DHS Oversight Says Social Media Scanning Program Is Badly Implemented And Agency Doesn't Even Know If It Works

from the 'do-something:'-the-algorithm dept

The DHS and CBP have both taken a healthy interest in travelers' social media posts. The DHS head even suggested withholding this information would no longer be an option -- that demands for account passwords were on the way. (Considering the government can search every person and their electronic devices at the border, demands for social media info would seem to be mostly redundant...) The underlying premise is this would give the US a jump on incoming terrorists by checking travelers' posts against a list of troublesome terms.

This isn't a welcome development, but the federal government continues to be its own worst enemy. You can't fear what can't be deployed competently. The DHS isn't going to stop trying to hoover up social media posts as part of the vetting process, but as a just-released Inspector General's report [PDF] points out, it may be several years before this vetting program operates in any sort of useful fashion. (via The Register)

[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.

It appears the DHS has only a vague grasp on what it's looking for in a social media harvesting program. Combining this with a lack of useful metrics means the agency has been throwing algos at the wall and hoping one sticks. Of course, deciding which one has "stuck" also appears to be out of the agency's technical reach.

USCIS started a pilot in December 2015 to screen the social media accounts of [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] applicants for [REDACTED] status. The pilot’s objective was to examine the feasibility of using social media screening with an automated search tool called [REDACTED] and determine whether useful information for adjudicating refugee applications could be obtained. Although the pilot had an objective, it did not define what would constitute a successful outcome…

As the OIG points out, the absence of any metric meant there was no way to know if the program was successful or not. All the DHS determined is that a redacted number of those screened had "confirmed social media accounts," something the agency could likely have achieved without deploying the unnamed "automated search tool." [Google?]

The next pilot program went live in April 2016. It, too, had the same lack of quantifiable results or stated goals.

The applicants were asked to voluntarily give their social media user names. USCIS then screened the user names against [REDACTED] using the [REDACTED] tool; USCIS also manually screened the user names against [REDACTED]. USCIS assessed identified accounts to determine whether the refugees were linked to derogatory social media information that could impact their eligibility for immigration benefits or admissibility into the United States. Using the tool and manual screening, USCIS identified [REDACTED] individuals with confirmed social media accounts and [REDACTED] individuals with unconfirmed accounts. In reviewing the pilot, USCIS concluded that the tool was not a viable option for automated social media screening and that manual review was more effective at identifying accounts.

USCIS said this tool delivered results with "low match confidence," but did not bother measuring the program's success or lack thereof against anything that might have helped choose an algorithmic successor. Meanwhile, ICE was testing its own search tool. Like the rest of the agencies, it also failed to implement anything that might have quantified the tool's usefulness. While it did draft up some prerequisites and metrics, it failed to develop a plan for moving the program forward or even apply the metrics to the pilot program's results. ICE's tool, however, sounds more invasive than the others discussed in the report. Not only would this be used to screen applicants, but would provide post-screening "monitoring" of flagged accounts.

The OIG recommends these agencies do all the things they're not currently doing, instead of wasting time and money deploying software solutions without any apparent attempt to determine if they're capable of solving the government's social media "problem." This doesn't mean social media snooping is on hold. Lord no. It just means it's being done badly by multiple agencies, all of them more interested in the snooping than the snooping's usefulness.

Filed Under: cbp, dhs, social media, social media scanning

Phone Searches Now Default Mode At The Border; More Searches Last Month Than In All Of 2015

from the [Oprah-voice]-YOU'RE-GETTING-A-PHONE-SEARCH!-AND-YOU'RE-GETTING-A-PHONE dept

The Constitution -- which has always been malleable when national security interests are in play -- simply no longer applies at our nation's borders. Despite the Supreme Court's finding that cell phone searches require warrants, the DHS and CBP have interpreted this to mean it doesn't apply to searches of devices entering/leaving the country.

