File this under Another Unsettling Development: People who want to travel to the United States may soon have their Facebook profiles and other social media accounts “vetted” by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) before entering.
A proposed change to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) and to Form I-94W posted to the government’s Federal Register last week suggests adding the following question: “Please enter information associated with your online presence—Provider/Platform—Social media identifier.”
These forms are filled out by all international travelers who wish to travel to the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program.
The report states that this would 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,” the department further notes.
As Fusion reporter Kashmir Hill wrote, this overly broad request raises many questions for travelers.
“As phrased that could include your Twitter handle, the url for your Facebook page, your OkCupid or Grindr handle, your Instagram account, your Tumblr, your Vine account, your Snapchat, your Reddit account, your Pinterest page, your PornHub account, and any random messaging forums in which you take part,” Hill said. “Where does it end? Must you include an account if it’s private?”
Joseph Lorenzo Hall, chief technologist with The Center for Democracy & Technology, who first drew attention to the change, told the BBC that he hopes that U.S. government “rethinks” the proposal.
“Democracy in general requires having spaces free from government scrutiny and increasingly social life happens online,” Hall said. “We would have a poor society if people were chilled from participating in social activity online so I really hope they rethink this.”
For what it’s worth, the government is accepting comment on this proposal for the next 59 days.
Image Credit: Anthony Freda
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Lauren McCauley writes for CommonDreams.org, where this article first appeared.
I wonder how they will treat people who don’t do FB or Twitter. And I would tell Boarder Patrol; None of your business.
I would engage border patrol as an enemy of the people.
Border Patrol has the main responsibility of keeping foreigners out of the USA who try to illegally enter or have nefarious intentions when they do enter. I hope they use all means at their disposal to determine what foreigners entering are country may pose a threat to the USA. It should be mandatory if you want to come into the USA. There are very few ways to vet people to determine what their true motives are. Social media today is how people express themselves, their true selves. That is what needs to be investigated, not paid references that they put on a form or checking the amount in their bank account to determine if they will stay in the USA after they enter. Once a foreigner enters this country they receive they same Constitional rights as a US citizen. That is why it is so important to determine if they should be allowed entry in the first place.
Freedom for me but not for thee. Taking god’s “inalienable rights” for yourselves, treating all others as lesser “for your safety” you should NEVER have declared these natural rights by god if you never intended to violate them for all other humans but yourselves. Like the Divine’s influence only exists in one nation. Hypocrites! You act the tyrant to everyone else and take/ give freedom only to yourselves. You are advocating Orwellian surveillance for everyone else, you FOOL! It is never acceptable to use tyrannical methods on people!
The original linked article addresses that:
“But, given that the field is optional, someone like an illegal drug importer would probably just leave this field blank, making it not especially useful. Instead, it might, in the long run, be a way to flag ‘nefarious’ and/or privacy-minded travelers: they’ll be the only ones not willing to hand over their Facebook name.”
In other words, yet another facet of the modern security/law enforcement mindset to which failure to participate in intrusive surveillance is regarded as synonymous with criminal activity.
This will start a precedent. Not good.