Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. To Collect Social Media Data on All Immigrants Entering Country

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 253 posts

Re: U.S. To Collect Social Media Data on All Immigrants Entering Country

#221

Post by coldtea »

Chris2048 wrote: post #167
CamelCaseName wrote: post #4

Not to suggest that this is okay to do to immigrants, (legal ones at that!) but the next step is clear. If this works well and remains unopposed, the average citizen will be targeted next.

A slippery slope, you say?

Some real life slopes are actually slippery, and some metaphorical slopes are legitimately so as well.

Unless you have some reason to suspect the events at the end of the slope are too farfetched to actually happen, which I don't see any, this is not a "slippery slope fallacy", but a run of the mill prediction about an Overton window opening.

Re: U.S. To Collect Social Media Data on All Immigrants Entering Country

#222

Post by pedrosorio »

lucozade wrote: post #194
shubb wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be too positive though - if the TSA think you really love the USA then you might want to move there. You need to write a bot that tweets 'I love the USA but wouldn't want to live there' every day.

> 'I love the USA but wouldn't want to live there' I have a work colleague who has a green card but lives in the UK. He gets questioned on it every time he goes through US customs. Essentially, the very idea that someone would choose not to live in the US is considered suspicious.

> I have a work colleague who has a green card but lives in the UK. He gets questioned on it every time he goes through US customs.

> Essentially, the very idea that someone would choose not to live in the US is considered suspicious.

This is misinformation. Green card is the colloquial name for the "Permanent Resident Card". As the name implies, you're supposed to live in the US if you hold this card. Your colleague may be flying under the radar but he's probably violating the conditions required to maintain a green card and might lose it in the future:

https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/ma...

"You may also lose your permanent resident status by intentionally abandoning it. You may be found to have abandoned your status if you:

Move to another country, intending to live there permanently.

Remain outside of the United States for an extended period of time, unless you intended this to be a temporary absence. (...)"

Re: U.S. To Collect Social Media Data on All Immigrants Entering Country

#223

Post by philk10 »

ajeet_dhaliwal wrote: post #201
SonicSoul wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the scary part is not the collection. it's the intention or end outcome of having that information. i.e. How likely are they to try to find something against you if you're tweeting against current admin. god knows what lists are created as a result of this. and this can also easily lead to uncovering less public information about you. More data you have about a person easier it is to triangulate anonymized data about…

This is the reason it's scary, it's not the collection in of itself. It's also sad because there are history textbooks, novels, movies and so much information about the past about why this sort of thing is dangerous and like idiots we all allow it to happen again and again even when freedom is the mantra of the constitution of the country. Who dare's to Tweet or write something that either is critical of the governme…

Nail hit right on the head. As an old-timer who's been through a lot this wont stop me, younger people who think they have more to lose and not the experience to deal with it - possibly.

Re: U.S. To Collect Social Media Data on All Immigrants Entering Country

#224

Post by pilsetnieks »

musha68k wrote: post #88
Zenst wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I think you will find the EU is not far behind and in some area's further ahead in this orwellian future. Germany for example on verge of rolling out facial ID recognition and trialing currently: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-security/german-p... This with data retention laws imposed upon ISP's, they already have all your data, so no need to ask.

You are right, it's getting worse everywhere - it has been so for far too long. That said, I can't imagine a more unwelcoming tourist entry into a "western" country than the US at this point in time.

It isn't getting worse everywhere - that's just defeatist attitude.

For example, the EU data retention directive that Zenst mentions was struck down last year; the EU is adopting a new personal data protection regulation next year that will significantly improve personal data handling; the EU introduced the right to be forgotten, etc.

Re: U.S. To Collect Social Media Data on All Immigrants Entering Country

#225

Post by rdtsc »

pedrosorio wrote: post #222
lucozade wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'I love the USA but wouldn't want to live there' I have a work colleague who has a green card but lives in the UK. He gets questioned on it every time he goes through US customs. Essentially, the very idea that someone would choose not to live in the US is considered suspicious.

> I have a work colleague who has a green card but lives in the UK. He gets questioned on it every time he goes through US customs. > Essentially, the very idea that someone would choose not to live in the US is considered suspicious. This is misinformation. Green card is the colloquial name for the "Permanent Resident Card". As the name implies, you're supposed to live in the US if you hold this card. Your colleague…

> Green card is the colloquial name for the "Permanent Resident Card".

Agreed. If caught he could get in trouble and have it revoked.

Re: U.S. To Collect Social Media Data on All Immigrants Entering Country

#226

Post by ljf »

appleflaxen wrote: post #198
watty wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm being contrarian but how is this a big deal? I'd expect the government to be collecting all public information for its citizens and those visiting the country - why not? This isn't private info, it's publicly posted social media information, which is VERY easy to set to private if you wish. If they were collecting private info or browsing data, sure.

It's a big deal because it's almost impossible to use this information in a way that won't have a huge cost to 1) the people visiting the US and 2) the US public (via tax support for enforcement which is driven by this policy) Wolfram Alpha says that 322 people visit the US in a year. Let's assume the technologists in charge of this (who are really no different than any other corporate engineer - capable, but fairly…

This. The most deadly terrorist group to hit the USA was the KKK, with over 3000 black Americans lynched and also over 1000 white Americans killed. Plus countless lives ruined, terrorised, and affected.