For the past 15 years, the government has won 9/10 constitutional-violation edge cases if they occurred within 100 miles of our borders -- a no man's land colloquially referred to as the "Constitution-free zone." But the pace of device searches has increased exponentially over the last couple of years. The "border exception" is no longer viewed as an "exception" -- something to be deployed only when customs officers had strong suspicions about a person or their devices. Now, it's the rule, as NBC News reports.

Data provided by the Department of Homeland Security shows that searches of cellphones by border agents has exploded, growing fivefold in just one year, from fewer than 5,000 in 2015 to nearly 25,000 in 2016.

According to DHS officials, 2017 will be a blockbuster year. Five-thousand devices were searched in February alone, more than in all of 2015.

Given the current state of immigration policy, this will get a whole lot worse before it gets better… if it ever does. Expanding government power is easy. Contracting it is almost impossible.

In practical terms, boots-on-the-ground travelers are being subjected to intrusive searches just because there's nothing effectual in the law to prevent it. Asserting your rights at the border is a non-starter. You simply don't have any. No one's going to be playing Twenty Quasi-Relevant Questions with travelers hoping to luck into consent. Officers and agents are seizing and searching devices by force.

A couple who had traveled to Canada twice in a period of three days were subjected to invasive device searches both time. The second time much more force was applied to ensure compliance.

Three days later, they returned from another trip to Canada and were stopped again by CBP.

"One of the officers calls out to me and says, 'Hey, give me your phone,'" recalled Shibly. "And I said, 'No, because I already went through this.'"

The officer asked a second time..

Within seconds, he was surrounded: one man held his legs, another squeezed his throat from behind. A third reached into his pocket, pulling out his phone. McCormick watched her boyfriend's face turn red as the officer's chokehold tightened.

Then they asked McCormick for her phone.

"I was not about to get tackled," she said. She handed it over.

The coercion doesn't have to be a chokehold. It can just be the fact that government agents stand between you and your home and aren't willing to let you get back to the part of the country where your rights still exist without you handing over PINs and passwords.

On February 9, Haisam Elsharkawi was stopped by security while trying to board his flight out of Los Angeles International Airport. He said that six Customs officers told him he was randomly selected. They demanded access to his phone and when he refused, Elsharkawi said they handcuffed him, locked him in the airport's lower level and asked questions including how he became a citizen. Elsharkawi thought he knew his rights and demanded access to legal counsel.

"They said if I need a lawyer, then I must be guilty of something," said Elsharkawi, and Egyptian-born Muslim and naturalized U.S. citizen. After four hours of questioning in detention, he unlocked his smartphone and, after a search, was eventually released. Elsharkawi said he intends to sue the Department of Homeland Security.

This is how certain government agents and agencies view constitutional rights: as luxuries only needed by people with something to hide. This mindset -- combined with Trump's "gloves off" approach to immigration enforcement -- helps explain the 5,000 device searches in the last 30 days. Device searches were always considered intrusive, despite the Constitution-free aspect of US borders. These were saved for criminal suspects and watchlisted travelers. Now, it's everyone.

The only good news to come out of this is a potential change in applicable laws. Sen. Ron Wyden is introducing a bill to create a warrant requirement for device searches at the border. Unfortunately, it's being introduced into an ecosystem now streamlined to reject affirmations of existing rights. If it somehow makes it to the President's desk without being amended into uselessness, there's almost zero chance Donald Trump won't veto it. Given the current makeup of Congress, it's unlikely there's enough support for a bill that might give "bad hombres" more rights to override a veto.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, border searches, cbp, constitution free zone, device searches, dhs, privacy

Sen. Wyden Wants Answers From New DHS Head, Introducing Legislation To Create Warrant Requirement For Border Phone Searches

from the annual-Fourth-Amendment-restoration-project dept

There aren't many rights extended to anyone in the "Constitution-free zones" we like to call "borders." You may have rights 100 miles inland, but the government's needs and wants outweigh citizens' and non-citizens' rights wherever immigration officers roam. According to the Supreme Court, warrants are required for cell phone searches. But neither the Constitution nor Supreme Court rulings apply within 100 miles of the border, where the government's needs and wants are considered more important than the protections they can avail themselves of everywhere else in the country.

