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

[bronzeage]

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?

Why didn't you say so before? That makes all the difference in the world.

 

[about_average]

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.

Yeah, probably not required, but how likely is a site to turn over the info without one? Especially since the social media site is unlikely to know for sure the citizenship.
Same, if they are looking for other accounts linked to the same email address.

 

[Sean Renaud]

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...,

I think lots of people would very much like to have privacy from our employers. I don't think my private life is any business of my employer with I suppose a few logical exceptions depending on where precisely you draw the line between public and private. For the sake of argument you probably shouldn't be promoting Coke and working at Pepsi because DUH. But promoting generally is public.

The reality is that our businesses in many cases have grown far too large and are in many regards little different from a government unto themselves. We simply don't have any means of controlling businesses and for better or worse we tend to agree overall that we should leave well enough alone. This subject came up partially earlier this year with the Confedarate Flag and it being dropped from Wal-Mart (largest physical retail outlet in the US), Amazon (Largest Internet outlet), iTunes and a few other organizations. Additionally lots of smaller retailers aren't going to carry products the big name places don't (unless they are sufficiently popular) because they simply won't be made. This was the legal basis for Bush preventing California from raising emission standards in the 2000's. California is such a huge market that we could effectively tell the rest of the nation what's up.

Also Facebook may default to public but it doesn't have to be.

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.

I don't really see a reason why a a warrant wouldn't be required.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Not that you're making this point but since the individual doesn't actually own Facebook that should be enough in practice for the government to go in. They simply need to make a deal with the owners. I mean half the arguments that entertainment media are making about hinge on the concept that we don't own this that or the other, we license it's use. I don't know if there is an outcome yet but law enforcement used this argument on Apple just a few months ago. Long story short Apple COULD open the iPhone5 but refuses because it would tarnish their brand. There have been multiple other situations where the government wants back doors to get around these sorts of problems.

From a Constitutional stance I'm not completely certain why being a U.S. person is particularly important. Whether you believe that these rights are handed down from a creator (and inconveniently left out of all holy texts) or are simply inherent in being human the 10 Amendments are specifically written as to prevent the government from doing things that it might want not to give individuals power. In short every human ever born or that ever will be born has these rights. Now obviously we aren't in any position to force other governments to live up to our standards but once someone is within our power voluntarily or not these rights should apply.

I happen to disagree that we are in a war. That said for most of these scenarios it seems there are few distinctions that are truly important. Not only do I think a judge would issue a warrant in most of these cases for a lot more Presidents have the ability to pardon.

That said I think Americans as a group aren't really sufficiently afraid for certain actions. Most of us don't even know someone who knows someone who died to terrorism. Which is why I think in this case we're really much more worried about our sons and daughters not getting jobs because there is a picture of them at a college keger than they REALLY are worried about Achmed saying something on Facebook that would realistically tip off law enforcement. Which I think leads to the wild difference between "OMG the government shouldn't have lists of how long I'm on the phone with 1800rimjobs!" and "OMG the government should be perusing Facebook!"

 

[Oh_That_Guy]

If it's a secret then how do we know about it?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I don't really see a reason why a a warrant wouldn't be required.

1. A citizen and resident of a foreign country has no legal rights under American law unless under American jurisdiction. A mere visa applicant is not under American jurisdiction until he or she would enter our country. While the applicant would not be entitled to 4th Amendment protection, obviously the USCIS would conduct the application process according to United States immigration laws and policies.

It is worth noting that American intelligence agencies spying on foreign heads of state (see Angela Merkel) are technically in violation of the laws of the host country, but are never prosecuted because it's kind of hard to prosecute an entire country. Thus, virtually all nations conduct espionage with impunity. And if you can get away with spying on heads of state, you can get away with spying on citizens of that state.

2. If USCIS wanted to conduct a legal background investigation of a visa applicant, it would likely do so under the specific laws of the country in which the applicant was a citizen OR under specific treaty provisions between the United States and the host country. An American warrant issued by an American court would obviously have no legal force in a foreign country.

 

[Sean Renaud]

1. Fair enough, though I would stand by the argument that the Constitution as written should be universal to our best ability and obviously best interests.

As for spying I'd always figured that was simply different. The President would pardon them and the other nation generally wouldn't want to get tangled up in it. I mean we are pissed off that the Obama administration got caught not that they were spying on our allies right?

2. I would imagine that applying for a Visa would entail subjecting yourself to a search as thorough as the nation happens to want. It is ultimately up to their discretion to grant or not grant no?

So sure our warrant has no bearing in their nation but in a real sense how many of them would actually deny us the legal right if we simply asked as you suggest?

 

[about_average]

It looks like maybe the DHS isn't really prohibited from reading public social media posts of visa applicants.

Currently, DHS only looks at these postings intermittently and as part of three pilot programs that began in earnest earlier this year. It’s unclear how quickly a new process could be implemented, and other details couldn’t be learned.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-wor...inize-social-media-in-visa-reviews-1450122633

I suspect it's more a matter of available resources.

 

[miles]

It looks like maybe the DHS isn't really prohibited from reading public social media posts of visa applicants.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-wor...inize-social-media-in-visa-reviews-1450122633

I suspect it's more a matter of available resources.

Yeah....they only have 240,000 employees.

 

[about_average]

Yeah....they only have 240,000 employees.

Oh, right. I forgot that DHS has no responsibilities other than checking on visa's.