
US Customs wants to collect social media account names at the border - jacquesm
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/24/12026364/us-customs-border-patrol-online-account-twitter-facebook-instagram
======
maze-le
There was this idea floating around a few weeks ago, about a startup that
curates online sockpuppets of obidient citizen personas (I think it was in
response to landlords surveilling their future clients). What was sureley
meant as sarcasm is looking more and more like a serious business model.

~~~
benevol
I suppose the NSA would penetrate that in a heart beat.

So you would just brand yourself as proven liar - and end up having an even
higher risk of being rejected at the border.

You see where this is going. If you use social media, you will have to state
the truth. And you know where that leads to.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
But, people's online presence is rarely who they really are. Americans are
free to create whatever online presence they want to.

~~~
benevol
> Americans are free to create whatever online presence they want to.

Which are all captured by Prism and other mass surveillance programs (google
"Edward Snowden").

Nobody escapes the NSA.

~~~
riprowan
Point being the NSA is collecting a lot of noise.

~~~
benevol
> a lot of noise

Which will simply be filtered out. Technology does not just evolve linearly.

~~~
maze-le
> Which will simply be filtered out

These were the last words of the database admin before he went stark raving
mad...

But seriously "filtering out" is a goddamnd hard problem, if the
dimensionality of your problem space is high enough. You are talking about
filtering out sockpuppets like if they have a tcp-flag on it. Even the best
trained Neural Network can only work as good as the input-training parameters,
and classifying large texts in natural language is still one of hardest
problems (even for humans).

~~~
dandelion_lover
There are no time limits. The complexity may be a problem now, but later the
collected data will reveal anything they want about you.

~~~
TheSoftwareGuy
>There are no time limits.

Yes there are, eventually you need to make a decision about whether to let
this person into the country

~~~
benevol
Here's how it works:

Data (even encrypted data) is being collected and stored today. It is
decrypted/made sense of whenever technology has reached the required maturity.
At that moment, we become 100% open books. And you may feel that at the border
(or elsewhere).

~~~
xyience
You will never have the technology to decrypt aes256.

------
ipsin
This is disturbing despite it being "optional", because it's a place for
border agents to push in the entry interview.

"I noticed you didn't fill out the question regarding online identity. Do you
have an online identity?"

Sure, you can (and should) tell the agent that's all personal information, but
that may also lead to further hassles and delays.

~~~
buro9
You also shouldn't say that you don't, if you have... as this would be "fraud
to gain access to the USA" which is a good way to never gain access to the
USA.

Therein lies a problem, just what _is_ a social media account?

Is it Facebook and Twitter? Or does it extend to networks like LinkedIn? Or
forums like Hacker News?

Do you have a Facebook account, if you believe that it has been deleted but
you also suspect that technically Facebook never deletes?

Is using a dating site a social media account given that you can converse on
it, swap images, etc? No? Define how Tinder or Grindr differs from Snapchat or
Yik Yak... and how you'd justify the difference to US Customs.

Basically... it looks to me like either:

1\. You refuse to answer and that is a red flag.

2\. You lie and that is a reason to refuse entry.

3\. You offer up the bare minimum and it can be construed as some combination
of 1. and 2.

4\. You offer up everything, and you have totally given up far more than what
is revealed by just having a Facebook or Twitter account.

The question, whilst appearing simple and clear, is incredibly vague and a
minefield for anyone trying to answer it.

I'm reminded of the quote from the film War Games, "The only way to win is not
to play.". If travelling to the USA is part of your life, perhaps it's time to
close social media accounts and just call the people you want to talk to.

~~~
SixSigma
Plus: I have a MySpace account but no idea what the username is, likewise
Habbo Hotel. What about any website with a forum facility? My Web browser
remembers all the one off usernames I make up for sites and the Recover
Password feature acts as my gatekeeper.

------
andreasklinger
I was always very confused/amused by the questions at the border:

"Are you a terrorist or affiliate with a terrorist organization?" "Are you a
secret spy"

Why would anyone say yes? What's the purpose of this. Do they just need it to
avoid arguments like "we dont even ask?"

A friend of mine explained it to me:

\- let's say that they have the suspicion or evidence that you are affiliated
w/ a terrorist organization. by US law they would need to prove this in front
of a court before they could act on it. OR they could simply show that you
lied at entry and use that to expel you from the country. Simple. Done.

I am unsure what the deeper goal behind the social media accounts is but i
assume it also connects to a similar strong arm argument like that.

