DHS To Officially Require Immigrants' Files To Contain Social Media Info
from the every-life-an-open-book dept
It looks like being the wrong kind of American will result in the mandatory collection of social media account handles and aliases. New rules on social media snooping have been floated several times with varying degrees of sincerity, but this time the DHS actually means it.
The Department of Homeland Security published the new rule in the Federal Register last week, saying it wants to include "social media handles, aliases, associated identifiable information, and search results" as part of people's immigration file. The new requirement takes effect Oct. 18.
This will affect all immigrants, whether or not their legal status says they should be treated like US citizens. The rule covers permanent residents and naturalized citizens, not just visa applicants and visitors. And it will proceed despite two important missing elements: clear legal authority and any proven national security value.
The DHS admitted in a letter to Ron Wyden it had no authority to search Americans' social media accounts. All it could point to was the "border exception" upheld by courts as a valid Fourth Amendment bypass thanks to its national security nexus. But as for laws explicitly allowing the government to gather social media info from Americans, it had nothing.
Critics of this stepped-up demand for information point out it's a reactionary move by the DHS, aligning it with the repeated failures of the constantly one-step-behind-the-terrorists TSA.
Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, said the expansion seems to originate from concerns about Tashfeen Malik, one of the San Bernardino shooters in late 2015.
“This is another example of the government changing security protocols based on a previous incident that will impose an enormous cost and that is of dubious value for the future,” Nowrasteh said. “Social media has been used in immigration courts for years but there’s little evidence that it’s helped with visa vetting.”
But it's not just libertarian-leaning entities making this point. DHS oversight has said the same thing. A report released by the DHS Inspector General says the DHS has no plan in place to measure the effectiveness of social media account searches.
[T]hese pilots, on which DHS plans to base future department-wide use of social media screening, lack criteria for measuring performance to ensure they meet their objectives. Although the pilots include some objectives, such as determining the effectiveness of an automated search tool and assessing data collection and dissemination procedures, it is not clear DHS is measuring and evaluating the pilots’ results to determine how well they are performing against set criteria. Absent measurement criteria, the pilots may provide limited information for planning and implementing an effective, department-wide future social media screening program.
As the report notes, the policy shift was inspired by a terrorist attack the searches might have done little to prevent. The pilot programs rolled out December 2015, meaning the planned intrusiveness expansion predates President Trump's grandiose border plans.
This is bound to have a chilling effect on Americans who don't even plan to travel out of the country. Anyone spending much time interacting with immigrants/visa holders/permanent residents on social media can expect to have their sides of conversations revealed by these searches, even if they're natural-born US citizens located well outside the DHS's Constitution-free zones. The latent threat of exposed convos could steer US citizens away from engaging with anyone whose nationality might not be 100% American.
The new rule is silent on the subject of passwords, but it's pretty clear reluctance to turn over this info will result in "incomplete" searches of immigrants' devices. The best case scenario is they're free to go… without their devices. The worst case is hours of detention while CBP/ICE agents attempt to talk detainees into handing over this information.
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: citizens, dhs, homeland security, immigration, privacy, social media, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That really won't matter all that much. No doubt an update expanding this to US citizens will be coming along sooner or later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even if you don't believe that, all white Americans originate in Europe and are definately immigrants.
It is a good reasoning to `legalise' collecting data on _all_ Americans.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
In the last year the SCOTUS struck down a bill banning sex offenders from using 'social media websites' because the term is too broad.
The SCOTUS pointed out that sites most wouldn't consider 'social media' like Amazon could qualify as social media (because you can post reviews that anyone can read on the site, same with many other online retailers).
And honestly, I have no freaking clue how many 'social media websites' I'm registered at. there's so many web forums I made an account at and either never posted, or made a couple posts and then never visited again.
