U.S. government begins asking foreign travelers about social media - <AUTHOR> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/foreign-travelers-social-media-232930 <comment><USER2> Just last month I commented here [1] how strange it is to see America slowly but steadily moving in the same direction as the military dictatorship that I live under. And here is yet another move in that direction, because here in Thailand they have been asking foreigners for their social media account information since around mid-year this year.

Edit: Link to the pertinent section of the form used by Thai immigration to ask for social media account information. [2].

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12974377](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12974377)

[2] [http://www.khaosodenglish.com/wp- content/uploads/pre/1460977...](http://www.khaosodenglish.com/wp- content/uploads/pre/14609779491460977993l.jpg)

<comment><USER3> I made a similar comment last month after having recently moved back from living abroad for several years. I'm genuinely curious, do Americans notice how far things have changed compared to a couple years ago? Or were the changes so gradual that no one's noticed? I didn't visit the States during my time abroad so the difference to me was very shocking

<comment><USER4> I think most of us are pretty ignorant about how the entry actually works in the US. The majority of Americans never even leave the country so they have no contact with US Customs officials to develop even basic awareness of the processes foreigners might go through.

<comment><USER5> We get special lines that move pretty quickly. It's a relatively boring but painless process if you're a US citizen. I did accidentally bring an apple with me the last time I went through customs, which added an additional 15 minutes waiting in an additional line to get approval to throw it away before boarding the plane.

This was on the way back from Israel though, so I was very aware of how much easier re-entry into the US was than going to Israel.

But as a US citizen, I have no idea what visitors have to go through.

<comment><USER4> We do, but US citizens that haven't dealt with US customs have even less understanding of what foreigners will experience when entering the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So it begins: [http://craphound.com/scroogled.html](http://craphound.com/scroogled.html)

This is an incredibly worth while read by Cory Doctrow that has only gotten more pertinent.

<comment><USER7> _" Sir, calm down, please. No, I'm not looking at your searches... That would be unconstitutional. We see only the ads that show up..._

ahahahahahaha, it's so accurate it hurts.

It's totally constitutional because its information the corporation willingly handed over.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Claiming this is "optional" is utterly absurd.

The power dynamic at US immigration is very unbalanced and they generally treat people terribly. If you "opt out" of providing this highly personal information they will no doubt send you to secondary where you will be required to provide it anyway.

It is just normalising an invasion of privacy, and by the very nature of it they're already hinting that they might enter those social media accounts and pull apart your life. They already read diaries and look through your files, and anything that they find they'll use against you no matter how vague or what context it is said (e.g. don't even think about making jokes in private, they will ignore context like their life depended on it).

Your choice when travelling to the US is:

\- Provide real ones (and risk getting bounced for something taken out of context and your privacy invaded).

\- Don't provide any (and risk getting bounced for looking suspicious).

\- Provide fake ones (and risk getting bounced for not providing a thorough record).

They actually asked for feedback when this was first proposed and I wrote to them telling them why it was a bad idea. The problem is that they're asking American citizens for feedback about a proposal that doesn't impact them. I just happen to care because I am a green card holder who has family come in and know how terrible US immigration can be.

</comment><comment> bjelkeman-again So it will be interesting when you say that you don't have any social media accounts, or point to some essentially empty accounts.

Immigration officer: "This bjelkeman-again account on Hacker News isn't your?"

Me: "No sir, it isn't"

Officer: "But it has your name."

Me: "Sorry, I don't know who that is. Somebody impersonating me perhaps?"

Officer: "Hand me your phone. An unlock it."

Me: "Here it is. But it is empty. I load it from a downloaded encrypted image when I arrive at my destination. The key is given to me when I have arrive. For company security reasons."

Officer: "You have to come with me."

It is going to be interesting.

<comment><USER9> I think this would be your answers if you _want_ to be questioned further.

<comment><USER10> True, but none of this is really far-fetched in the realm of security. People can do this not to be difficult (as you are insinuating) but out of genuine data protection.

