DHS Wants Travelers Entering The US To Include Their Social Media Handles... Just Because

from the maybe-they-want-to-be-friends dept

Mon, Jun 27th 2016 3:23am — Mike Masnick

Late last week, a proposal from the Department of Homeland Security was published in the Federal Register concerning forms tourists need to fill out upon entering the US. Specifically, DHS proposed adding the following to Form I-94W, which is the Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure Record:

“Please enter information associated with your online presence—Provider/Platform—Social media identifier.”

Why? Well, it's pretty much exactly as you guessed:

It will be an optional data field to request social media identifiers to be used for vetting purposes, as well as applicant contact information. Collecting social media data will enhance the existing investigative process and provide DHS greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity and connections by providing an additional tool set which analysts and investigators may use to better analyze and investigate the case.

In other words, if you're following ISIS accounts on Twitter, DHS might not let you into the US. And sure, it's voluntary, but it looks like some in Congress are already saying that this sort of thing ought to be mandatory. Of course, for the vast majority of people, their social media profiles are going to be pretty boring for your average Customs and Border Patrol agent, but do we really think it's a good use of their time to be trolling through their Facebook and Twitter feeds or Instagram and Pinterest images?

Overall, this seems like a typical kneejerk response to various concerns about letting people with ill-intent into the country. Eventually, someone travelling here on a tourist visa will do something horrendous, and people will look at who was friends with that person on Twitter or Facebook and freak out. But the idea that the government should be asking travelers for their social media info feels fairly intrusive. What people say on social media or who they're connected with seems likely to be a pretty poor indicator of whether or not they're coming to the US to blow stuff up.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cbp, customs and border patrol, dhs, social media, tourist visa

83 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 2:01am

Absolutely, totally voluntary... today
If something like this becomes widespread and seen as just another part of travelling then you can be sure that 'voluntary' or not refusal/inability to provide the information will likely result in a more 'personal' travelling experience, as anyone who doesn't/can't provide the information will be treated as suspicious and in need of a closer look because 'Only criminals, terrorists and/or communists have something to hide.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 3:47am
  
  Re: Absolutely, totally voluntary... today
  The funny thing is, I don't have any! I don't use FB, Twitter or any such thing.
  Obviously I can't prove that I don't. What happens in that case?
  My guess is I'd be the worst kind of terrorist: the unsocial kind!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 3:55am
    
    Re: Re: Absolutely, totally voluntary... today
    Well they know EVERYONE is on FB, and anyone who says otherwise is lying and needs cavity searches.
    
    Only bad people with things to hide don't use FB, it can't be that these people find it insipid, intrusive, & like to do more than just hit a like button to solve all the worlds problems.
    
    Our leadership is out of touch, and has opted to surround themselves with people who's next raise depends on making sure reality doesn't actually reach them to point out how stupid this all is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 6:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Absolutely, totally voluntary... today
      Yup - even if you lack an account, FB and others know who you are, track you and sell your personal information to whom ever pays.
      
      On a side note, shouldn't they already know your social media details? How lazy are these people?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 4:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Absolutely, totally voluntary... today
        Not likely they know about me.
        A side effect of not being out & wanting to protect myself (when I was younger) meant learning to avoid these sorts of things. Just because I was paranoid didn't mean they weren't out to get me.
        
        I must be doing something right I know I've turned up in at least 3 different acronym agencies background checks, and never a single blip in those people being vetted despite ties to me.
        
        Hurm, either I'm that good or their process sucks that much...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 7:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Absolutely, totally voluntary... today
      > Well they know EVERYONE is on FB, and anyone who says otherwise is lying
      > and needs cavity searches.
      
      Lack of a Facebook or Twitter account is already seen as a sign of dishonesty and/or odd behavior by many employers during the hiring process.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bob, 27 Jun 2016 @ 9:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Absolutely, totally voluntary... today
        That is why I created an account. Put a few things on it so I look good to employers and then don't use it for anything.
        