Also, what happens if you register a new account at a social media website after submitting the paperwork? Do you have to inform the government? Will the government believe you lied on your paperwork if you don't tell them because you didn't include that new account on your paperwork?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
Some of those I went to once, for some specific purpose, and never returned. Others, I haven't logged in in so long I'm sure my account has timed out. I have no idea how many of the mailing lists might still be up, or if they're sending mail to a long-dead account.
I tend to grab a freemail address to feed vendors or sites that won't complete a transaction without "your email." When I forget the address or password, I just get another one. There might be somewhere around a dozen accounts floating around out there that I don't even remember.
Meanwhile, I don't Tweeter, or Tumbler, or ICU, or PCP, or whatever the new hotness is. I'm starting to come across more and more people whose only experience with the 'net is Failbook, and they can't understand why I'm not on it.
Feh. You don't even need an account for usenet, which was arguably the first online "social media." rec.motorcycles FTW; the Denizens of Doom patch on my jacket is old and faded, but Geeky the Daemon still glares at the helots as I ride by. "Live to Flame - Flame to Live"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
Techdirt is in the US, so, yes. Wait, did you mean the de facto Constitution-free zone or the de jure one (that only covers all points within 100 miles of a border)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
within 100 miles of a border?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, he is a member of the hypocrite party, isn't he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nah, he's not a Democrat anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be nice if anyone capable of thought beyond grab it all & we'll save everyone & score a larger budget, was in charge.
This will do nothing but be invasive & will end up being misused. Every fscking database we have in "trusted" hands, has been searched & picked over. Collections of naked photos of citizens, addresses of hot chicks they want to hit on, who their ex is dating. The punishments are always very quiet & its always an "isolated incident" the first 100 times...
If I were crossing the border I REALLY don't want to deal with the agent who is SURE I have a FB account and I am just hiding it because EVERYONE has a FB.
I really don't feel like exposing the different compartments my life is broken into.
Last I checked, I was a US citizen and the law claims that they have to have suspicion & follow a legal process that requires more than an agent flexing his muscle to deep dive into my life. These bullshit border exceptions are invasive and DO NOTHING, except allow the government to collect even more data to add to a pile that maybe someday might be useful.
I don't need some pissy CBP agent pulling me over because I'm within 100 miles of the border so I can be pulled over, detained, my rights abused because for some reason 100 miles inland is part of the country that the constitution & law doesn't cover any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Last I checked your fellow citizens don't give a shit, and those here at TD will be the first tell you that it's not the citizens fault. Telling them that the people they vote for makes them accountable it considered victim blaming. They must be able to vote in a devil while simultaneously saying they had nothing to do with it.
They will also support taking your liberty away while whining when their liberty is removed.
Tough Titty, Said the Kitty!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paintchips
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or, you know, set up fake pages so the voyeurs at the DHS can.. hmm... play with themselves using it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Screening
> citizens, not just visa applicants and visitors.
> But as for laws explicitly allowing the government to
> gather social media info from Americans, it had nothing.
Of that list at the top, only one category contains 'Americans'. Permanent residents, visa applicants, and visitors are not Americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Screening
If you're going to be pedantic, "American" refers to the inhabitants of two continents (or one, depending on how you define a continent), only about a third of whom are citizens of the United States of America.
Of course, in this context, it's obvious that Tim means "residents of the U.S.A. with legal status that confers the same rights as citizenship upon them." In fact, the sentence before your first quote says:
So, you're in that sad, grey area where you're being pedantic enough to miss the point, but not pedantic enough to be technically correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Screening
And you're just ignorant enough to not know the difference between a geographical description and a national one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Screening
Trust me, nobody in those continents outside of the USA is calling themselves "American" unless prefixed with North or South. It used to mean what you say, but that meaning is dead now; nobody wants to risk being confused for a US citizen these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Screening
2) we're the oldest continuous polity in the New World
3) we were the first, so so far the only, polity to include "America" in our name when we became independent
It's okay to say "America" to mean "United States of America." After all, you wouldn't want to use "United States", and have someone confuse it with the Estados Unidos de Mexico south of us.