~~~
agotterer
The border agents are looking for you to slip up or provide a tell. Asking
questions like that may sound silly, but that's the point. They want to try to
catch people off guard with unexpected questions and see how they react. These
agents are trained to read your reaction and body language. Your body language
and voice levels can help reveal some truth or at least the fact that you're
uncomfortable answering the question. And why would you be uncomfortable
answering a question about whether your a terrorist or not?

~~~
riprowan
> Your body language and voice levels can help reveal some truth or at least
> the fact that you're uncomfortable answering the question.

Maybe I'm _actually_ just uncomfortable being grilled by my own paranoid
countrymen without my guaranteed Constitutional protections as though I'm some
sort of enemy of the state when really I just got back from Cozumel.

~~~
ams6110
If you are a US citizen returning from abroad you are likely not going to be
"grilled" at the border. You'll be asked a few routine questions about where
you visited, the purpose of your travel, etc.

~~~
djKianoosh
uhh way incorrect. and I am a contractor for Customs! When I came back from
the World Cup in Brasil I definitely got grilled, mainly because on my US
Passport it displays the unfortunate (only when travelling) fact that I was
born in Iran. Ok that and maybe because I grew a full beard that didnt match
my passport photo, but still ;)

Just be respectfull as much as you can even though you just flew multiple
hours and it's 1am and all you want is a clean shower and a fine meal just
because Argentina lost another final... ahh sorry bad memories

------
ProfChronos
I find it really problematic: when you fill the US borders paperwork, you are
supposed to give objective admin/personal details while on social media you
are supposed to speak up your mind. Where do you place the limit between
somebody that publicly criticizes the US foreign policy and somebody that can
be a threat? How are they going to handle people who posted something like
"The US knew about the 9/11 attacks"?

~~~
ihsw
There is already precedent for criminalizing dissent -- Turkey, for example,
considers online criticism of Turkey as equivalent to damaging national
security by spreading propaganda with the intent to provoke attacks towards
the Turkish government.

It would be fair to assume the US would be open to such means to improve
security.

~~~
twoodfin
No, it wouldn't. The US has a long, deep tradition of not criminalizing
dissenting views. Exceptions like the Alien & Sedition acts or the "Red Scare"
are remarkable because they're so counter to that tradition.

~~~
nitrogen
Subtle manipulation is worse than overt criminalization.

------
geomark
I used to live in the US. Now I live in a country ruled by a military
dictatorship. This year they started with an immigration form that asks for
social media accounts, currently optional same as the US. When I left the US I
never thought I would be watching the US steadily implement many of the steps
of a military dictatorship. The thing is, the US gov is so much more powerful
and skilled at surveillance and dirty work than the tin pot dictators I live
under, which has led to the weird realization that living under a military
dictatorship can actually be better than US-style "democracy".

~~~
MicroBerto
Yeah but this was the most transparent administration in history. Hope and
Change indeed!

------
DanBC
For the people who claim they'll never take action on trivial stupid tweets:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312)

> The 26-year-old bar manager wrote a message to a friend on the micro-
> blogging service, saying: "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go
> and destroy America."

> Mr Bryan told the newspaper that he was questioned for five hours about his
> Twitter messages.

"All" that happened to him was that he wasn't allowed in.

~~~
appleflaxen
so crazy.

more so when "destroy" can have all kinds of completely innocent meanings.

it's bad judgment, but not something for which a five hour delay plus
rejection seems appropriate. how much did we pay for that interrogation, in
border security salary?

~~~
EdHominem
And if we were at risk, who'd have slipped through while the agents played
tough-guy?

------
JacobAldridge
I suspect it's best not to tell them you have a social media account on
'Hacker' News.

------
jkot
Background check can be instant and automated. Terminal will just display
_entry denied_ message. Israel already does something similar.

In result it will drive normal discussion underground, and we will see more
surprises such as Brexit referendum results.

~~~
ProfChronos
Indeed Israel does it, but only for Arabic or Muslim tourists that present
certain characteristics - political engagement for instance. So it does exist
but it's really not mainstream

~~~
kuschku
Thought policing only for people of arab ethnicity? How generous of them.

Do they not see the irony, in a nation of people that used to got the short
end of discrimination and thought policing, now doing it themselves?