        Then when people search my name one of the first things they see is good information about me. Kind of like my own version of SEO.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 28 Jun 2016 @ 5:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Absolutely, totally voluntary... today
        Seriously? That's nuts.
        
        Personally, though, I actually don't mind it. Any potential employer that thinks lack of a social media account has any bearing on social character is one that is too stupid to safely work for. So they're pretty much saving me from dodgy employers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 29 Jun 2016 @ 6:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Absolutely, totally voluntary... today
        > Seriously? That's nuts.
        
        Yep. I know of a both a private company and a police department in my area that require applicants to log in to their Facebook accounts during the interview and then step away from the computer while they peruse your account.
        
        If you tell them you don't have a Facebook account, they assume that you deleted it in anticipation of the interview so that they wouldn't find anything negative about you. (Or that you're not socialized properly for the modern era, i.e., weird.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 30 Jun 2016 @ 7:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Absolutely, totally voluntary... today
        "require applicants to log in to their Facebook accounts during the interview"
        
        I've never had that happen personally, but have heard of it from time to time, so I have a response prepared: if I am presented with such a request, then that marks the end of the interview and I will leave.
        
        It's part of my attitude about job interviews: they are two-way streets. I am using the interview to gauge the suitability of the employer just as much as they are gauging my suitability as an employee.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 Jun 2016 @ 11:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Absolutely, totally voluntary... today
        Same here, although I would start asking questions about why they're so interested in what an employee gets up to outside of their professional life, and ask what methods they used before social media. I would however advise them that I wouldn't be interested in working for a company that so clearly doesn't trust its employees.
        
        The privilege of being in a steady career and having gone through my young adult years pre-social media, I suppose. I feel sorry for anyone who is desperate enough for a job that they submit to such privacy invasion willingly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - SolkeshNaranek (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 6:10am
    
    Re: Re: Absolutely, totally voluntary... today
    DHS Agent: "Please step in here" (while he is snapping on a rubber glove.)"We'll get to the bottom of this."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 6:56pm
  
  Re: Absolutely, totally voluntary... today
  as well as politicians, police and government workers it seems.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 3:39am

"Please enter information associated with your online presence—Provider/Platform—Social media identifier."

Well, that's pretty vague. First of all, what does "online presence" mean? Are they just asking for social media? Your own blogs/websites? Disqus account or internal sites where you're commented? How far do they mean to go? If just social media, what's the definition of what that means?

Then, of course, there's the fact that these accounts don't get verified unless specifically requested, and people switch networks all the time. Some people have multiple accounts on each service, which may be for legitimate reasons even if they violate the T&Cs. What if a person has an old account that's still active seen if they haven't used it for a long time? Would omitting this be viewed as suspicious? If not, what's to stop a person simply handing over innocent dummy accounts that they're clever enough not to use for their more nefarious activities?

This strikes me as being one of two things - something that a ignorant person thinks would sound like a "good idea" and hasn't really been thought through, or an excuse to give authorities another chance to give incomplete/incorrect data on a form so that they can use that as an excuse to prosecute/refuse entry if they don't have a more valid reason. For pure intelligence gathering or a way to improve the dataset used to consider a person's application, it seems extremely poor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 3:51am
  
  Re:
  It is all about adding more hay to the haystack that hasn't helped us find any needles yet.
  If we can get them even more data they can build profiles that will be incorrect & inaccurate and leap to all the wrong conclusions.
  Eventually something bad will happen, and they will then be able to show us this huge dossier on the suspect & break down all of the ways they failed to act on the information they already had because they were trying to get more funneled into the system.
  
  Somewhere someone is selling them Tiger Repelling Rock v3.0b, and all it needs is just a little more info and it will totally catch all the "Bad People" (tm).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 7:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    Eventually something bad will happen, and they will then be able to show us this huge dossier on the suspect & break down all of the ways they failed to act on the information
    
    ... and then off to Tiger Repelling rock V 4.0 and requesting more worthless information.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BernardoVerda (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 2:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      There's the problem, right there.
      
      That's at least the second time I've seen that fundamental error made in this very thread.
      