Now, the Canadians who keep calling themselves "North Americans", I'm not sure what's up with that... It's nothing to be ashamed of, though the Newfies might regret it in their more sober moments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Screening
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Screening
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Screening
> inhabitants of two continents
I'm not being pedantic, I'm being accurate, especially in a time when it seems to have become de rigeur to treat anyone with even a passing brush with the United States as entitled to all rights and benefits of citizenship.
"American" in this context refers to the United States. In that context, permanent residents, visa applicants, and visitors are not Americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is pre-set for failure
So what, exactly, will happen when someone decides to fabricate social media profiles (individually or en masse) for immigrants who don't have them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Papers now. No you may not refuse, no you may not simply board another plane and leave. You will provide the details we are 'requesting'."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manipulate attitude and expectations. Appreciate nowness, right here.
Necessary coins are fragmented and dispersed.
I go to library if need be. Occasionally browse on borrowed computers, and drive borrowed cars, in exchange for work and favors.
No phone, either. Have map for public phones, when needed.
Works for me.
Simplify.
Why go over there when I can stand here, and not be hassled by goons with attitude? Don't want or need a lot of useless things and events.
Shine on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't you know, everyone is a secret(or not so secret) exhibitionist, eager to tell everyone the most minute details of their life. Therefore everyone has a FB account, and the lack of one can only be a deliberate attempt to hide the most nefarious of crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In that you've got the burden, and they demand the proof of your innocence, sure.
I was being sarcastic, but only slightly, as you can be sure 'I do not have social media accounts' will almost certainly be treated little different than 'I have accounts, but I'm not going to give you the details'. In both cases they are demanding you hand something over and you're refusing, and if they simply decide that you're lying about having accounts... well, have fun proving a negative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Terrorism? Oh yeah, that thing, no this is totally for that, promise."
[T]hese pilots, on which DHS plans to base future department-wide use of social media screening, lack criteria for measuring performance to ensure they meet their objectives.
No way to measure performance means it becomes entirely subjecting how 'successful' the program is, and I can't help but suspect that that's by design. If they were to set out some hard criteria, some milestones to check against then they'd have to carefully monitor the program, keeping track of what they are doing and how well it meets the those milestones.
Although the pilots include some objectives, such as determining the effectiveness of an automated search tool and assessing data collection and dissemination procedures, it is not clear DHS is measuring and evaluating the pilots’ results to determine how well they are performing against set criteria.
And then we get to what those objectives are, and it seems they're using the program to test how well they can sift through people's data looking for interesting tidbits. They're rolling out a highly invasive program to rummage through people's personal accounts to test how well the programs they have can do that.
Yeah, that's totally a valid justification for the new requirements. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, I am not trying to be a smart guy sir - that is the handle that I use.
No, I did not make that particular post sir - that was some other Anonymous Coward, not me.
No, I am not trying to be a smart guy - that is the name many people use on this and other websites
What do you mean that is illegal? It is not impersonation nor is it identity theft ... it is the way many people post to the internet .... I give up - ok you got me, I do not actually use that site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pointlss
... Chances are they would have "tame" social media accounts, e.g. obviously in their name, full of innocuous stuff
.. They would NOT have accounts with lots of pro Jihadi, N Korea or whatever posts (splice in whatever is this weeks top "terrorist" flavour)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really now, what kind of people do you take them for?
Wait a tic, are you saying that a terrorist/would-be-terrorist would not have 'TERRORIST' listed in the 'about me' section of their social media accounts?
I've got to say I find this insanely hard to believe. I mean sure, they might want to cause death and destruction and panic, but to lie? That I just struggle to believe they would find acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would have happened to my mother if she were still alive. She was an immigrant from Australia, and would be in her 80s if she were still alive and likely not even HAVE social media.
What about all four of my grandparents who were immigrants to America and were all naturalised US citizens, 2 from Australia, one from Germany, and one from what was the Ottoman Empire.
That is something that DHS is going to have deal with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]