~~~
mftsfh
It's easy to make this claim from afar, without personal responsibility or
regards to the real dangers present. As the recent attacks prove.

~~~
na85
Ah yes, the brand new account shows up to defend the Israeli policy of
apartheid and overt ethnocentrism. In before criticising Israel is
antisemitic.

~~~
themartorana
Ok how's this? Every (almost every?) mass-casualty attack inside Israel
borders in the last say, almost 70 years, have come from
ethnically/religiously similar people. These attacks happen at an alarming
rate. You would like them to, for the sake of making you feel warm and fuzzier
on the inside, not profile the people most likely to carry out such attacks in
the future? That would be ridiculous.

Edit: before I get downvoted into oblivion, and I'm sure I might, I'd like to
add that reality is almost always uglier than anyone - especially me - would
like it to be.

~~~
na85
You and I both know they're doing a lot more than just "profiling".

------
DanBC
Be interesting to see Facebook enforce (or modify to allow enforcement) their
terms of service over this.

[https://developers.facebook.com/policy/#thingstoknow](https://developers.facebook.com/policy/#thingstoknow)

> 3.15 Don't use data obtained from Facebook to make decisions about
> eligibility, including whether to approve or reject an application or how
> much interest to charge on a loan.

(EDIT: I know this is the Platform Policy, and not the general TOS.)

~~~
anilgulecha
That's just the ToS for normal developers. US Govt can get a special developer
policy.

------
dcw303
"Of course my good sir, it's @uspatriot2015."

Now, let's all agree to not tell them we can have more than one account!

Or to be slightly more specific, I'll give them the facebook account where I
dutifully like all the boring funny dog videos and ugly baby photos of
relatives, and I'll keep my seditious rabble rousing anti-establishment
twitter ac to myself.

~~~
mcbits
"US P At Riot? Please come with us to this little room and explain for several
hours what exactly you mean by US P At Riot."

------
appleflaxen
what an orwellian fucking nightmare.

no better reason to delete your facebook account than this right here, folks.

~~~
akerro
and LinkedIn, Google (G+, Gmail, Analytics), __Hacker __News, Steam...

~~~
nacs
> Steam

"It says here you've been affiliated with a "Counter-Strike: Global Offensive"
where you were a terrorist.."

~~~
akerro
That's more true that than you think [http://www.pcgamer.com/counter-strike-
go-mapper-threatened-w...](http://www.pcgamer.com/counter-strike-go-mapper-
threatened-with-legal-action-by-montreal-transit-authority/)

------
benevol
This just shows the direction in which they aim.

It doesn't directly concern me (after Snowden's revelations and the fact that
even more surveillance is being pushed down our throats, I have decided not to
return to the US anymore), but we know that all the big (US) web/tech
companies are part of Prism, which means the Customs will have some sort of
access to our social media activity anyway (if not now already, then soon).

------
geff82
At first I thought: giving this info might ease me from being treated as a
semi-terrorist because I regularily visit Iran. Then I thought some more... my
LinkedIn-Profile mentions I own a US company. Which is false, that mentioning
there is only a means to get access to some groups and test waters as "if I
was a local" because we consider moving there. I guess coming as a tourists
and then DHS reads I have a company might lead to serious questions.Everything
you do nowadays is a mean to surveil you.

~~~
wavefunction
Plenty of people own businesses and travel as tourists. The real issue would
be travel to Iran, as Iran has been built up through propaganda to be a very
different place than it actually is in the minds of many Americans.

------
adf
I like how they want to reduce mass shootings by limiting access based on
background checks ...

------
imrehg
Time to set up some sanitized accounts for plausible deniability?

~~~
csydas
Likely unnecessary.

1\. Unless you are taking extraordinary measures to sever all connections
between yourself and your online presence, odds are there are enough links for
any Government to tie a person to an account. Given how much is collected at
the border already along with the big-data collected passively by the various
TLA Government Orgs, they simply need to pop in your Passport ID or Drivers
License or State ID and they'll have the relevant data; this collection seems
more or less like a convenience to the government if anything. Same goes for
foreigners, given the reaches of the various NSA programs; just pop in any
number from some database and you'll likely get a match.

