
Proposal to add optional social media account fields to US Customs arrival forms - antimora
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/06/23/2016-14848/agency-information-collection-activities-arrival-and-departure-record-forms-i-94-and-i-94w-and
======
vidarh
It's gotten to the point where the authoritarian feel of US immigrations is
actively deterring me from wanting to visit.

I wonder if anyone has done any research on whether/how much this is
measurably affecting the US economy.

~~~
gnu8
It has zero measurable impact because anyone who counts will make sure their
social media profile is either sterile or doesn't exist. Only an idiot would
be a member of ISIS or Al Queda on Facebook.

~~~
vidarh
It likely has zero measurable impact on _stopping terrorism_.

It will have measurable impact on the millions of people who have to give up
privacy to enter the US, some proportion of which is likely to be further
negatively affected by having something "suspicious" in their profile. Like
being idiots who once liked something offensive as a joke, or being friends
with some idiot who is connected to ISIS on some social network.

~~~
izacus
Having to be careful what kind of jokes you like or articles you link reminds
me exactly on how people behaved back in pre-1990 socialist era where liking
or retelling a wrong joke got you in trouble with your boss, police or a
landlord :/

~~~
vidarh
At least in this instance we can avoid this specific persecution by opting to
not visit the US.

------
electic
This is a very expensive change for not a lot of value. Truly nefarious folks
will put in a fake handle to instill confidence during background checks. The
only folks who'll pay are law abiding people via their loss of privacy....and
well:

> Form: Estimated Annual Cost to Public: $26,325,300.

> Website: Estimated Annual Cost to the Public: $265,020,000.

What a waste.

~~~
yladiz
How are those costs so astronomically high? $265MM for a website!

~~~
disillusioned
$265MM in aggregate "burden" in additional time asked of the public, not $$
from the budget. See here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12375763](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12375763)

~~~
electic
To all the people that think this number is absurdly high, it isn't. Let's do
some paper napkin thinking here:

Form:

\- The forms will have to be redesigned and reprinted. Not cheap. Don't
forget, the 94W is in a variety of languages.

\- Flight crew will have to be trained to answer this question. For 94W form.

\- Agent console will have to be updated.

\- Which means agents will have to be trained to handle this data.

\- Embassies will have to be trained as well.

Website:

\- Updates to the website. Don't forget different languages.

\- Help documentation will have to be created for the web.

Other:

\- Data will have to be aggregated from social site. Development costs.

\- New console will have to be created to look at a user's streams.

\- Staff will have to pull and review the data.

\- New infrastructure (servers, software, upkeep) will have to be put in place
to handle this.

Just thinking for a few minutes, it seems expensive. It is not just a field on
a form or website, it is a whole staff, backend, ball of wax.

~~~
vidarh
But as the people responding to you have pointed out, the above is not what
these cost estimates are referring to.

They are referring to the estimated burden in terms of the time spent by the
people _filling in_ the forms.

~~~
electic
Then the costs are even higher.

------
dmichulke
The usual way to handle these scary "features" is to keep them optional only
until the next terrorist attack.

This reduces public backlash while you can still start implementing it.

------
jackjeff
Most people probably don't have the skills to answer that question. Heck.
Without going online I can't even remember my Facebook ID.

~~~
type0
That's okay. Probably you will just be able to provide your fb login
credentials, it's easy-peazy. (turn on your sarcasm detection mechanism if you
are reading this)

------
paganel
So is it ok if I provide my pornhub account?

------
dlitz
It'll be great precedent for when Iran, China, Russia, etc. want to do the
same thing.

~~~
angry_octet
When you get a Chinese visa you will be reviewed for, e.g., Falun Gong
activity.

------
viraptor
Something to keep in mind: social networking sites have been already checked,
even without explicitly listing the ids/links. From 2012:
[http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/31/british-tourists-
tweets-...](http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/31/british-tourists-tweets-get-
them-denied-entry-to-the-u-s/)

Devil's advocate - are they already checking everyone and this just actually
saves them the time?

------
SuperPaintMan
>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.

>optional

My question is: How is this at the #1 spot with 8 votes?

