131–140 of 439 posts
What if you don't have any social media accounts? Are they just going to assume anyone who says they don't is lying or trying to hide something? Seems like a dumb policy to require details on a purely voluntary activity.
If the companies had their way, it would be illegal to not have a social media account and not participate actively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't the 5th amendment make those questions impossible to answer? (If you plead the 5th on them, you're.. probably a terrorist...)
The constitution protect non citizens too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why I hate HN. Someone here has an opinion that doesn't toe the line and instead of asking about the opinion, instead of considering he might be right in at least some way, we downvote to oblivion. Bunch of assholes, really.
Because their "opinion" is straight trolling. Not every opinion deserves respect. And I notice you didn't ask about the opinion, but rather just started complaining about everyone else who wasn't in the mood for their bullshit.
You forget to list that LiveJournal, Advogato or Quora accounts: family gets deported.*
Your daughter forgets to list that Pinterest account: family gets deported.*
Your son forgets to list that last.fm or SoundCloud account: family gets deported.*
Your mom forgets her Academia.edu account and Mittens forgets her vampirefreaks account: family gets deported.*
[*] or separated...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just immigrants, but all visitors.
Nah, citizens of most first world countries don't need a visa to enter the US if they're visiting for less than 90 days. This includes western Europe, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Baltic countries, etc. You can just get on a plane and fly over. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program#/media/Fil...
Not quite - you will need an ESTA - a visa waiver, and the airlines (usually) check before you board that you have a current one.
But they are valid for two years, and trivial to get via the webapp.
I'm curious of what the lobbying arms of major social media companies like Facebook and Twitter think of this. Are they using their considerable resources to try and push back against this? They can't possibly benefit from this deeper reach of the government's spying eyes.
That's where the next billion Twitter and Facebook users will come from: forced participation tied to government services and benefits. You can easily imagine a dystopia where a FB account is required to collect Social Security or Medicare benefits.
With China developing Social Credit and US government interest in social media data, the "in-game outside-world activities" might as well be bypassed. Have a 'good' Facebook history, or else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
5th amendment only applies in criminal cases: " nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ". Doesn't cover border crossings or visa applications.
Also, the United States hasn't historically always given constitutional rights to non-citizens living in the United States.
It's really fun stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> five years of previously used telephone numbers, I couldn't tell even if I wanted to, I go somewhere, pick up a SIM card, trash it when I leave. These days many countries sell them from machines or newsstands at the airport, this is not unusual any more. Japan and the UK, both from 2015: https://cdn.techinasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Screen... http://travelpal.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploa... a…
odds are if you used it for such a short time they wouldnt know either. And it'd be odd if they say "You failed to disclose 555-555-5555" (ok... but you clearly know the number)
It would not be at all odd for them to use failure to disclose as a reason for revoking your visa and putting you on a list of people who would be denied entry in the future, and it would be unsurprising if, before kicking you out, they also criminally prosecuted you for lying to the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's a part of _your_ problem but I don't think it's a part of _the_ problem. What OP said is correct. Democrats continue to escalate and promote legislation that is deeply invasive.
This article and this discussion is about this action, not all the other actions that everyone has ever taken. It's a distraction, often an intentional one, to start talking about all the others.
We need a president who will pledge to appoint Justices that will respect the rights granted by the 4th amendment so we can roll back all of the unconstitutional and authoritarian legislation/structures that have been created in blatant violation of it. Stopping this one rule is immaterial. As we've seen, if legislation that is unpopular with people but popular with politicians fails to pass, then politicians will simply try to pass the legislation/enact the policy later when nobody's looking. The problem isn't isolated to a single act, it's a pattern that needs to be fixed.