      It's well known (or should be) Repellent Rocks are only effective against lions. To deter Tigers, you need a tiger-repelling Stick. All the rocks in the world won't help you spot and correctly identify an actual tiger on the prowl -- the rocks just get underfoot, trip you up, and distract you from the vital task of watching out for apex predators.
      
      - - - - -
      
      Similarly, of course, Facebook and Twitter screen-names won't help reveal and identify actual, committed terrorists -- to the contrary that will only leave our diligent protective agencies trying to sift digital land-fill for the occasional diamond (which will almost invariably prove to be paste jewellery or a child's toy). No; for this vital task, one clearly needs the far more relevant comment histories -- such as the troves of valuable data to be gleaned from the online forums for Dilbert, Calvin & Hobbs, and XKCD.
      
      Sheesh! Incompetence is everywhere, these days.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 3:40am

Someone should set up an @IamNotAterroist account featuring kittens and inspirational eagle memes for general use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 3:50am
  
  Re:
  That will only prove that you are a terrorist, because it is raising the finger to the governments demands that you bend over for them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 4:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    Fine ... how about a goatse then?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Machin Shin (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 5:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    This comment really makes me hope that someday soon people will get together for one of the most epic protests ever. I can just imagine a huge protest with few thousand people marching out in front of some government buildings before all bending over and mooning them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 8:24am
  
  Re:
  Remember: Lying on an official form is a crime in and of itself....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 8:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not for agents of law enforcement.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 3:47am

Because a terrorist would be much to stupid to have dummy accounts setup that are pristine.

Because looking at who is in their circles totally tells you all about them... I mean I follow a buncha lawyers, some alt-right guys, and Techdirt authors... what sort of twisted picture does that give? What kind of picture does it paint of them that a gay nym is in their circle?

Did you follow an ISIS related account because you are trying to understand? Well you might be a terrorist we should investigate.

Given we threw sexually abused boys & men who happened to buy a popular brand of cheap watch into GITMO because terrorism, is no reason to engage in rational thought at this late stage. Stay the course of doing fucking stupid things that accomplish nothing but make us look that much stupider.

Perhaps all of the FBI started 'terrorist plots' they keep foiling, for media coverage and budget bumps, has Congress thinking all terrorists are fucking stupid?

At what point will we find the will to demand better from people we pay a fuckload of money who aren't doing anything but scoring cool soundbites & turning our nation against itself?

They have done fuck all in office but waste time blaming the other guy when all of them have failed us and we should just sweep the whole place clean & keep sweeping out the unworthy until we manage to elect people with functioning IQs who can think beyond the next soundbite that they will use to raise campagin cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 10:31am
  
  Re:
  I mean I follow a buncha lawyers, some alt-right guys, and Techdirt authors... what sort of twisted picture does that give?
  
  Note the implicit separation: all right guys ///// and techdirt writers.
  
  We are all twisted, guys!
  
  I know it wasn't your intention but that was gold comedy!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 10:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    O crap, I read all-right, not alt-right. Boy did I laugh and am I laughing now I found out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 4:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      tsk tsk tsk...
      
      I sometimes feel bad for some of the alt-right guys because some of their "brethren" see my avatar or the I'm the gay one line and see them talking to me like I am a real person. Causes all sorts of confusion.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 3:57am

7 degrees....
So what used to be "7 degrees from Kevin Bacon" is going to become "7 degrees from whatever we don't like", which comes with all the benefits of not only being denied entry to the US, but also being detained and threatened until you turn into an informant for said group, or arrested anyways, just because.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 4:03am

Gives them another opportunity for them to catch you lying to a federal agent, which may come in handy later on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 4:07am
  
  Re:
  Now if only there were laws against the agents lying...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 8:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    Let me FTFY:
    