Senator Ron Wyden is looking to change that. Rather than cede more ground to the rights-swallowing concept of "national security," Wyden is looking to change the laws governing the "Constitution-free zones."

Sen. Ron Wyden will soon introduce legislation to prevent Customs and Border Patrol agents from demanding the passwords to online accounts and mobile devices from American travelers without a warrant.

In a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly dated Feb. 20, the Democratic senator from Oregon said border searches that take place without a warrant circumvent the right to privacy and “weaken our national and economic security.”

We'll see how that sits with John Kelly. Kelly appears to be on board with the new administration's "extreme vetting" immigration stance. He's offered to take the DHS's requests for immigrants' social media account info to the next level -- moving it from a voluntary request on visa application forms to mandatory demands for account passwords. Chances are, Kelly has about as little use for citizens' rights as he has for non-citizens in general. The security of the nation is prized above presenting the appearance of a Constitutional republic to the outside world.

Given the current climate in the White House, the legislation will be facing a steep uphill grade. But while we wait for the security vs. privacy legislative fistfights to commence, perhaps DHS head John Kelly will help us pass the time by explaining exactly what it is that he feels gives him the right to search devices without a warrant and/or demand this country's visitors hand over their social media account passwords. From Wyden's letter [pdf]:

1. What legal authority permits CBP to ask for or demand, as a condition of entry, that a U.S. person disclose their social media or email account password traveler?

2. How is CBP use of a traveler's password to gain access to data stored in the cloud consistent with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?

3. What legal authority permits CBP to ask for or demand, as a condition of entry, that a U.S. person turn over their device PIN or password to gain access to data? How are such demands consistent with the Fifth Amendment?

4. How many times in each calendar year 2012-2016 did CBP personnel ask for or demand, as a condition of entry, that a U.S. person disclose a smartphone or computer password, or otherwise provide access to a locked smartphone or computer? How many times has this occurred since January 20, 2017?

5. How many times in each calendar year 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 did CBP personnel ask for or demand, as a condition of entry, that a U.S. person disclose a social media or email account password, or otherwise provide CBP personnel access to data stored in an online account? How many times has this occurred since January 20, 2017?

Then again, perhaps not. Government officials are kind of used to ignoring questions they don't feel like answering. This will put Wyden back in a familiar position: repeatedly asking unanswered questions of agency officials at any Congressional hearing his opponents can't keep him from attending.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, border patrol, border searches, cbp, dhs, ron wyden

Coalition Slams DHS Plans To Demand Social Media Passwords

from the isn't-that-a-cfaa-violation? dept

Starting last summer, we noted that the Department of Homeland Security had quietly tested the waters to expand the information it requested of travelers entering the United States, to "optionally" include social media handles. By December it was officially in place. And then, just days into the new administration, the idea was floated to expand this program even further to demand passwords to social media accounts.

In other words: that escalated quickly. We went from "hey, maybe we could ask people to volunteer what their social media profiles are" to "hey, let's demand all social media accounts, including passwords" in, like, six months.

In response, a ton of human rights and civil liberties organizations have posted an open letter condemning this dangerous plan.

This proposal would enable border officials to invade people’s privacy by examining years of private emails, texts, and messages. It would expose travelers and everyone in their social networks, including potentially millions of U.S. citizens, to excessive, unjustified scrutiny. And it would discourage people from using online services or taking their devices with them while traveling, and would discourage travel for business, tourism, and journalism.

Demands from U.S. border officials for passwords to social media accounts will also set a precedent that may ultimately affect all travelers around the world. This demand is likely to be mirrored by foreign governments, which will demand passwords from U.S. citizens when they seek entry to foreign countries. This would compromise U.S. economic security, cybersecurity, and national security, as well as damage the U.S.’s relationships with foreign governments and their citizenry.

Policies to demand passwords as a condition of travel, as well as more general efforts to force individuals to disclose their online activity, including potentially years’ worth of private and public communications, create an intense chilling effect on individuals. Freedom of expression and press rights, access to information, rights of association, and religious liberty are all put at risk by these policies.

