Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

231–240 of 253 posts

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

#231
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…

The rational part of your brain is waving around two huge red flags: "can't happen here" and "nothing to hide".

You should slap it around a bit, so that it stops believing in those intrinsic, unsupported assumptions. Not like a literal concussion type of slap--slap it with a hit of salvia divinorum or a provocative essay or introspective meditation or something.

Everyone has something to hide. It doesn't even have to be anything particularly shameful. You could have the most glorious junk in the history of humanity, but you still cover it up with some form of garment when you leave the house. You could have a perfectly ordinary and treatable rash on your backside, but you don't necessarily tell anyone about it outside your doctor's office. You might be going on an awesome vacation for three weeks, but you might not want the local housebreaking crew to know that.

It can happen here, as it can happen anywhere that humans come together. This is beyond tolerable, and as we are a civilized people, we have a graduated response to such behavior.

First, we publicly announce our opposition to this policy, in the hopes that a reasoned debate will cause it to be abandoned. This is the "soap box". Second, we inform our designated representatives that this is an important issue, and should they wish to continue to hold our proxy, they will vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. Should they do otherwise, we do our best to replace them with someone who will. This is the "ballot box". Third, we tangle it up with formal legal challenges, requiring that the policy be measured against existing legal standards. We sit on grand juries to indict or no-bill those suspected of breaking our laws, and upon petit juries to convict or not-convict those who faced trial. This is the "jury box". Finally, we can take our tools, fashion them into weapons, and physically assault those who have already failed to yield to reason, ignored those whom they purport to represent, and scoffed at the law. This is the "ammo box"--ultima ratio regum.

It can happen here. It is always happening everywhere, and here is no exception. We must constantly work at preventing it. That is the burden of democracy. Everywhere it has happened, it was because the momentum overwhelmed the resistance, and because those graduated responses were removed Alvin York style--from back to front, so that the opposition wouldn't notice until it was too late. You can't forget that when reason fails--and it does fail against the unreasonable--you have to be prepared to instead use rhetoric, tradition, or raw force to get what you want.

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

#232
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe I'm being contrarian but how is this a big deal? Ask a person in Argentina, Chile, Spain, and lots of other places besides. > I'd expect the government to be collecting all public information for its citizens and those visiting the country - why not? Because their social media lives are not its business -- citizens or not.

If someone is communicating with known terrorist organizations or plotting a crime on social media, how is that not the governments business? I'm not saying they should have unfettered access to everything (far from it!), but gathering and analyzing this type of information is the very definition of their business. The real question is what levels of information gathering are going to allow without a warrant, and who…

>If someone is communicating with known terrorist organizations or plotting a crime on social media, how is that not the governments business?

If someone is plotting a crime while having sex with their partner in their bedroom, how is that not the government's business?

See how it gets problematic?

Bad actors like that can communicate in 200000 ways. If governments want to target "known terrorist organizations" let them target them, and follow those people, monitor their houses, etc -- not monitor the general population in the off chance they see something.

>I'm not saying they should have unfettered access to everything (far from it!), but gathering and analyzing this type of information is the very definition of their business.

So, in 1980, before Facebook, they wouldn't be able to catch anyone?

How about they monitor actual suspects with good old police work and leave the BS?

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

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s true for the talks, but there’s a lot going on around the talks.

That might be, and some might run back to the hotel room right after the seminar/conference is finished. Though primary reason of traveling for a conference is to hear that person speak at the conference, anything extra before/after talks that happens is bonus, not primary reason of travel.

>Though primary reason of traveling for a conference is to hear that person speak at the conference, anything extra before/after talks that happens is bonus, not primary reason of travel.

Again, for you. I know many types whose primary reason is networking.

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

#234
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone is communicating with known terrorist organizations or plotting a crime on social media, how is that not the governments business? I'm not saying they should have unfettered access to everything (far from it!), but gathering and analyzing this type of information is the very definition of their business. The real question is what levels of information gathering are going to allow without a warrant, and who…

> If someone is communicating with known terrorist organizations or plotting a crime on social media, how is that not the governments business? If someone is plotting a crime while having sex with their partner in their bedroom, how is that not the government's business? See how it gets problematic? Bad actors like that can communicate in 200000 ways. If governments want to target "known terrorist organizations" let…

> If someone is plotting a crime while having sex with their partner in their bedroom, how is that not the government's business?

