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

US demands social media details from visa applicants

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 355 posts

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#331

Post by chungleong »

daemin wrote: post #300
chungleong wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a legal standpoint that's problematic since the government would be imposing a punishment on acts committed outside its jurisdiction--possibly ex post facto as well.

But a lot of countries have laws which say that you can be prosecuted upon your return for doing anything outside of the country which is illegal inside the country.

Western countries generally only invoke extraterrestrial jurisdiction in matters concerning basic human rights. Laws criminalizing sex with minors oversea are arguably domestic implementation of international law. Sexual slavery is not a choice that sovereign states can make.

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#332

Post by robocat »

fastball wrote: post #325
tialaramex wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They explained that pretty clearly. The US insists that you are entering their country if your route of travel passes through US territory. So sensible routes to lots of other countries that don't themselves have obnoxious rules are off limits if you don't want the US nosing thorough everything.

If your social network accounts are public, the NSA can already see them, it doesn't matter if you explicitly give them your username. If your accounts are not public, giving them your username won't really do anything. I'm still not sure I see the problem? "Oh no, I'm traveling through the US and now they know that I have a social network account!" ?? They already knew that if you were actually a person of interest.

But the TSA and whatever other relevant departments don't have access to the NSA databases (or don't publicly show it, same thing from my POV).

I perceive that I might be denied entry to the US because someone shares a photo of me doing something the US doesn't like .. Then my trip to Canada gets cancelled, and I get to say "yes" when asked by every other country "have you ever been denied entry".

Meanwhile I must also provide biometrics.

And it is a federal form. The theoretical risk is high (although actual risk is low if you are a normal person).

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#333

Post by pas »

humanrebar wrote: post #314
pas wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACA is already a result of a lot and even more compromise. It's even modeled after a Republican plan implemented in a red state. (In Mass. when governed by Mitt Romney, who at first vetoed it then took credit for it.)

And yet it received basically no bipartisan support in Congress. The Romney stuff is a talking point, not a reasonable way to pursue bipartisan progress on healthcare (which is still a mess).

It received just enough to pass, don't forget that. And also don't forget that nowadays it receives just enough support to stay on the books.

Also. Talking point or not, it pretty much showcases that policymaking today is not a deliberate good faith iterative process what it should be. It's just a front in the culture wars.

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#335

Post by joelrunyon »

diveanon wrote: post #243
joelrunyon wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest - that's sort of off the beaten path (speaking for a lot of Americans). From the SE asian island-ish countries, I can think the ordering of "who goes where" would look something like this - Thailand, Bali, Vietnam, Phillippines, Malaysia - just based on country marketing + anecdotal conversations alone. This is coming from someone who was nomad-ing around for 2 1/2 years too.

My flight from New York to KL cost less than my flight from Orlando to NY. Most Malaysians also speak English very well, especially compared to the rest of SE Asia. I have spoken to Americans back home who couldn't even point out Malaysia on a map, and even more who just write it off as a "Muslim country" despite it being secular and very diverse. I would say it has less to do with accessibility, and more to do with…

I didn't say anything about accessibility.

I said it has to do with how the country presents itself. If you polled people going to Asia - you'd see a huge # of them would be going to Thailand or Bali (80/20) - likely due to them being portrayed in the media quite a bit. Indonesia is also significantly Muslim.

You seem to be looking for a fight where there isn't one. Maybe you should reconsider your assumptions about Americans.

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#336

Post by ashelmire »

diveanon wrote: post #21
avocado4 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "I have not heard anyone say they want to visit the United States in a very long time." US had the 3rd largest number of tourists in the world in 2017 (after France and Spain). [1] Though YOY is trending down in Trump years. [1] https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284419876

I did not see a breakdown by age demographic in that report. The overwhelming majority of the tourists I encounter fall into the Millennial bracket, and I don't think it is possible for them to be less enthusiastic about visiting the US. Maybe that will change once they have kids who want to go see Harry Potter World in Orlando, but as it stands I think most of my customers would rather visit North Korea than the US.

> The overwhelming majority of the tourists I encounter fall into the Millennial bracket, and I don't think it is possible for them to be less enthusiastic about visiting the US.

You could say the same about American millenials. We aren't thrilled to be here either - if we all had dual citizenship with another first-world nation, I'd bet 70% of us would have left the country.

I doubt we've ever had an economy that was as strong (or at least, looked so good on paper), while people had such a negative opinion of what the future holds. Trump and the Senate Republicans (and their supporters) are destroying this nation.

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#337

Post by llukas »

jki275 wrote: post #324
llukas wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False equivalence. First amendment understanding evolved since 1789 [1]. Protecting speech of corporations was unthinkable in 1789. [1] https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/constant-evolution-first-...

It has to a very small degree. But not to the point of banning speech.

There were entire areas unknown in 1789 - incorporating them is basically writing law again (see example below). Reliable fully automatic weapons that can do up to 1000rpm belong to same category.

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1044/communications...

"The 1934 act designated broadcasters as speakers — thus granting them First Amendment rights — but the broadcast media were also treated as possessing a somewhat lesser claim to First Amendment protections than the print media. The Supreme Court’s decision in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969) upheld the principle that the scarcity of frequencies put broadcasters under public obligations to present multiple viewpoints, which therefore served as limits on their First Amendment rights."

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#338

Post by humanrebar »

pas wrote: post #333
humanrebar wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet it received basically no bipartisan support in Congress. The Romney stuff is a talking point, not a reasonable way to pursue bipartisan progress on healthcare (which is still a mess).

It received just enough to pass, don't forget that. And also don't forget that nowadays it receives just enough support to stay on the books. Also. Talking point or not, it pretty much showcases that policymaking today is not a deliberate good faith iterative process what it should be. It's just a front in the culture wars.

> It received just enough to pass, don't forget that.

Kind of. One version passed the House, another the Senate (), and a questionable reconciliation process created a unified bill.

My point is that I don't find the "Obama nobly lost to the Swamp" narrative all that convincing. He could have required, say, 10 republican senators agree before (unsuccessfully) overhauling one of the largest parts of the economy. That* failing is what losing to the Swamp might look like.

Maybe that wouldn't have worked, to be fair. But preemptively deciding to play hardball doesn't fit the "The Swamp was too swampy for Obama" narrative.

(*) Including a vote from Arlen Specter, who switched parties mid-term and a vote in exchange for the infamous "Cornhusker Kickback".

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#339

Post by jki275 »

llukas wrote: post #337
jki275 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has to a very small degree. But not to the point of banning speech.

There were entire areas unknown in 1789 - incorporating them is basically writing law again (see example below). Reliable fully automatic weapons that can do up to 1000rpm belong to same category. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1044/communications... "The 1934 act designated broadcasters as speakers — thus granting them First Amendment rights — but the broadcast media were also treated as possessing a somew…

Civilians owned cannon, artillery pieces and warships in the revolutionary war time frame.

A machine gun is nothing compared to a strategic asset. If we want to go back to that model, which is what you argue for, I'm getting a Davy Crockett for my front yard, an Iowa class BB for my dock, and a squadron of F22s and F35s.

Who cares about an M16 at that point.

You're arguing something that simply isn't so.

Re: US demands social media details from visa applicants

#340

Post by nutjob2 »

jorblumesea wrote: post #116
nutjob2 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The immigration policies of the UK are very much not representative of other European countries.

That's not my point, you don't see UK under the microscope. Just seems to be another case of "US bad/Europe good".

Your point is not valid. Try reading the UK press, like The Guardian and you'll see that's not the case.
Post reply on HN