2\. You have no obligation to use social media, and I don't think the
government is going to mandate its use (I mean, I wouldn't put it past certain
politicians, but yeah). Setting up a sanitized account honestly would draw
more suspicion than anything, especially if it was on the heels of an
announcement or proclamation that they're suddenly requiring or requesting
such information. Regular social media users have fairly regular patterns, and
barring some real dedication to the sanitized account, it'd be pretty easy for
TLAs to figure out if it's a front or not. Not that it would immediately
warrant investigation, it's just it feels like theatre more than a practical
protection.

If I wanted to get real conspiracy theorist on this, this motion is just a
front that allows the government to segue into actually including this stuff
as part of standard background checks, which they likely are already doing
with questionable legality. That is, the inclusion of the field is just
formalizing what they're already doing, so that the articles that inevitably
would arise have less "oomph" behind their reaction. It's not as shocking to
the public if the government is surveilling social media when the government
outright asks for your info. There's no real smoking gun, just a bunch of guys
in suits going "yeah, we asked you for it."

This is a symptom of the constant disrespect for privacy within the US
government, not some new issue that's arisen. The same thinking that leads to
the NSA led to this, and it's honestly not too unusual that they are asking
for it. If anything, my initial reaction was less "How dare they!" and more
"was wondering when you'd get to this point."

~~~
thawkins
Last year i set up a facebook account with a fake name and then never accessed
it ever. After a few weeks i started getting emails from fb asking if i knew
xxxxxxx, the only way they could have known that i knew these people is by
tracking my ip and comparing it with others, looking at those ips and working
out who was common amongst their connections. Two people logging from the same
ip, creates a bridge between two social graphs, even if they never explicitly
declareds that, having, a corporate email address domain in common with
sombody else creates a weak link between two branches of the overall graph.
Each touch point creates associations which can be mined for knowledge about
who you know and interact with. The new face tagging code is scary and can
also create thise indirect associations, if yoh appear in multiple peoples
photos, and eventualy one of them says thats "xxxxxxx", then you are
deanomised for ever. FB is the worlds most amazingly efficient survelence
machine, and we feed it willingly.

~~~
heroprotagonist
After spending 34 years without any photographs of myself landing on social
media, my grandmother put up a photo of me on Facebook. I felt bad scolding
her, because she really doesn't know any better. ...which is odd, because she
was alive for the years when certain governments were identifying their
homosexual and ethnic citizens and sending them off to gas chambers and/or
internment camps.

I worry that Facebook and its ilk will be a lot more effective than IBM's
punchcard system for locating, identifying, and classifying their society's
undesirables.

~~~
AlexandrB
> I worry that Facebook and its ilk will be a lot more effective than IBM's
> punchcard system for locating, identifying, and classifying their society's
> undesirables.

Yes, consider what's happening in Turkey [1]. A newly minted dictatorial
regime could even mine your old posts for evidence against you. The only thing
stopping this kind of thing in North America is the checks and balances that
are slowly being undermined in the name of security.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/05/turkish-
police...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/05/turkish-police-
arrests-social-media-protest)

------
gpvos
Can someone give me a list of which questions I might get at the border that
are actually optional?

------
pm24601
The problem arises if someone says they have no social media account but
really do.

If someone has a distinct online presence - i.e. a journalist - they will be
targeted.

If someone has twitter, facebook, etc. installed on their phone, they will be
discovered for having lied.

Since gmail is tied to G+, if someone has gmail - they must have a social
media account. Did that person use gmail as part of the visa application
process - for example to get notification of the visa status?

Can the Border Patrol,
[http://www.skipease.com/search/pipl/](http://www.skipease.com/search/pipl/)
to tie that person to their social media accounts?

------
ArtDev
This account comes to mind:
[https://twitter.com/TSAgov](https://twitter.com/TSAgov)

------
mxuribe
I think there are other, better ways to protect the nation than what the U.S.
Customs is proposing here. This is getting kind of ridiculous.

~~~
PopsiclePete
Or maybe there aren't. Maybe we just have to learn with a certain amount of
risk and don't be giant fucking pussies. Since when did we collectively become
scared 40-something housewives? I thought this was "home of brave", not "home
of those afraid to leave the house because there's rapists and terrorists
hiding around the corner"?

