Secret US Policy Blocks Agents From Looking at Social Media of Visa Applicants

[miles]

The State Department today said that “obviously things went wrong” in the visa background check for one of the San Bernardino shooters -- comments that came in the wake of an ABC News report that said officials by policy generally do not check social media postings of applicants due to civil liberties concerns and therefore would not have seen purported evidence of Tashfeen Malik’s radicalization online.

“It’s difficult to say exactly what [went wrong] and how, [emphasis added] but for an individual to be able to come into this country – one who the FBI has maintained had terrorist tendencies or affiliations or sympathies at least for a couple years, and then to propagate an attack like that on our own soil, obviously, I think it’s safe to say there’s going to be lessons learned here,” State Department spokesperson John Kirby told reporters.

Fearing a civil liberties backlash and "bad public relations" for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end the secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, according to a former senior department official.

"During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process," John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis. Cohen is now a national security consultant for ABC News.

One current and one former senior counter-terrorism official confirmed Cohen's account about the refusal of DHS to change its policy about the public social media posts of all foreign applicants.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/12/fire_jeh_johnson.html


Of course this can't be true....consider the source.

 

[miles]

I wonder if the IRS uses social media to detect taxpayer fraud.

Nahhhh.

 

[putzpotus]

and teh TEA PARTY

 

[about_average]

It was reported by the liberal mainstream media so it's obviously a lie.

 

[Disgustipated]

It was reported by the liberal mainstream media so it's obviously a lie.

Please excuse miles' situational poutrage.

he's a fucking moron.

 

[miles]

As usual no Litlib commentary addressing another obvious failure of The Traitor's administration.

 

[bronzeage]

Secret policies are the best, especially when it's about reading public posts on the internet, where everything is accurate and can be trusted.

 

[miles]

Secret policies are the best, especially when it's about reading public posts on the internet, where everything is accurate and can be trusted.

Jesus you're a fucking moron.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

As usual, we have a media story that has already gotten out of control and will almost surely prevent a reasonable social debate on the issue because people won't end up debating the issue they THINK they are debating.

Everybody is going to end up screaming about examining social media accounts because, after all, they are in the public domain. So what's the problem?

The problem is that the posts Malik used to express her radical leanings WERE NOT PUBLIC AND SHE USED A PSEUDONYM TO HIDE HER IDENTITY. Even if immigration officials were looking at social media, they would not have been able to get into that account, and even if they had, there was nothing that would have associated that fake identity with Tasheen Malik.

So the POINT IS NOT (and there isn't a single person here who NEEDS to get this who is actually going to understand it) whether or not to use social media for immigration screening -- the point is HOW FAR DOWN INTO PEOPLE'S PRIVACY DO YOU WANT TO DRILL TO ACHIEVE THE LEGITIMATE RIGHT OF SECURITY WITHOUT VIOLATING LEGITIMATE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY??

This is the question on which the American public is truly schizophrenic. Both security and privacy are RIGHTS. Every person has a right to both. But the conservatives and liberals only know how to wage this battle by defending ONE side of it while totally annihilating the other.

Donald Trump doesn't want to ban Muslims from entering the country because he FEARS MUSLIMS. It's because he CORRECTLY FEARS THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T AND WON'T DO IT'S FUCKING JOB!!!!

But here's what Trump, Ish, AJ, VA and BB will NEVER understand. THAT'S NO GODDMANED EXCUSE!! A GROSS EXCESS OF NEGLECT DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU TO APPLY A GROSS APPLICATION of "CURE."

And what liberals will never understand is that there is a VAST LEGAL AND MORAL DIFFERENCE between the civil rights of a radical Islamic American citizen on American soil and the virtually non-existent "rights" rolleyes of a radical Islamic leader (or even a mere foot soldier) of a terrorist on foreign soil -- non-American enemy under the law of war on foreign soil.

And there is no hope that a liberal will ever get his head around the legal principle of forfeiture of certain rights that a radicalized American citizen affects by leaving the sanctuary of American soil and joining the enemy fight abroad.

