everyone else. Without international relationships US economy would collapse. Whether the rest of the world is politically willing to enforce this power is another matter entirely.

[Energycore]

6 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

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

They also should be responsible and deal with the consequences that might come, like a big hit on tourism and decreased international cooperation.

[Michael McAllister]

OP updated.

[79wjd]

6 hours ago, Michael McAllister said:

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.

 

 

Assuming there isn't more to the story....the fact that they were turned away is a problem. Although, it is still VERY important to understand that this original topic has nothing to do with CBP searching the phone -- that was allowed for years. 

[Michael McAllister]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Assuming there isn't more to the story....the fact that they were turned away is a problem. Although, it is still VERY important to understand that this original topic has nothing to do with CBP searching the phone -- that was allowed for years. 

 

She was born in Morocco.  That was not one of the seven countries listed in the immigration Executive Order.  She specifically states that she travels to the US regularly and has never had an issue.

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

 

She was born in Morocco.  That was not one of the seven countries listed in the immigration Executive Order.  She specifically states that she travels to the US regularly and has never had an issue.

The travel ban has created more issues for any muslims, but that has nothing to do with this. Countries have almost absolute rights on their borders and so customs has been allowed to search anything on your possession without any need for reasonable suspicion or a court order for quite a long time. 

[knightslugger]

29 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

 

She was born in Morocco.  That was not one of the seven countries listed in the immigration Executive Order.  She specifically states that she travels to the US regularly and has never had an issue.

that has little to do with it. She had a Canadian Passport, as did all passengers. She and her party were turned away due to anti-american content found on cellphone(s). I'm sure there is a study in black and while with the agent's name and the pertinents of the contact that we will likely not get to see. There is hardly any information in the article.

[Doobeedoo]

Haha this is beyond stupid wow. So called social account like "offical" everyone haves it, uses it like always something so serious and meaningful. So funny.

[stconquest]

5 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

that has little to do with it. She had a Canadian Passport, as did all passengers. She and her party were turned away due to anti-american content found on cellphone(s). I'm sure there is a study in black and while with the agent's name and the pertinents of the contact that we will likely not get to see. There is hardly any information in the article.

What is Anti-American?

 

You also implied the US constitution does not apply to any non US citizen (on US soil).  Can you please explain how that works?

[Just Monika]

Not sure if someone has already said this before, but can't you just provide passwords to dummy Facebook/other social media accounts? For example, I have a couple of dummy FB accounts that I used to play Farmville and Mafia Wars way back then. I would just need to change their names/profile pictures to my own and voila.

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, Weird Face said:

Not sure if someone has already said this before, but can't you just provide passwords to dummy Facebook/other social media accounts? For example, I have a couple of dummy FB accounts that I used to play Farmville and Mafia Wars way back then.

That was covered a bunch.  This is, in essence, a very ill conceived plan that won't really keep anyone safer.  It is probably designed to further normalize the stripping of rights and freedoms from US citizens and non-citizens alike.

[dalekphalm]

6 hours ago, AresKrieger said:

Jokes on you I don't have a social media account

 

Also couldn't they just look at the account's activity rather than getting the password?

The irony of saying this on a social media website  (And yes, I know you were sort of joking)

6 hours ago, SaladFingers said:

1) Not really, requiring someone to physically browse a website and click through its menus is cumbersome and now the way it works. Handing a list of names to facebook and requiring open access to their database is much more efficient.

 

2) Well then, anyone can deny having an account, right? So the ones that do end up giving up their info are "played for fools". Exactly why making it a requirement is absurd. It's one thing to say "we will dig facebook for your publicly available stuff" like employers do and another to actually demand their account details or access to it.

For #2, yes you can deny that you have an account. But if they discover you lied? That's enough reason to deport you. Lying on an immigration form is illegal and is bounds for deportation. What you lied about doesn't matter.

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

I'm glad I don't have any social media accounts. Though that'd probably raise an even bigger issue at the border. "What do you mean you don't have Facebook? Everyone has Facebook." No, fucker, I don't need the headache.

Says this while on a social media website

8 minutes ago, Weird Face said:

Not sure if someone has already said this before, but can't you just provide passwords to dummy Facebook/other social media accounts? For example, I have a couple of dummy FB accounts that I used to play Farmville and Mafia Wars way back then. I would just need to change their names/profile pictures to my own and voila.

As said above, no, you can lie and say you don't have an account. Or you can create a fake account and just give that info. But if they later discover your account was fake (or that you actually had one when you said you didn't), you're gonna be in more trouble.

 

Also, since this seems to be escaping multiple members - A social media website is not just Twitter, Facebook, etc. A web forum is social media.

 

We are all on a social media account right now. Now, are the US Border Agents likely to ask for your LTT Forum username and password? No. But that doesn't change the definition of social media.

[Michael McAllister]

21 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

that has little to do with it. She had a Canadian Passport, as did all passengers. She and her party were turned away due to anti-american content found on cellphone(s). I'm sure there is a study in black and while with the agent's name and the pertinents of the contact that we will likely not get to see. There is hardly any information in the article.

 

Mosque pictures are un-American?  That seems like a vague, far-reaching standard.  What is American?  What is un-American?

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

 

Mosque pictures are un-American?  That seems like a vague, far-reaching standard.  What is American?  What is un-American?

Indeed, from what I gathered, the woman was turned away because she had videos of Muslim people praying in Arabic. I guess that's enough to be un-american these days, eh?

 

Oh god, the facebook comments on that article basically gave me cancer. So many people saying "SHE SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED!" and shit like that. And things like "Why would she go to America to shop for a toy?!??!?" Like these people have never heard of border shopping? It kind of happens every freaking day.

[dizmo]

8 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Says this while on a social media website

 

I think that term is generally referring to Facebook, Twitter, etc. The most popular platforms. At least, that would be the sites and platforms they'd mostly be targeting. They wouldn't go too granular, unless you were for some reason already flagged.

I've been questioned as to why I'm wearing a long sleeved shirt and jeans on a sunny day when crossing the border, so anything's possible.