The first rule of online security is simple: Do not share your passwords. No government agency should undermine security, privacy, and other rights with a blanket policy of demanding passwords from individuals.

There are lots of reasons why the proposal is bad -- but the security one is probably the biggest. People should never share passwords with anyone, but most especially foreign governments who have no interest in protecting them. And the letter is accurate that this will just encourage other countries to do this back to Americans (and others) and create a massive security nightmare. And that doesn't even touch on the chilling effects created by such promised surveillance.

Of course, one hopes that this kind of insane policy will get people to recognize that passwords suck as a security system. At the very least, it should encourage people to use multifactor authentication that can't just be handed over to some random border control person demanding your passwords. But that's no excuse for DHS going down this path in the first place. It's a bad proposal that won't help DHS protect us, but will cause tremendous harm and create serious security problems.

Filed Under: dhs, homeland security, passwords, privacy, social media

Freshman Representative Serves Up Immigration Bill That Would Make The DHS Do Things It Already Does

from the voted-'most-likely-to-kiss-ass' dept

In what looks to be the FNG currying favor with the new boss, rookie Congressman Jim Banks is introducing a bill that would turn the DHS's social media prying from something it would like to do to something it has to do.

Congressman Jim Banks (IN-03) today will introduce the Visa Investigation and Social Media Act (VISA) of 2017, legislation to strengthen the vetting process for visa applicants. The bill is the first piece of legislation that Congressman Banks will introduce.

While CBP and DHS have been asking incoming foreigners for social media info for a while now, the process has been voluntary -- or at least as voluntary as any process can be when one side holds all the power. New DHS Secretary John Kelly suggested this would expand further in the near future, moving from requests for social media handles to demands for account passwords.

Rep. Banks appears to be making a move to codify the DHS's requests for social media info. It doesn't go so far as to demand account passwords, but it would make examination of foreigners' social media accounts part of the vetting process. The bill's text hasn't been posted yet, but here's what Rep. Banks' website says the legislation will include.

The VISA Act of 2017 would require the Department of Homeland Security to include the following in the background check of any individual applying for a visa to the United States:

A review of the applicant’s publicly available social media activity (i.e. public tweets, YouTube videos, Facebook photos and posts);

An interview of each applicant who is age eleven years or older;

A fraud-prevention check of each applicant’s documentation; and

A requirement that the applicant provide an English translation of his or her documentation.

Rep. Banks says this is no different than the process companies use to vet new hires. That's a truly bogus comparison. While some companies view applicants' social media posts when considering them for employment, very few are demanding social media account information as part of the application process. Those that do tend to drop the policies as soon as they're made public. (And child labor laws pretty much rule out interviews of tweens and teens.)

What's most troubling about this new rep's bill is its complete uselessness. The only real change it makes is dropping three years from the interview requirement (from 14 to 11). Everything else is something Customs already does. Vetting of social media posts has been part of the process for months. Banks' bill just makes it a requirement for the DHS to perform social media checks on all applicants. The legal ball will get pushed downhill, which will force applicants to hand over this info. ("In compliance with [insert US Code info here], DHS/CBP require applicants to provide social media account information, etc.") This may make it easier for the DHS to start demanding passwords, but the bill limits itself to public posts.

As for the rest of it, it's completely redundant. Extensive background checks are run on all applicants against several databases and Customs has required an English translation of visa applicants' documentation for years.

Banks likes corporate analogies so he should be aware his effort looks like a new hire trying to make his mark -- not by being a valuable addition to the company -- but by enthusiastically offering up worthless suggestions that signal your "Company Man" virtues to upper management.

