this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
124 points (94.3% liked)

Technology

59600 readers
4673 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
124
US immigration agencies read visa applicant's social media (www.theregister.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Its not your ex ;)

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In general, I see no problem with law enforcement reading information someone posts publicly on social media and using it against them if it constitutes evidence of a crime or intent to commit a crime. I do, however see some issues with this.

One of them, not mentioned in the article is that the US government is demanding that visa applicants tell the government about all their social media accounts. Being forced to reveal a pseudonymous account is a privacy issue. In addition, the software is looking for '"derogatory" comments about the nation', which is a free speech issue.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's especially a problem to explain that you don't have any particular popular social media account.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Same goes with applying for jobs. I've had some recruiters and interviews look at me like I have 3 heads when I tell them I have no social media by the likes of Facebook, Instagram, etc. Like I'm sorry, I didn't realize broadcasting my life online was a requirement to be gainfully employed

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Things like this work out for the best I find. I like working at a place where no one cares how eccentric I am as long as I do my job. I have a coworker, and legit I do enjoy working with him, but when politics comes up I don't engage with him.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As I understand it, 1st amendment protections don't extend to non citizens who have not established legal residency in the US already. So I think the free speech point is moot when we're discussing people attempting to get a visa to come to the US.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I mentioned the concept rather than the constitutional amendment because they can be different.

I believe some of the legal protections do apply to visa applicants. For example, the government may not discriminate on the basis of religion as Trump attempted to do early in his presidency. It probably can refuse a visa for a history of social media posts indicating support for terrorism, and most people would probably find that justified.

What I wouldn't find justified is denying a visa for a history of criticizing US government policy, which could certainly fall under "derogatory comments".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

More importantly, the main thing is that no non-citizen has an inherent right to American citizenship or a visa. An immigrant won't be arrested for posting anti-American content, but they're not owed the privilege of an invitation either.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah I fall fairly solidly into the left side of the political spectrum, but I think it's fine for any country to tell someone seeking a visa to fuck off when you find out that their twitter history is full of them posting pro ISIS memes. Hard pass, my guy.

The one point about this that I find problematic is that a policy like this is all fine and well until the wrong people get in charge of determining what sort of content is grounds for rejection.

And in that context, this article is pretty timely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/24/trump-religion-immigration/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It isn't like there is a shortage of people who want to come here. We can afford to be a bit picky.

Like all things moderation. I dont think we really should care in your hypothetical nor do I think if someone says some comment on Twatter ten years ago criticizing a part of US foreign policy that it should be held against him.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That would probably fall under explicit discrimination on the basis of religion, which is going to have more legal protections, though I'm very much not a lawyer.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

That gets pretty murky if we're talking about non resident aliens and also considering how out of wack the current Supreme Court is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Muslim fine, supporting ISIS not fine. We can worry about the edge cases later.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Everyone would be mad if they didn't do this and they let someone immigrate that ended up doing something dumb---only to find out they'd be posting about it on their Facebook page for years.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Im fairly certain there was an incident with a french dude who posted a bunch of pro ISIS stuff on Facebook and ended up doing something violent, but I only find articles about ISIS using Facebook to target young people for recruitment.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

If they're fine with mass shooting #837292, then they can put up with this

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean if you're sharing your whole life out there for everyone to see under your real identity, then I can't really get mad at anyone for looking at it. I mean it's just there for anyone to see whether on Facebook or Mastodon.

Privacy is half the way governments and companies behave, and half you as an individual take precautions to protect yourself.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

real identity

That doesn't matter though, cause you have to provide all your social media identifiers - so it doesn't matter if your handle is real or fake. You can choose to say "none", but then you'd be asked about that by a visa interview officer, and they could reject your application for being suspicious. On the other hand, if you really had an account on a mainstream social media site, and you used your real device fingerprint to access it at some stage, they could find out and you'd never be allowed into the country.

Source: https://t.ly/uBxvt

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

You’re not wrong about individual agency and privacy. If you post information to a public platform and cry foul about privacy when someone asks if it’s yours, that’s on you as an individual.

Since we, in the US, have no codified right to general privacy, it’s on us as much as possible to protect it and be aware of what we put out in public spaces. You never know when someone in power might choose to abuse the expectation of privacy, whether it’s an elected government or a private corp.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not surprising, but its not clear if its public or private data. I used to post privately extensively for a reason.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Public or private, it makes no difference to them.

https://github.com/iamcryptoki/snowden-archive

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean… sure? If you’re moving to another country be prepared to have your life scrutinized.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I think the biggest issue is how nearly certain this is to be used on citizens as well (if it isn’t already). I think it’s pretty short hops from ‘something they don’t like posted’ -> search or confiscate phone every time you cross international border -> ???

And none of this requires probable cause or a warrant.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has used an AI-powered data-scanning tool called Giant Oak Search Technology (GOST) to scour social media looking for post containing "derogatory" comments about the nation.

Immigration agencies and service providers have apparently been using the data in enforcement actions, according to an The American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and first reported by 404 Media.

"The Biden administration has been quietly deploying and expanding programs that surveil what people say on social media, often without any suspicion whatsoever," Shaiba Rather, a Nadine Strossen Fellow with ACLU's National Security Project, told The Register.

"These programs chill people from speaking freely online and transform social media into a platform for constant government scrutiny."

The firm says its AI-based system allows government agencies and law enforcement to "identify bad actors by behavioral pattern rather than identity labels," using information found on the open and deep web.

DHS has reportedly used GOST since 2014, according to documents obtained by 404 Media, and ICE has paid Giant Oak more than $10 million for the system since 2017.

The original article contains 557 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Duh