If you're a government official, you pretty much _have_ to, at this point,
turn this country into a giant Orwellian nightmare, or be crucified by the
media for not "doing enough to protect our children" the next time a few
people inevitably lose their lives.

Our oh-so-precious children who are already growing up in a weird world where
they're not allowed to ride their bikes around the damn neighborhood since
mommy is convinced everyone is a rapist.

And then we sit around and wonder why little Jimmy grows up to be an asocial
psychopath with rage built up that nobody can explain.

So yeah, things aren't going to get any better when we, and our officials, are
basically cowards and would rather destroy everything that makes life worth
living in order to "protect" us.

------
sah2ed
_" The public has 60 days to comment on the new proposal before it will be
formally considered. Comments can be mailed to Customs and Border Protection
at its Washington office."_

The article seems to suggest that the proposal can be challenged but there is
really nothing that the public can do, right?

------
rbanffy
If you consider Facebook, LinkedIn, Github, HN, Snapchat, Twitter, Pinterest,
Flickr, Google Plus (one profile for each Google-based e-mail I have), Live
(one for each outlook.com e-mail I have) social networks, the field will have
to be fairly large.

~~~
nacs
Considering the treasure trove of information available by data-mining each of
those accounts, I'm sure they'll be happy to make room on the form for a few
more of those fields.

------
dang
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11971774](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11971774)

------
deskamess
Is having an HN or Reddit account considered social media?

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
No, those are anti-social.

Which also counts.

------
randomsofr
They already check your phone and messages.

------
lkab
They will soon enforce you to give them your login password as well so they
can freely login and check your data.

~~~
pigeons
Canada does this when I enter with a laptop.

------
greggman
Just post to their accounts stuff like "hey, so you're going to set them up
the bomb like you mentioned last night?" Etc...

------
x5n1
And so the US government and US business does not want thousands of dollars
for me. No problem. Thanks but no thanks. I will take my business elsewhere.

------
anc84
> "Are you a terrorist or affiliate with a terrorist organization?"

 _Sir, yes, sir! I was part of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, sir!_

~~~
michaelvoz
Edgy. But really, your comment just cheapens the discussion.

~~~
droithomme
I disagree with you that his comment cheapens the discussion. I do think that
your comment cheapens it. His point that the US military, with its
illegitimate wars, torture practices, and widespread murder of civilians, is
reasonably considered to be a terrorist organization is a reasonable and good
comment which advances the discussion intelligently and productively. The fact
is that US military are in fact terrorists, as is the citizenry that supports
this terrorist regime with tax money. So the honest and true response for US
citizens at least would be to answer yes to that question.

~~~
dang
> _The fact is that US military are in fact terrorists, as is the citizenry
> that supports this terrorist regime with tax money._

Please don't post shrill ideological denunciations to HN. It's not what this
site is for, there's no substantive argument that requires it, and one needn't
be a militarist to know that.

~~~
droithomme
dang/mod account, you host many political threads and then frequently censor
viewpoints contrary to yours. Deleting off topic comments, spam and abuse is
appropriate. Attacking and censoring all who are reasonably critical of the
american military's torture and surveillance state, its illegitimate wars, and
its harm to civilians, in the context of related discussion, is not
appropriate.

To maintain the credibility of HN and ycombinator, I suggest you review your
censorship and control issues associated with your moderators. Thank you.

~~~
michaelvoz
I am very critical of America's torture, surveillance apparatus, wars and all
the things you list. However, it cheapens the discussion you and I have
against it. Terrorism is fundamentally very different from an invading and
occupying force. The nature of the soldiers, their funding, purpose,
propaganda used to send them off, as well as their very mission and goals all
differ to such an extent. Calling this terrorism cheapens the word
(terrorism), and makes it easy to ignore your somewhat valid points. I think
there is a place for discussing the merits, drawbacks, and issues associated
with America's unreasonable middle east adventures, but this is not it. It is
also unreasonable to cry 'Censorship!' Whenever one strays and veers far off
the OP topic. Please, do put up a thread, a blog, a news article and we can
discuss, debate, and learn together about which is which, and why. But not
here, and not in a way that cheapens the wonderful site that this is. Let us
do all we can to not become reddit.