That escalated quickly. So to you monitoring information posted to a third party is the same as listening in on you and your spouse while you're bumping uglies?

> See how it gets problematic?

No I don't as I reject your example outright. What goes on within the four walls of a person's bedroom has already been established as protected. In contrast, what gets sent out to a third party has been established as not protected.

> Bad actors like that can communicate in 200000 ways. If governments want to target "known terrorist organizations" let them target them, and follow those people, monitor their houses, etc -- not monitor the general population in the off chance they see something.

Sure and this is one of the many ways they can do it. Just because there are other options available doesn't mean they can't use this as an avenue.

> So, in 1980, before Facebook, they wouldn't be able to catch anyone?

I never said that nor implied it. I'm saying that social media posts are fair game and likely a valuable source of information for identified terrorists and potential terrorists.

> How about they monitor actual suspects with good old police work and leave the BS?

That's a false dichotomy. There's no reason you can't have modern data analysis of social media posts in addition to traditional police work. Technology is a force multiplier. Back in the day people would manually examine finger prints to find a match based on a categorization system. Now a computer does it nearly instantly.

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

#235
post #229
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Don't get me wrong, 9/11 was certainly a devastating horror and the impacts were huge - I was just pointing out that the larger number of deaths (consensus is that around 3400 black people and 1400 white people were killed by the KKK or other racist groups that were part of a wave of anti black terror [correcting myself to my comment above that it was all attributable to the KKK]: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/27/... ) and on the whole the conspirators were American born terrorists with a single goal in mind. This lynchings took place over many many years, but the affect on the black population would have been massive and the social and economic effects can still be felt today. Thankfully the western world doesn't see anything like this today.

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

#236
post #160
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.

Read the entry in the Federal Register. They are also collecting internet search results (not the queries, which is odd). In addition there is a constitutional prohibition on collecting arbitrary information on citizens (which the courts have extended to “US Persons”, basically citizens and green card holders) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/09/18/2017-19...

"US Persons" includes everyone living in the US regardless of immigration status.

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

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By this logic, when this administration starts discriminating people who are into programming ("they cause cyber terrorism," might be the excuse) we shall all "get the fuck off programming"?

i follow your logic but respectively disagree - there are so many good reasons delete your facebook account at this point - and lets face it, when they say "social media" they mean facebook

Not when you say "I don't have a Facebook account" and promptly escorted into secondary inspection area at the border for more scrutiny.

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

#238
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Don’t you really have no Facebook account, Sir?”

"I spend my working days looking into a computer screen. I prefer spending my free time talking to people face to face".

"Please step into that room for a secondary inspection".

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

#239
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the entry in the Federal Register. They are also collecting internet search results (not the queries, which is odd). In addition there is a constitutional prohibition on collecting arbitrary information on citizens (which the courts have extended to “US Persons”, basically citizens and green card holders) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/09/18/2017-19...

"US Persons" includes everyone living in the US regardless of immigration status.

Turns out not to be the case, and in particular not the case for immigration and surveillance purposes. In these cases it's explicitly US citizens and green card holders (plus certain corporations).

See 22 U.S. Code § 6010: 'As used in this chapter, the term “United States person” means any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States, and any corporation, partnership, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States.' Title 22 is the foreign relations chapter

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

#240
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…

The rational part of your brain is waving around two huge red flags: "can't happen here" and "nothing to hide". You should slap it around a bit, so that it stops believing in those intrinsic, unsupported assumptions. Not like a literal concussion type of slap--slap it with a hit of salvia divinorum or a provocative essay or introspective meditation or something. Everyone has something to hide. It doesn't even have to…

Everyone has something to hide. It doesn't even have to be anything particularly shameful.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Richelieu

Post reply on HN