    "Now, if only the laws against agents lying were enforced..."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - David, 27 Jun 2016 @ 8:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think (I could be wrong) that the courts have ruled that it's okay for agents to lie to people.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - art guerrilla (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 9:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        according to the (in)justice system:
        it is 'okay' for police to lie,
        it is 'okay' for police to be ignorant of the law,
        it is 'okay' for police to illegally detain you,
        it is 'okay' for police to illegally confiscate your shit,
        it is 'okay' for police to give illegal orders,
        it is 'okay' for police to run pron sites,
        it is 'okay' for police to engage in entrapment,
        it is 'okay' for police to make up shit,
        it is 'okay' for police to threaten you,
        it is 'okay' for police to taser you,
        it is 'okay' for police to fucking kill you...
        
        um, but we're NOT a police-state, mmm-kay ? ? ?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JD, 27 Jun 2016 @ 4:35am

Aural warfare
Me: "Oh, and I have this CetiAlpha YouTube account, but .... I wouldn't click on that if I were you."
DHS: "OH?!?? AND WHY NOT?!??"
Me: "No, really. I take no responsibility if you click on it."
DHS: "TOO LATE!!"
[YouTube music videos start]
YouTube: "LET IT GOOOOO! LET IT GOOOO!!"
DHS: "....no....no no no ..."
YouTube: "EVERYTHING IS AWESOME! EVERYTHING IS COOL WHEN YOU'RE PART OF A TEAM!!"
DHS: [claws ears]
YouTube: "HIIIIIIIGHWAY TOOOOO THHHHHE DANGER ZONE!!"
DHS: [bangs head on desk]
YouTube: "EIGHT-SIX-SEVEN FIVE-THREE-OH-NIII-EEE-INE...."
DHS: [turns phaser on self]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 5:16am
  
  Re: Aural warfare
  You forgot one...
  
  YouTube: NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP! NEVER GONNA LET YOU DOWN!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 7:48am
    
    Re: Re: Aural warfare
    YOU MONSTERS! You deserve to be locked up!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BernardoVerda (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 2:26pm
    
    Re: Re: Aural warfare
    In the (clearly superior, for our purposes) Klingon translation
    
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA_v0YMPN9c
    (includes bilingual sub-titles)
    
    (my abject apologies to all).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sasparilla, 27 Jun 2016 @ 5:08am

Papers and logins please...
Just wait till you have to provide these with your fingerprint for a passport.

Short term this would just provide too much information to be useful, long term though, the govt will have AI scanning everyone's online presence constantly - and everyone can be monitored all the time (the table is being set for that).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I.T. Guy, 27 Jun 2016 @ 6:31am
  
  Re: Papers and logins please...
  Facial recognition too. It's already implemented.
  
  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/smile-youre-in-the-fbi-face-recognition-datab ase/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vincent Clement (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 6:34am
  
  Re: Papers and logins please...
  Yet despite all this information and all these tools, the FBI still has to do much of the legwork in these 'terrorist' stings. They have to provide the 'sources' to buy materials, the sources that tell you how to use the materials and they even have to egg 'terrorists' to become terrorists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vincent Clement (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 6:34am
  
  Re: Papers and logins please...
  Yet despite all this information and all these tools, the FBI still has to do much of the legwork in these 'terrorist' stings. They have to provide the 'sources' to buy materials, the sources that tell you how to use the materials and they even have to egg 'terrorists' to become terrorists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bt Garner (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 5:09am

Thank goodness my online persona name differs form my real name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capt ICE Enforcer, 27 Jun 2016 @ 5:17am

Terrible idea
This is a terrible idea. I will have to put down my Techdirt information and Uncle Sam will deny me access to the US and then confine me to prison. Why you ask. Well I am sure there is some vague law that states that you are not allowed to impersonate a federal employee. And guess what. "Spoiler Alert" I am not a captain and I have never worked for ICE. I am so dead. Will someone please continue to water my lawn if I suddenly vanish online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berenerd (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 5:18am

So when asked, Just say you are an active member her on TechDirt! You might get arrested immediately though..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 5:18am

How many Facebook-friends with questionable habits (lie on an IRS form, question TTIP, vote democrat) will it take for the DOJ to concoct a probable cause to (invite you for an interview/raid your house/seize your assets/contact your employer/generally harass you) until you do whatever they want you to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 6:39am
  
  Re:
  So, not voting fascist is now considered a questionable habit?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jigsy, 27 Jun 2016 @ 5:27am

So, as someone who doesn't use social media, what would happen if I failed to comply?