These were Americans killing Americans, and similar to the pattern we've seen throughout the 1900s and into the 2000s, it is most likely that future terrorists will also be home grown.

As to this system, was there anything to be gained by keeping these out of the USA, for a tweet?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312

{Off-topic: Because the KKK were (mainly) killing black people and their supporters in Southern states, 'we' don't really think of them as terrorists, nor the people that still push their agenda today as terrorist sympathisers.}

Re: U.S. To Collect Social Media Data on All Immigrants Entering Country

#227

Post by lazyant »

snarf21 wrote: post #202
mikk14 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I share the sentiment, misquoting people who were saying almost the opposite of what you meant is not going to go very far. Franklin wasn't talking at all about what you were thinking he was talking. It was about an argument on taxation. http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous...

I agree that this quote may have been misappropriated. However, I think it has taken on new life and new meaning and is cautionary in terms of "be careful what you are giving up...". 9/11 attacks were successful in their goals based on exploiting the FAA guidelines for hijackers, not because we didn't spy on these people. No one imagined them turning a plane into a bomb. I think non one believes that if hijackers tri…

"No one imagined them turning a plane into a bomb." easily falsifiable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot , I know what you mean as in "not the first weapon expected in a terrorist attack"

Re: U.S. To Collect Social Media Data on All Immigrants Entering Country

#228

Post by coldtea »

thinkMOAR wrote: post #210
coldtea wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People enjoy a) traveling, b) interaction, c) face to face meetings, d) networking, e) break off from normal routine, f) the ability to ask the speaker questions / talk after/before the event, g) free gimmicks like event t-shirts.

I don't know but in my world, a preference is not a requirement. I prefer to watch a movie in the cinema with uber sound systems etc. But i can watch the movie perfectly fine at home. All points besides a, which is not really an argument but the point of discussion, can be done remotely, if you have to travel to a conference. It might not have your preference, but it certainly is possible and i think comparing travel…

>I don't know but in my world, a preference is not a requirement.

Which is a moot point. Others live in their own world -- and so can act on their preferences. Besides, even you do tons of things that aren't "required", and thus are just preferences. Even your example is one such: "watching a movie" is not required or mandatory at all --regardless of whether you watch it a home or at the cinema.

>All points besides a, which is not really an argument but the point of discussion, can be done remotely, if you have to travel to a conference.

People don't travel to conferences because it's required or because they can't get the same knowledge in other ways. They travel to conferences because they like it, and because they get something out of going (even if it's not related to the content of the presentations, like meeting other developers/founders/etc face to face).

If your question is "what makes conferences mandatory to attend", then the answer is nothing. But you didn't ask that, you wrote "i still wonder why people physically move from one part of the world to another to hear somebody speak" -- and preference is a valid answer to that.

I travel to conferences because of the reason's I've stated -- and many other people do too. What exactly do we have to explain?

>It might not have your preference, but it certainly is possible and i think comparing travelling half the world, to hear somebody speak vs starting a livestream or recorded version of a conference at your convenience at home, i know what i prefer.

Which others might not prefer.

I'd rather travel and meet people than stay at home/office if I have the chance.

Re: U.S. To Collect Social Media Data on All Immigrants Entering Country

#229

Post by knz »

ljf wrote: post #226
appleflaxen wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a big deal because it's almost impossible to use this information in a way that won't have a huge cost to 1) the people visiting the US and 2) the US public (via tax support for enforcement which is driven by this policy) Wolfram Alpha says that 322 people visit the US in a year. Let's assume the technologists in charge of this (who are really no different than any other corporate engineer - capable, but fairly…

This. The most deadly terrorist group to hit the USA was the KKK, with over 3000 black Americans lynched and also over 1000 white Americans killed. Plus countless lives ruined, terrorised, and affected. These were Americans killing Americans, and similar to the pattern we've seen throughout the 1900s and into the 2000s, it is most likely that future terrorists will also be home grown. As to this system, was there any…

> The most deadly terrorist group to hit the USA was the KKK, with over 3000 black Americans lynched

Not to take away from the terror of the KKK, but 9/11 was more deadly - "The attacks caused the deaths of 2,996 people and the injuries of more than 6,000 others" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks).

9,000+ killed or wounded on a single day, massive economic impact, and a Global War on Terror that is still going on today.

Re: U.S. To Collect Social Media Data on All Immigrants Entering Country

#230

Post by homosaphien »

knz wrote: post #122

As a permanent resident with a pending citizenship application (who came on the visa mentioned at the end of this article), I find this incredibly alarming. I have nothing to hide, despise terrorism and the fanatics that commit it, and wish no harm on others with different social, political, or religious views. But I'm familiar enough with history to know how badly this can end. "Papers please" had consequences, espe…

> with a pending citizenship application

It can stay pending for a long time, mine took forever

Post reply on HN