The Fourth Amendment should be our guide in how we approach this issue. It irrefutably establishes a right of privacy for every person under the Constitution while literally defining that right ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF "unreasonable" searches and seizures. REASONABLE searches and seizures, by implication, are every bit the RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT in providing the SECURITY attendant to prosecuting crime.

If we can't find our way back to a reasonable discussion on the reasonable limits of both privacy and security, and I'm NOT optimistic we will, then UNREASONABLEmeasures and struggles over both privacy and security are all that will remain.

 

[putzpotus]

stfu With Your Shit

 

[Ishmael]

As usual, we have a media story that has already gotten out of control and will almost surely prevent a reasonable social debate on the issue because people won't end up debating the issue they THINK they are debating.

Everybody is going to end up screaming about examining social media accounts because, after all, they are in the public domain. So what's the problem?

The problem is that the posts Malik used to express her radical leanings WERE NOT PUBLIC AND SHE USED A PSEUDONYM TO HIDE HER IDENTITY. Even if immigration officials were looking at social media, they would not have been able to get into that account, and even if they had, there was nothing that would have associated that fake identity with Tasheen Malik.

So the POINT IS NOT (and there isn't a single person here who NEEDS to get this who is actually going to understand it) whether or not to use social media for immigration screening -- the point is HOW FAR DOWN INTO PEOPLE'S PRIVACY DO YOU WANT TO DRILL TO ACHIEVE THE LEGITIMATE RIGHT OF SECURITY WITHOUT VIOLATING LEGITIMATE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY??

This is the question on which the American public is truly schizophrenic. Both security and privacy are RIGHTS. Every person has a right to both. But the conservatives and liberals only know how to wage this battle by defending ONE side of it while totally annihilating the other.

Donald Trump doesn't want to ban Muslims from entering the country because he FEARS MUSLIMS. It's because he CORRECTLY FEARS THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T AND WON'T DO IT'S FUCKING JOB!!!!

But here's what Trump, Ish, AJ, VA and BB will NEVER understand. THAT'S NO GODDMANED EXCUSE!! A GROSS EXCESS OF NEGLECT DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU TO APPLY A GROSS APPLICATION of "CURE."

And what liberals will never understand is that there is a VAST LEGAL AND MORAL DIFFERENCE between the civil rights of a radical Islamic American citizen on American soil and the virtually non-existent "rights" rolleyes of a radical Islamic leader (or even a mere foot soldier) of a terrorist on foreign soil -- non-American enemy under the law of war on foreign soil.

And there is no hope that a liberal will ever get his head around the legal principle of forfeiture of certain rights that a radicalized American citizen affects by leaving the sanctuary of American soil and joining the enemy fight abroad.

The Fourth Amendment should be our guide in how we approach this issue. It irrefutably establishes a right of privacy for every person under the Constitution while literally defining that right ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF "unreasonable" searches and seizures. REASONABLE searches and seizures, by implication, are every bit the RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT in providing the SECURITY attendant to prosecuting crime.

If we can't find our way back to a reasonable discussion on the reasonable limits of both privacy and security, and I'm NOT optimistic we will, then UNREASONABLEmeasures and struggles over both privacy and security are all that will remain.

It's war stupid, act like it.

Ishmael

 

[Disgustipated]

It's war stupid, act like it.

Ishmael

lolololololo.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Jesus you're a fucking moron.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5d/6a/c6/5d6ac67f6ed59879d2ef45b11f862d45.gif

And here I thought he was tight with Jewish people...damn!

Dude can't get no kinda love these days!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It's war stupid, act like it.

Ishmael

Our best chance of winning it would be for idiots like you to clean their weapons.

As absent-mindedly and as clumsily as possible, please.

 

[about_average]

So the POINT IS NOT (and there isn't a single person here who NEEDS to get this who is actually going to understand it) whether or not to use social media for immigration screening -- the point is HOW FAR DOWN INTO PEOPLE'S PRIVACY DO YOU WANT TO DRILL TO ACHIEVE THE LEGITIMATE RIGHT OF SECURITY WITHOUT VIOLATING LEGITIMATE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY??

IMO if she made public postings that gave reasonable suspicion that there was more to her story, then a warrant would be appropriate to examine her private messages and to see if any other accounts were linked to the email address she used for her public account.
The mere applying for a visa, IMO, isn't reasonable suspicion, though it is reasonable to see if the person has a social media account and to read public messages and postings.
On the other hand that would require more government employees and I suspect the people complaining wouldn't want that.