Would they just shove me back on the next plane home?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Machin Shin (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 5:56am
  
  Re:
  "Would they just shove me back on the next plane home?"
  
  Yeah, that is exactly what they would do.... although "home" might be a bit different place than you had in mind.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 8:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    But unlike commercial airlines, at least they don't charge you extra for the hood.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bob, 27 Jun 2016 @ 10:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You forgot to mention the free rectal exam. Gotta make sure your prisoners are healthy enough for torture.
      
      "Well, the Prince and Count always insist on everyone being healthy before they're broken."
      - The Princess Bride
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 5:31am

Not everyone is on fb or instragram,
some people are not social ,or dont use computers .
i can see this being used as an excuse to detain someone .if you cant show a fb account .
many accounts are in fake names on twitter etc .
how do you prove you never use fb or social media .
Will your twitter or fb account password be recorded for future use .
Some people are anti social or cant be bothered running
social media accounts .
It a bit big brother we want acess to your online
activity .
is the concept of privacy dead in the usa ?
will you have to sign to to a dhs pc to prove you have a facebook account .
OF course the fbi now has the right to hack any pc they wish ,
so they,ll have everyones password if the want .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 6:02am

The totally predictable result...
Is that honest people who pose no threat will comply and sometimes come to grief because of compliance. People who you want to keep out will lie. This will be a filter to harm friends and ignore enemies. Great move, really gives you confidence in the government, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 6:17am
  
  Re: The totally predictable result...
  Wouldn't be the first system employed by a government agency that actually punishes the honest and rewards the dishonest, just look at 'lie detectors'.
  
  The easier you find it to lie, the easier you'll find it to 'pass', while on the other hand an honest person put in a stressful situation(like say hooked up to a device that is claimed to be able to measure honesty) is more likely to 'fail' simply because it's more stressful for them, and signs of stress, not 'honesty' is what it's meant to spot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- orbitalinsertion (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 7:13am
  
  Re: The totally predictable result...
  Yeah, it's just like DRM.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 9:43am
    
    Re: Re: The totally predictable result...
    I would predict tarbaby's, honeypots and bait. Perhaps they haven't thought that providing this data could itself be an attack vector?
    
    Of course they may have considered that, and it could be one of those tests that isn't really a test. For example, they scrutinize the forms with blank fields as a basis for narrowing the list of targets for observation.
    
    Which of course would increase the likelyhood that rural Americans are going to get more frequently flagged as terrorists. (We don't have ANY data in THEM! They must be terrorists!)
    
    The more Internet driven DHS gets, the more susceptible they are to cascade failure resulting from bad data. They've never seen what happens when a whole national network crashes because of one typo. The equivalent event in human profiling has potential for being an unrecoverable scenario.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 10:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The totally predictable result...
      Who is going to be the first one to enter a sql injection attack in that field?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 12:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The totally predictable result...
      Which of course would increase the likelyhood that rural Americans are going to get more frequently flagged as terrorists.
      
      So not only do your ISPs have an abysmal customer service record, and a lousy service, they are causing people to turn to terrorism because of it.
      
      /s
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 6:06am

To be honest, it is not much more redicilous than what is on the forms today. If you have not read them i highly recommend you do. I would not be afraid of the terrorist who get cought by not lying on the question "Have you been involved in or planning to conduct espionage, terrorist activities and/or genocide?"