~~~
vidarh
"Why did you not fill in this field Mr. Smith?" "Well, it's optional, I didn't
think..." "So what do you have to hide, Mr. Smith? Did you perhaps think we
will find something illegal?"

When something is "optional" but it's there so that if provided the DHS can
get visibility to "possible nefarious activity and connections", how likely is
it that they will start seeing failure to provide it as a sign that you need
to be investigated more closely?

> My question is: How is this at the #1 spot with 8 votes?

Because Asia is going to bed and it's early Sunday morning in Europe, and it
was submitted a short while ago, and hence it has little competition that
hasn't started "aging out".

~~~
jonnybgood
> how likely is it that they will start seeing failure to provide it as a sign
> that you need to be investigated more closely?

The rationale that I've gathered from this is that they're going to
investigate you anyways by trying to find your social media profiles, etc.
This is a long process, so to make the process quicker you can opt-in your
social media handles.

In other words, it's already happening, but has a lot of inconveniences.

Not saying this is right or wrong, but it's just from what I've gathered.

~~~
NhanH
That rationale is suspiciously close to "FB should just turned over all and
any data of everyone to the US government".

In certain cases with regard to the government, inconvenience is a feature,
not a bug.

~~~
xg15
I disagree with that sentiment. As a citizen, I'd like the government to work
_on my behalf_ as efficiently as possible and to not work at all otherwise.

So I think the real issue is that there is almost no control or transparency
regarding what agencies like FBI or DHS do with the data. This should change.
Once there is actual oversight (and no rubber-stamp court) I'll give them the
permitted data as efficiently as possible.

Going the other way - allowing them full and uncontrolled access provided they
just jump through a few arbitrary hoops to get the data - seems to me would
only muddy the waters and increase costs without providing any actual
advantage to the citizens.

~~~
NhanH
Control, transparency and check-and-balance are all inconveniences though.
Having to ask a judge for warrant is definitely inconvenient, same as proving
beyond reasonable doubt (instead of just, let's say probable doubt).

I didn't say that inefficiency should be the goal for the government. However,
for certain scenarios, that's the trade off we have to make.

> Going the other way - allowing them full and uncontrolled access provided
> they just jump through a few arbitrary hoops to get the data

Fortunately, most of the time those "hoops" involves a human in it, hopefully
being able to stop bad things from happening. Again, there is no silver
bullet, and shitty paper stamping process won't be helping either.

~~~
xg15
Yes, most effective checks are inconvenient but not all inconveniences are
effective checks. My worry is that but focusing on "it must be inconvenient"
your setting the priorities wrong. This might just result in a heap of useless
labour and frustrated employees - but wouldn't shed any light on which "attack
scenarios" you actually defended against, if any.

In some cases, it might make misuse actually _easier_ if the inconveniences
affect both agencies and their control instances.

A nice example of a process that's apparently deliberately kept inefficient by
lobby power is the US weapons "registry": [http://www.gq.com/story/inside-
federal-bureau-of-way-too-man...](http://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-
bureau-of-way-too-many-guns)

------
jonnybgood
The proposed change is optional, not required.

The title is misleading.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
So, are you saying they aren't using the information for anything? Why are
they asking for it then? Or are you saying that it's optional, but supplying
the information might have benefits, so, it's optional only in the sense that
entering the US is optional?

~~~
jonnybgood
You could just read it. I'm only repeating what it states.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
You are familiar with the concept of a lie?

------
forgottenacc56
What's left? Government demands complete access to every aspect of your life
in every way.

No, wait, that's what they already have.

~~~
20andup
It is getting to the point that I am seriously contemplating of deleting all
my social media presence. I got nothing to hide, but I also don't want any
stranger snooping in my privacy.

------
sime2009
Wouldn't it be just as effective and faster for everyone to add a simple
yes/no question to the form like: "The primary purpose of this trip is
terrorism? Yes [] No []" Then the DHS can do their work and there is no
further loss of privacy for visitors.