 

[Sean]

Don't you people be laughing at Miles and Ishtard. If we hadn't read the Nazi's Myspace and Bebo accounts back in 1944, where would we be now? We'd have people shouting "sieg heil!" at political rallies and and advocating concentration camps for undesirables, that's where!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

IMO if she made public postings that gave reasonable suspicion that there was more to her story, then a warrant would be appropriate to examine her private messages and to see if any other accounts were linked to the email address she used for her public account.
The mere applying for a visa, IMO, isn't reasonable suspicion, though it is reasonable to see if the person has a social media account and to read public messages and postings.
On the other hand that would require more government employees and I suspect the people complaining wouldn't want that.

I know of no evidence that there were any such public postings giving rise to such suspicion. The use of private accounts and a fake name indicate that she would have been careful NOT to leave any such trail.

 

[about_average]

I know of no evidence that there were any such public postings giving rise to such suspicion. The use of private accounts and a fake name indicate that she would have been careful NOT to leave any such trail.

I didn't mean to imply she had, I haven't heard anything suggesting that.
My point was that that is the only situation where it would be appropriate to violate privacy, and only with a warrant. Though a very good argument could be made that if reasonable suspicion came from some other source, then a deeper dive in to a person's social media activity might be warranted.

 

[putzpotus]

THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WON’T EVEN LOOK AT IMMIGRANTS’ SOCIAL MEDIA, BUT GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK ARE WILLING TO censor anti-immigrant statements on social media. “The partnership to crack down on what Germany deems illegal speech comes after German law enforcement’s reported concerns about ‘racist abuse’ posted to social media after the country’s huge and extremely controversial import of over a million Syrian refugees.”

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Employers screen Social Media...



But from government we expect "privacy" in our public interactions, unless of course it is a gay couple demanding that we post their nuptials on our wall despite any of our religious or moral concerns; until of course, Islam photographer meets gay couple and their champions who are then presented with quite the little dilemma...

Well, Facebook is public and and the government has a right, a duty and an obligation to make sure the gay couple gets to be just like any other couple, but on the other hand are their supporters willing to suffer the outrage of a tiny minority, or the religious fervor of the truly devout and peaceful, and growing, communities that add such true diversity to our culture, you know, like the gay couples do., used to do...,

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

... and then when they kill us, or the towers come down (when it safe to do so and not be considered a racist in polite and educated company, some of which we enjoy here I see*) we scream WHY WEREN'T THE DOTS CONNECTED! THE DOTS!

THE DOTS!!!






* People who consider both sides of the argument, condemning both, but only being outraged by the conversations of one of the "condemned" groups thinking that this reasoned Hegelian Dialectic has purchased them a sociopolitical indulgence which pleases greatly their chosen "peer" group.

 

[miles]

... and then when they kill us, or the towers come down (when it safe to do so and not be considered a racist in polite and educated company, some of which we enjoy here I see*) we scream WHY WEREN'T THE DOTS CONNECTED! THE DOTS!

]

No, they'll blame Americans for doing things that were used as recruiting tools.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No, they'll blame Americans for doing things that were used as recruiting tools.

Indeed.

We did not welcome all of Islam with sufficient enthusiasm and unlimited benefit.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I didn't mean to imply she had, I haven't heard anything suggesting that.
My point was that that is the only situation where it would be appropriate to violate privacy, and only with a warrant. Though a very good argument could be made that if reasonable suspicion came from some other source, then a deeper dive in to a person's social media activity might be warranted.

In the case of a foreign national applying for a visa, they are not yet a "U. S. person" on American soil so I do not think a search warrant would be required. The problem would be what investigative technical capabilities USCIS has. They aren't the CIA or FBI counterterroism unit.

 

[allateup]

What can possibly be done when the FBI finds criminal evidence enough to cease all relations with an entity after its failure to be indicted for conspiring with terrorist organizations, yet the State Department continues to fully endorse that entity by contracting it to provide it Islamic guidance and sensitivity workshops to the federal government?