Would really like to know how the info is used though, the application takes under a minute to process

To DHS credit, I have never seen such clear privacy policy statements as on the application website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I.T. Guy, 27 Jun 2016 @ 6:25am

What does someone do if they dont use social media? Despite my moniker I do not do the FacieBooks or the Twatter... no Punterest or Slapchat, etc. Nope. None of it. I realized a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away, just as everybody was using AOL, that everything you do on-the-internet is logged somewhere. That assumption was confirmed once I got interested in IT and started learning how things worked. Paranoid. You betcha. And rightly so. If you would have told me back then what is going on right now I would have laughed at you and said, "Not in America." Little did I know I was Living in Merika.
-
So when anyone asks me if I'd like to include my email address or if I do social media, the answer is no. And I am 99.9% true in that answer. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 27 Jun 2016 @ 6:27am

Doesn't the NSA/FBI/DHS already have this info?
Aren't they already plugged into to Twitter et. al. firehose to scavenge this stuff and monitor accounts that seem suspicious? Don't they already use this to put people on watch lists and no-fly lists already? All they are doing it duplicating a haystack they already don't have the resources to sift through.

It's going to get to the point where 50% of the citizens are working for the government monitoring the other 50% of the citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 7:34am

Given privacy settings on social media can allow you to heavily restrict who can see your contents, the only way this could consistently be useful is if 1) such privacy settings are banned, 2) the government forces social media companies to give them total access regardless of privacy settings.

#1 obviously isn't going to happen.

Anyone care to bet on whether #2 has already taken place, or if that's something they haven't figured out they need yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Way, 27 Jun 2016 @ 8:01am

War on sanity
See I jet heading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 8:40am

Man, I'd be banned from entering the US. I'd simply write MOTHERFUCKINGEAGLES in that line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon, 27 Jun 2016 @ 9:18am

Silly Comments
Read the post carefully. This is when applying for a Visa Waiver. If you were visiting the USA from Canada and the nice customs man said 'Have you ver used pot in your life?" and you stupidly and honestly replied "yes", they can deny you entry into the USA on the grounds of moral turpitude. (Happened several years ago, IIRC, for some guys headed for Burning Man). Or maybe you said you were going to visit your online girlfriend that you had never met in person, and the confused older CBP official thought you were trying to sneak into the USA.

Having been denied entry, you must now submit the paperwork (and $600US)to request that they let you in - and repeat as necessary every 1 to 5 years. The suggestion is that this application include your online information too now.

How will they know? Well, the first thing you'll "voluntarily" give them will be your email address. Bet you used that to sign up for everything else. If I were a paranoid CBP and something rang alarm bells, I'd try logon or password reset with your email address to Twit, FB, Techdirt, etc. If you did not say you were there, yet FB says "password reset info sent to that address" then automatic denial of travel permission.

Maybe they have a secret database of bad people's secret passwords. Maybe the NSA will hook them up with email-to-IP information, and your partner's or kid's browsing history is available at NSA Central. Who knows... Should we all be paranoid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 9:19am

Another dumb rule...
It baffles the mind that this is a thing... because someone really believes that they'll stop the next 9/11 by finding an Instagram account named: ISIS LEADER - DEATH TO AMERICA"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 9:43am

"Have you been involved in or planning to conduct espionage, terrorist activities and/or genocide?"

Yes, I pay taxes to the US Government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 9:52am

> It will be an optional data field

... no, it won't be.

It won't be marked as "optional" because they really really want to get that information. It will only be optional if you already know it is optional.

They may (or may not) have a policy that says you don't have to fill it in, but they won't train the people receiving the forms to know that.

And you know that this is precisely how they will play it if they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Caleb Murphy, 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:27am

Hate to break it to you .
They already have people dedicated to combing through social media mentions of CBP/DHS etc. I know because I am an IT contractor for them and I've seen specific requests by these employees to get their computers exempted from the proxy filter (DHS blocks social media by default for the network).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TRX (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:28am

Canada's CBSA border goons already demand people unlock their phones, log into any email accounts, and let them paw through their mail, tweets, instant messages, and texts.

Apparently a lot of people are dumb enough to have incriminating information on their phone...

