Indeed Israel does it, but only for Arabic or Muslim tourists that present certain characteristics - political engagement for instance. So it does exist but it's really not mainstream
Thought policing only for people of arab ethnicity? How generous of them. Do they not see the irony, in a nation of people that used to got the short end of discrimination and thought policing, now doing it themselves?
Whats is the claim again? An abused child grow up to become an abuser?
I'd be curious to know how they correlate a facebook / twitter identity to a passport number. The number of people with the same name is huge. You could use circles of friends to identify family numbers which you can use if you have access to the Vital Records, but in many (developed) countries, Vital Records are not even digitized.
Simple, the TLAs (Three Letter Acronym organisations) have Stingrays set up (IMSI-catcher) and vehicle number plate readers. You're much more easily identifiable your mobile phone number, vehicle registration number, name, and social media account(s) added together. Because that's probably what is already happening.
> probably
We've known about COTRAVELER[1] for several years.
The basic idea of correlating arbitrary data (with timestamps) to estimate associations can easily be extended to other types of data. This is why almost any kind of data can potentially be "personally identifying". On it's own a random piece of analytics or "anonymized" data doesn't reveal much, but when you correlate many of those data points together you get a very nice fingerprint.
And that's just a a few SQL JOINs. I'm sure a lot more is possible with modern analysis techniques.
Likely unnecessary. 1. Unless you are taking extraordinary measures to sever all connections between yourself and your online presence, odds are there are enough links for any Government to tie a person to an account. Given how much is collected at the border already along with the big-data collected passively by the various TLA Government Orgs, they simply need to pop in your Passport ID or Drivers License or State…
> You have no obligation to use social media Here's what worries me: let's say they set up some kind of scoring system. If you don't use social media, there's no info on you there so your score is 0. If you have an account with anti-government propaganda, that lowers your score obviously. Now at some point, anyone with a score less than strictly positive will be subject to extra background screening / denied entry. Y…
> your score is 0
Computer Court 9: "Guilty. Take her down."
Convicted Blank: "I know my rights. I won't be judged by a machine!"
Dragul: "You don't have any rights. You're a Blank."
Convicted Blank: "Blank is beautiful!
Blank is beautiful!
Blank is beautiful!"
Likely unnecessary. 1. Unless you are taking extraordinary measures to sever all connections between yourself and your online presence, odds are there are enough links for any Government to tie a person to an account. Given how much is collected at the border already along with the big-data collected passively by the various TLA Government Orgs, they simply need to pop in your Passport ID or Drivers License or State…
Last year i set up a facebook account with a fake name and then never accessed it ever. After a few weeks i started getting emails from fb asking if i knew xxxxxxx, the only way they could have known that i knew these people is by tracking my ip and comparing it with others, looking at those ips and working out who was common amongst their connections. Two people logging from the same ip, creates a bridge between two…
After spending 34 years without any photographs of myself landing on social media, my grandmother put up a photo of me on Facebook. I felt bad scolding her, because she really doesn't know any better. ...which is odd, because she was alive for the years when certain governments were identifying their homosexual and ethnic citizens and sending them off to gas chambers and/or internment camps.
I worry that Facebook and its ilk will be a lot more effective than IBM's punchcard system for locating, identifying, and classifying their society's undesirables.
> Couple of years ago a French tourist answered "yes" to make fun of US borders and ended up in jail for a couple of days - not years as obviously he was more a dumb tourist than a real terrorist This must have made the USA so much safer.
I get the sarcasm, but given there are hundreds of millions of US border crossings annually, a policy of taking everything seriously regardless of size probably does make the US safer.
I'm sure that there are lines somewhere between 'taking things seriously', 'overreacting' and 'making examples of people'. Ask a stupid question, expect a stupid answer. It's a stupid question because nobody in their right mind would answer 'yes' to the question which just leaves people with a language barrier (which have a high incidence rate at borders), people that are nervous and/or tired (ditto, probably including some of the guards) and people that are trying to relieve the situation by attempting to be funny (stupid, but understandable since humor has been since time immemorial a natural release for tension).
Indeed Israel does it, but only for Arabic or Muslim tourists that present certain characteristics - political engagement for instance. So it does exist but it's really not mainstream
Thought policing only for people of arab ethnicity? How generous of them. Do they not see the irony, in a nation of people that used to got the short end of discrimination and thought policing, now doing it themselves?
It's easy to make this claim from afar, without personal responsibility or regards to the real dangers present. As the recent attacks prove.
I was always very confused/amused by the questions at the border: "Are you a terrorist or affiliate with a terrorist organization?" "Are you a secret spy" Why would anyone say yes? What's the purpose of this. Do they just need it to avoid arguments like "we dont even ask?" A friend of mine explained it to me: - let's say that they have the suspicion or evidence that you are affiliated w/ a terrorist organization. by…
It's not as simple as that: they would still need to make the case but you lying at the border just gives US authorities bigger evidence. Couple of years ago a French tourist answered "yes" to make fun of US borders and ended up in jail for a couple of days - not years as obviously he was more a dumb tourist than a real terrorist
He's not necessarily dumb because he made the mistake of thinking your border drones had a sense of humour. And given that English is probably not a native language for him, it's entirely possible that the sarcasm did not get through.
Quaking in fear in front of authority figures might be the norm in the USA, but it is not the norm everywhere.
Likely unnecessary. 1. Unless you are taking extraordinary measures to sever all connections between yourself and your online presence, odds are there are enough links for any Government to tie a person to an account. Given how much is collected at the border already along with the big-data collected passively by the various TLA Government Orgs, they simply need to pop in your Passport ID or Drivers License or State…
> You have no obligation to use social media Here's what worries me: let's say they set up some kind of scoring system. If you don't use social media, there's no info on you there so your score is 0. If you have an account with anti-government propaganda, that lowers your score obviously. Now at some point, anyone with a score less than strictly positive will be subject to extra background screening / denied entry. Y…
That's credit rating in a nutshell. Don't have debt means bad credit rating.
Thought policing only for people of arab ethnicity? How generous of them. Do they not see the irony, in a nation of people that used to got the short end of discrimination and thought policing, now doing it themselves?
It's easy to make this claim from afar, without personal responsibility or regards to the real dangers present. As the recent attacks prove.
Ah yes, the brand new account shows up to defend the Israeli policy of apartheid and overt ethnocentrism. In before criticising Israel is antisemitic.
Thought policing only for people of arab ethnicity? How generous of them. Do they not see the irony, in a nation of people that used to got the short end of discrimination and thought policing, now doing it themselves?
It's easy to make this claim from afar, without personal responsibility or regards to the real dangers present. As the recent attacks prove.
And terror attacks would go down if the government always knew exactly what everyone is thinking.
But that still doesn't justify that kind of surveillance. And if one claims that a piece of land belongs to them and refuses to let it go independent, but also refuses to recognize the people living there as citizen, then one has to expect an uprising.
Terror attacks are a barbaric way for the palestinians to protest, but protest itself is justified.