Filed Under: dhs, jim banks, social media, visas

Upset About Border Patrol Cruelty? It Didn't Start Under Trump

from the speak-up dept

In the last few weeks, there's obviously been a lot of attention on the cruel actions of Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), a part of the Department of Homeland Security. Slate has an article detailing some of the awful stories coming out after the Trump executive order on immigration and travel (here are just a few):

At Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, CBP officers reportedly detained an elderly Sudanese woman suffering from diabetes, high blood pressure, and severe kidney stones. They refused to provide her attorney or her family with any information on her health, status, or whereabouts. Her attorney later learned that CBP officers had demanded that his client withdraw her request for admission into the United States or be barred from entering the country for five years. She signed the document and was promptly deported. Her family never got to see her.

Also at DFW, CBP agents allegedly detained a lawful permanent resident along with her 11-month-old daughter, a U.S. citizen. They refused to let attorneys speak with the mother. When the child’s father came to the CBP office, agents refused to let him see his daughter.

CBP officers at Los Angeles International Airport allegedly deported an Iranian student 90 minutes after a federal judge explicitly barred the deportation of anyone targeted by Trump’s order. They ignored efforts by attorneys to halt the deportation.

CBP officers at San Francisco International Airport allegedly detained an elderly Iranian couple with valid visitor visas for 30 hours. Nineteen of those hours came after a federal judge halted deportations under Trump’s order. One officer informed the couple’s attorney that they might soon be deported. When the attorney explained that this action would violate a federal court order, the officer responded that he was “just following orders.”

An elderly Iranian couple—both of whom were lawful permanent residents—say they were detained for 10 hours at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport after returning from their son’s wedding in Iran. The two were denied access to food for the length of their detention. Another elderly person being detained along with the couple was shaking from hunger and nearly passed out. CBP officers refused to inform the couple’s immediate family whether the couple had been allowed to take necessary medications.

A complaint to DHS over the implementation of the travel ban noted 26 accounts of abuse by the CBP.

But here's the thing: none of this is new, unfortunately. Yes, the specifics of the executive order are new, and the awful plan and rollout by the administration are new, but CBP being arbitrarily cruel to people is not at all new. We've reported on it many times in the past. Last week, On the Media put together a collection of stories that it had done in the past about egregious behavior by CBP at the border, almost all of which we covered in the past -- and all of which occurred under President Obama.

There was the horrific treatment of On The Media Producer Sarah Abdurrahman and her family (all US citizens) detained at the US border for hours and treated horribly when trying to return to the US from a wedding in Canada. There's also the insane story of Pascal Abador, a student studying Shiites in South Lebanon (he's an atheist himself), who was detained and had his laptop seized while on a train traveling from Canada to the US. CBP found photos on his laptop of Hamas and Hezbollah and then wouldn't give him back his computer. And then there's the truly sickening stories (plural) of CBP bringing people to doctors to be horrendously strip searched for drugs, often undergoing hours-long "inspections" by medical professionals despite never turning up any actual drugs. Here's one example we wrote about, which is similar to, but not the same one discussed in the OTM recording:

1. Eckert's abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.
2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
4. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
5. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
6. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.
8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert's anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.

None of this is to say that what Trump is doing is okay. What he's doing is expanding the CBP's power to continue to expand its often arbitrary and capricious activities without any fear of oversight or any sort of reprimand for egregious behavior. But if you're suddenly concerned with how CBP appears totally free to mistreat basically anyone at the border, at least recognize that it's been going on for quite some time and that plenty of people (including us) have been trying to call attention to it for years. And don't assume that just because you're suddenly hearing these stories in the news, that they're a new phenomenon. Unfortunately, they are not. Hopefully, greater attention on CBP cruelty will lead to fixing it, but this administration, unfortunately, seems to want to encourage and expand it.

Filed Under: barack obama, border patrol, cbp, dhs, donald trump, oversight, white house

Confirmed: TSA's Behavioral Detection Program Is Useless, Biased, And Based On Junk Science

from the come-fly-the-discriminatory-skies dept

Thanks to FOIA requests (and lawsuits), the ACLU has gathered enough documents to provide a comprehensive report [PDF] on the worthlessness of the TSA's "Behavioral Detection" program. Meant to give the agency a better way of proactively thwarting acts of terrorism, the program instead opts for lazy profiling, dubious readings of behavioral cues, and junk science.