~~~
Ressuder
You're joking, but the Visa application does ask this already: "Do you seek to
engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever
engaged in terrorist activities?”

~~~
dTal
"Why yes, as a matter of fact the wife and I were planning to do a spot of
mass shooting on our way through, we're really after the full experience you
know... say, is there a problem?"

------
heisenbit
Facebook and Twitter are obviously social media platforms. But what else is to
counted there? Gmail? Path? Github? Hacker News? Wikipedia? What about my
professional society ids? And what about medical social platforms? Does anyone
understand where the line is?

------
denzell
Sure, they can have the accounts i don't use.

~~~
unicornporn
"Looking at this account I can see that there's no content. Do you have other
accounts that you use? Are you purposely misleading me Mr. Smith?"

~~~
zdkl
Step 2: In order to assist immigration procedures, social networks will now be
required to verify the identity tied to the account you're registering.

But telling the immigration official still is optional, since we already know
who you are, what you buy and what por- uhm, websites, you like. (discretely
fist-bumps Goomazbook) Welcome to this great nation!

------
pbreit
"It will be an optional data field to request social media identifiers"

------
NhanH
> "Current Actions: This submission is being made to extend the expiration
> date with a change to the information collected as a result of adding a
> question about social media to ESTA and to Form I-94W, as described in the
> Abstract section of this document. There are no changes to the burden hours
> or to the information collected on Form I-94, or the I-94 Web site."

I can't quite understand what it mean to "extend the expiration date ...".
Shouldn't it be "extend the collection process" or something similar ?

------
smegel
So not having Facebook is now officially suspicious?

~~~
tunap
Fecebook kicked me off for being too old. I could probably find my MySpace
profile riddled with mis-information and my only _true_ friend, Tom, floating
around somewhere(on a dark market site[0]). I hope this would help default my
identity from 'guilty until proven otherwise' to 'not-a-terrorist' status.

[0] [https://www.wired.com/2016/05/hack-brief-old-myspace-
account...](https://www.wired.com/2016/05/hack-brief-old-myspace-account-just-
came-back-haunt/)

------
antimora
Here is a link to "Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Arrival and Departure
Record: (Forms I-94 and I-94W)"

[https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=...](https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=commentDueDate&po=0&D=USCBP-2007-0102)

Which was originally submitted by quickben

------
codecamper
I still need to file back taxes & so don't feel like reading yet another
document from the government.

Can someone summarize what this says?

Will people who don't use social media have to go to the back room for a full
cavity search?

~~~
draaglom
The relevant section:

DHS proposes to add the following question to ESTA and to Form I-94W: “Please
enter information associated with your online
presence—Provider/Platform—Social media identifier.” 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.

~~~
codecamper
That's pretty crazy.

The only way they could deal with that much data would be some sort of
agreement between the US & Facebook for information sharing.

Time to create another social media network.

------
suryacom
Such a waste of USCIS time. This should have come from AILA (Immigration
Lawyers); who has vested interest keeping USCIS busy on all wrong priorities.

------
agumonkey
At which point will they order you to fill that social media platform with
actual events so they know it's really you ?

------
type0
Will any of you provide your HN account information?

------
20andup
Big brother for aliens

------
moron4hire
I think this is a good thing. Most people are very stupid about their online
behavior. Or rather, they try to pretend they are someone else "IRL", because
in real life they know people are looking but online they think they are
anonymous. This has been demonstrated several times that this is where social
media harassment comes from. Anyone who is an asshole online is an asshole in
person, they just know better to hide it when people can see their face.

We should be working to make it clear to people that--just because you have a
cat photo for an avatar--doesn't mean you are off the hook for acting like a
decent human being.

We print out home address on official forums, why not online addresses? Make
that presence "real".