They'd probably freak out when confronted with my ancient dumb phone. There are a number of reasons why I don't carry a smartphone...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brain Sand, 27 Jun 2016 @ 12:20pm

Where?
Was the wrong form linked? I'm not seeing where the linked I94W form actually contains such a request. CTRL+F finds none of the quoted text from the article...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brain Sand, 27 Jun 2016 @ 12:21pm
  
  Re: Where?
  nevermind...i just realized it was a proposal, not yet implemented. /facepalm
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Winston, 27 Jun 2016 @ 12:35pm

Presumably DHS will deem anyone without a social media handle as suspicious and deny them entry, place them on the no-fly list, or at least subject them to "enhanced security measures."

Are your papers in order?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 12:39pm

What if it is someone who does not even OWN a computer? There are still a few those around. And what about those who have Internet, but have never used Twitter or any social media. I, myself, have never used social media, unless you count YouTube as social media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 1:39pm
  
  Re:
  I'm with you in this. I've never had a FB account, never been to instagram, Twitter, or what ever the latest craze is. Should this cap introduction become burdensome, I will drop the internet as not being cost effective.
  
  When I lived in the country, the only internet available was satellite unless we wanted to pony up $800 per pole to bring in the lines. Nor was cell phones available at a reasonable cost for cell service. Just happened to be a huge hill between us and the tower. So on line while in the country just didn't work out for us.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personanongrata, 27 Jun 2016 @ 1:58pm

Inane Data Collection is not a Solution
DHS Wants Travelers Entering The US To Include Their Social Media Handles... Just Because

This DHS initiative is simply the continuation of the collection/storage of more and more useless information that is thrown into the US governments ever growing "haystack" of data in hopes of uncovering a "needle" of evidence.

Even if there was a "needle" to be uncovered there are not enough analysts in government employ to shift through all of the "haystacks" that have been collected and stored at US government data repositories. Storing massive amounts of data is not the most efficient way of uncovering/catching terrorists (which is the US governments justification for the creation of the total surveillance state). Storing massive amounts of data is however quite useful in retroactively dredging up potential "needles" for use against whom ever the US government arbitrarily declares to be persona non grata de jour.

Utah Data Center

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

Texas Cryptologic Center

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Cryptologic_Center

Aerospace Data Facility-Colorado

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospace_Data_Facility-Colorado

Georgia Cryptologic Center

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Cryptologic_Center

Hawaii Cryptologic Center

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Cryptologic_Center

Dagger Complex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger_Complex
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 2:40pm

I would be under heavy investigation.
I do have a Facebook profile... with 1 picture, my family as contacts and information that hasn't been updated for maybe 5 years. I bet that would be suspicious to them.
Well it depends on what kind of information they want.
If they want all my handles for forums and so on, they would need more pages because I use a different one every time.

I am guessing that this is going to cause problems for some people more than others when people just don't fell like answering the question and writes "Whatever" in that field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 3:55pm
  
  Re: I would be under heavy investigation.
  "handles for forums and so on, they would need more pages because I use a different one every time"
  
  My SO has memory problems from a head injury, and literally can't remember them all (nor remember to keep records of them), so creates new ones occasionally anyway. That would look like deliberate obfuscation, bound to be taken as a clear sign of 'undesirable activities'. What's next? A neurologist's or psychiatrists letter stating 'brain allowed to travel'?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2016 @ 12:57am
  
  Re: I would be under heavy investigation.
  Just put down anonymous coward, because look at how prolific and contradictory my comments are, their heads would explode.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 6:47pm

Here is a better idea, lets not go there and instead find another country to visit. One where we are less likely to have our cash stolen by armed and uniformed criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 7:27pm

With all these entry restrictions and burdens, sometimes I wonder how anyone can visit the US...

Once you get there, you can be detained, probed and have your stuff stolen. Then I wonder why anyone would visit the US...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 9:56pm
  
  Re:
  perhaps this is the plan, to make it so no one but terrorists would want to come here so they can round them up easily.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2016 @ 1:55pm

The way things are going, it might not be long before a Facebook account will be needed to file taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2016 @ 3:37pm

Next: DHS wants usernames and passwords just because.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]