The documents show the evolution of the behavior detection program and make clear the extent to which it is a program of surveillance of unsuspecting travelers based on unreliable indicators. “Behavior detection officers,” some of them dressed in plain clothes, scrutinize travelers at airports for over 90 behaviors that the TSA associates with stress, fear, or deception, looking for what the TSA calls signs of “mal-intent.” The reliability of these so-called indicators is not supported by the scientific studies in the TSA files. The behavior detection officers may then engage travelers in “casual conversation” that is actually an effort to probe the basis for any purported signs of deception. When the officers think they perceive those behaviors, they follow the travelers, subject them to additional screening, and at times bring in law enforcement officers who can investigate them further.

The TSA has repeatedly claimed that the behavior detection program is grounded in valid science, but the records that the ACLU obtained show that the TSA has in its possession a significant body of research that contradicts those claims. The records include numerous academic studies and articles that directly undermine the premise of the program: the notion that TSA officers can identify threats to aviation security with some reliability based on specific behaviors in an airport setting. In fact, the scientific literature in the TSA’s own files reinforces that deception detection is inherently unreliable, and that many of the behaviors the TSA is apparently relying on are actually useless in detecting deception. The documents further show that the TSA either overstated the scientific validity of behavior detection techniques in communications with members of Congress and government auditors, or did not disclose information that discredited the program’s scientific validity.

There's nothing good in the ACLU's findings. In addition to the contradictory lists of "behavioral indicators" that would make pretty much every traveler suspicious, the documents also include a "Behavioral Detection" presentation [PDF] that shows the compiler's inherent bias. For no appropriate reason, the presentation includes the following images:

Right above these questionable images is something just as questionable: a profile of "female suicide bombers" that pretty much encompasses the entirety of the female gender.

If you can't read/see the picture, the female suicide bomber profiles reads as follows:

Single, married, mothers or grandmothers

High school and college students

Working professionals such as lawyers, journalists, or medical practitioners

Devout or non-devout in religious beliefs

Intelligent, charming, and attractive

Very active in their cause

The cost of this program -- which simultaneously caters to biases while providing little in the way of useful targeting -- runs in the billions. In exchange, US taxpayers have received almost nothing that makes air travel safer. What they have obtained is the "opportunity" to be questioned without being detained, as TSA agents attempt to apply contradictory non-science to "casual" conversations most travelers feel compelled to engage in.

Engaging in mock-casual conversation with TSA agents is guaranteed to result in some level of suspicion, as it would be almost impossible not to.

The TSA’s list of behavioral indicators—long held secret but leaked to the press in March 2015—deepens our concerns about the program and calls into question whether it could ever be implemented neutrally and objectively. The list includes conduct as commonplace as being late for a flight, yawning, whistling, or rubbing one’s hands together. Other “indicators” are unavoidably subjective: appearing confused, “wearing improper attire,” “appearing not to understand questions,” or displaying “exaggerated emotions.”

In some cases, the TSA indicators place travelers in the difficult position of seeming deceptive to the TSA no matter what they do—whether they “give[] non-answers” to questions or they are “overly specific with answers”; whether they are “gazing down” or “constantly looking at other travelers or associates”; whether they have “no or little direct eye contact” or they have “widely open staring eyes.”

Putting agents in the position of sussing out potential terrorists with a long list of contradictory indicators does travelers and their safety no favors. When nothing can be reconciled against the TSA's disproven "science," agents are more likely to fall back on their own biases when vetting travelers. Hence the large number of non-white fliers "randomly" selected for additional screening.

The program hasn't made the TSA smarter or more nimble. All it's done is made flying even more unpleasant, especially for those that fit the "profile" the TSA provides… which is damn near everyone attempting to board a plane.

Filed Under: behavioral detection, dhs, junk science, searches, tsa
Companies: aclu

DHS Secretary Says Agency Is Planning On Demanding Foreigners' Social Media Account Passwords

from the processing-the-fuck-out-of-immigrants-and-visitors dept

Last summer, the DHS started asking visitors to the US to supply their social media handles. It was all on a strictly voluntary basis, of course. But that doesn't mean some immigrants and visa seekers didn't do exactly as they were asked, either due to a language barrier or figuring that turning down this request might harm their chances of entering the country.

Six months later, the DHS made it more official, unofficially. An "optional" section in the DHS's online visa application process asked for account info for multiple social media platforms, including (strangely) Github and JustPasteIt. Again, officials assured everyone this was optional and the information was to be used to assess the threat levels of incoming foreigners. Again, the DHS probably harvested a fair amount of information despite the optional nature of the request. Like any cop asking if you'd "mind if they look around the car a little bit," the request carried unspoken threats that things might be a bit more difficult if the request was denied.

Now, news comes that the DHS is planning on going even further. Say goodbye to optional social media account disclosure. The DHS wants to be inside travelers' [social media accounts], according to this report from Federal Computer Week.

John Kelly, the new secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, testified that foreign travelers coming to the United States could be required to give up social media passwords to border officials as a condition of entry.

"We want to say, for instance, which websites do you visit, and give us your passwords, so we can see what they do on the internet," he said at a Feb. 7 House Homeland Security hearing, his first congressional hearing since his Senate confirmation. "If they don't want to give us that information, they don't come in."

Thanks, Trump. Kelly noted that the recent, not-even-fully-legal-yet travel ban has given the DHS the perfect excuse to start behaving in a more totalitarian fashion.

[H]e added that President Donald Trump's freeze on entry to the U.S. by citizens of seven countries, "is giving us an opportunity… to get more serious than we have been about how we look at people coming into the United States."

Perhaps this will be deployed the way the DHS's other attempts to peer into travelers' social media accounts has: to make it "optional," with the implicit threat that rejecting the agency's advances will result in zero forward progress beyond the nation's borders.

DHS Secretary Kelly isn't much for implicit threats. He prefers his threats (at least those he makes) to be explicit.

[I]f they truly want to come into America, then they'll cooperate. If not, you know, next in line.

Kelly also shouldered some of the blame for the disastrous travel ban roll out. In a too little, far too late mea culpa, Kelly suggested it might have been better to consult with Congress first. Kelly did not offer further details as to whether this would have just been a token gesture or whether the administration could have been talked out of the unpopular, possibly-illegal travel ban by legislators.

Fifteen years ago, a terrorist attack was exploited to expand government power -- especially in the intelligence and law enforcement arenas. Fifteen years later, fear-mongering politicians and officials are still dining out on that attack, selling fear and buying government power real estate while using War on Terror eminent domain "orders" to carve holes in civil liberties. The Trump Administration has already made it clear it won't extend any of our rights to citizens of other nations. The president's new DHS head is right on top of ensuring visitors and immigrants are welcomed with maximum intrusiveness.

Filed Under: cbp, dhs, john kelly, passwords, privacy, social media

FOIA Requesters Sue Government Agencies Over Non-Responses To Requests For Election-Related Documents

from the and-this-is-how-the-public-alters-the-FOIA-response-timetable dept

Two of the nation's foremost FOIA enthusiasts -- Jason Leopold and Ryan Shapiro -- are suing a variety of federal agencies for their failure to respond to requests for documents related to the 2016 election.

The first lawsuit, filed a couple of weeks ago, concerns records pertaining to FBI director James Comey's actions in the last few weeks before Election Day. Most of the documents sought relate to the FBI's on-again, off-again investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. The pair also seeks a variety of communications between Comey and the rest of the FBI, as well as any internal FBI discussions about the number of leaks that accompanied Comey's last-minute dive back into the email investigation.

Shapiro and Leopold are also seeking unredacted copies of Clinton email investigation documents previously released by the FBI. They also would like to see what the FBI has on hand that references a variety of right-wing news sites, including Breitbart News and alternativeright.com.

The first lawsuit [PDF] alleges the FBI has violated FOIA law by not responding to their expedited request in a timely fashion. At the date of the lawsuit's filing, the FBI had yet to inform the requesters whether or not it would grant the request expedited status.

The second lawsuit [PDF], filed earlier this week, makes the same allegations. Expedited processing was requested, but the agencies targeted failed to rule on the processing request in a timely fashion. The list of defendants in this lawsuit is a bit longer. Shapiro and Leopold have requested election-related documents from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, CIA, DOJ, and DHS. None of these agencies have issued a ruling on expedited processing.

The documents sought here are also a bit different. The two requesters are asking for documents held by these agencies that pertain to the Russian interference -- hacking or otherwise -- in the electoral process. There are some interesting keywords listed, including Guccifer, Elite VPN, two IP addresses, and anything related to the alleged compromise of Clinton campaign head John Podesta's devices/email accounts.

Obviously, both of the requests being sued over are time-sensitive and of considerable public interest. The longer these agencies delay their responses, the less "interesting" the information is to the public. Pulling the trigger on lawsuits two weeks after FOIA requests are filed is the new way of playing ball with federal agencies. Left to their own timetables, the agencies would likely release these documents sometime between "the distant future" and "never." This prompts the parties listed to at least adhere to the letter of the law and make a determination on expedited processing. And, given the information sought, there's no way these will be the only FOIA lawsuits related to the requested documents.

Filed Under: cia, dhs, doj, election, fbi, foia, hillary clinton, investigation, james comey, jason leopold, lawsuit, odni, russia, ryan shapiro

DHS Now Asking Visa Applicants For Their Social Media Account Info

from the (unofficially,-of-course) dept

The outgoing president may have made Trump's national Muslim registry tougher to create, but that doesn't mean the US government can stop making foreigners feel unwelcome. An idea the DHS floated (to much criticism) this summer is now part of the official paperwork.

Since Tuesday, foreign travelers arriving in the United States on the visa waiver program have been presented with an “optional” request to “enter information associated with your online presence,” a government official confirmed Thursday.The prompt includes a drop-down menu that lists platforms including Facebook, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn and YouTube, as well as a space for users to input their account names on those sites.

The list is actually much longer than that, covering Tumblr, Vkontakte, Github, Vine, AskFM, and Flickr. And, as can be seen here, the DHS still has this part of the application process designated as "optional."

But that may not mean much, not when there's language barriers to contend with. Or applicants who may feel it's a bad idea to leave any blank fields in a government form, no matter what reassurances are given in the page header.

Then there's the fact that the DHS went ahead with this data collection despite its being both intrusive and mostly useless. It's supposed to weed out potential threats by examining social media accounts, but this process seems more likely to generate a load of false positives. (Fortunately, the DHS has plenty of experience gathering false positives.) It also failed to provide any information about how this information will be handled and who it will be shared with.

"There are very few rules about how that information is being collected, maintained [and] disseminated to other agencies, and there are no guidelines about limiting the government’s use of that information," said Michael W. Macleod-Ball, chief of staff for the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office.

Macleod-Ball also said it "would be nice" if the government had listened to the civil liberties concerns expressed by groups like his, but, then again, it "would be nice" if the government was generally more proactive on that front -- getting out ahead of complaints rather than just reacting to them. But it's just not going to happen. The government tends to push until something pushes back. And it does a lot of this pushing behind closed doors without asking for public comment.

Skipping this "optional" part of the application process may only increase scrutiny. Applicants will still be interviewed by CBP/DHS agents and the questions they field may revolve around any fields left blank. Agencies like these tend to operate with a "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mindset and may view withheld information -- optional or not -- as the product of a guilty mind. The DHS says it won't officially prevent anyone who doesn't provide this information from entering the country, but there are several unofficial options that will achieve the same result.

Then there's the mission creep. Should this become part of the official form, you can expect other government licensing agencies to look at adding the same data gathering to their paperwork. In addition, the example set by the United States will only encourage countries far less interested in civil liberties from gathering this information from visitors to their countries, which means US citizens will need to get used to being more forthcoming with social media identifiers when looking to travel.

Filed Under: dhs, social media