<comment><USER5> My last company created a policy that when traveling to some countries, specifically China, we were told to only take fresh Chromebooks and set the up at our location. That way we could be reasonably certain there was no spyware (verified RO boot) and no way for for them to take our data even if they took our laptop during entry. Of course, the could have installed a hardware keylogger, but the risk was low enough.

<comment> bjelkeman-again So pretty close to my imagined situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Source without TheVerge regurgitation

[http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/foreign-travelers- soci...](http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/foreign-travelers-social- media-232930)

<comment><USER12> Thanks, we changed the URL to that from [http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/22/14066082/us-customs- borde...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/22/14066082/us-customs-border- patrol-social-media-account-facebook-twitter).

Submitters: the HN guidelines ask you, when one article is merely summarizing another, to submit the original instead.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Of course the bad guys are going to have fake social media accounts, so I don't see what benefit could accrue from such a policy.

<comment><USER14> It is not so easy to build a credible fake social media account, since normal accounts are years old.

<comment><USER15> I was under the assumption that at some point in the US, there were "fake personas" who didn't exist, but their proof of citizenships did (ssn, birth certs etc).

What I am trying to say, i guess, is someone will make money out of this, manufacturing fake twitter profiles with real looking history.

Now, the thing is, though, it's hard, because at some point your "followers" and "followings" have to be real people that interact with you ideally.

<comment><USER16> Twitter should offer an option to hide to the public, across its platform (including RT's and replies), all your "Fucking orange clown idiot!" tweets...

It can label the checkbox "Make America Great Again".

<comment><USER15> Or activate freedom mode.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Just a reminder that they already have this information and do not need to ask for it: [http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16810312](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16810312)

People have been denied entry based on their online activity years ago.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is creepy and beyond the pale. And indefensible for any pretension of democracy and free speech. What right does anyone have to 'mine' your personal speech history?

This directly criminalises speech and brazenly places a chilling effect on open and free discourse. This US security state has become so emboldened by citizen inaction and hand waving and ordinary americans must take control of their state. Please defend basic human rights and dignity.

Don't let the naive, statists and apologists come here and defend and seek to normalize this blatant authoritarianism.

</comment><comment><USER19> Has anyone here written something online, revealed something about yourself online (are you Muslim? Communist?), or are you associated with someone or some group online (friends with Edward Snowden on Facebook? Friends with CAIR?) that might cause you to be denied entry into the U.S.?

As far as I know, the U.S. has denied entry to its critics, though I don't know how consistently they do that.

(To be absolutely clear: I don't think anyone should be discriminated against based on their religion or political beliefs.)

<comment><USER17> Haha, good luck with that agent hackuser.

But seriously, this is all up to interpretation. You've got a social profile on the service called "hacker news" \- you're already suspect in the eyes of many people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I seriously wonder if they would let somebody like Trump enter the country if he were a foreigner, based on what he posts on Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER21> The question is, what can be done against this? With Trump soon in power, Congress in Republican hands and the Supreme Court soon too, there is no corrective element left outside Republican hands any more, except a military coup, secession of individual States or civil war.

And I like none of these options, especially not given that China and to some extent Russia massively try to take geopolitical influence over from the US.

</comment><comment><USER22> Ah yes, the Theil + Palintir influence starts to show.

On one hand, maybe cool that you can list GitHub to show you are a professional, on the other much larger hand this data collection is terrifying and could be used for so many bad policies.

<comment><USER7> i can't wait for the day when a border agent asks why I forked the mirai botnet repo.

<comment><USER23> …or why you are working on a cryptographic chat application, or why people in your GitHub organizations are.

<comment><USER22> Yeah on second thought, it's all bad and not good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So would this lead to self-censorship on social media?

<comment><USER25> I already do this in part because of the nature of my job, and it has helped push me to lose interest in the major social media platforms. At the same time, my interaction in more obscure forums like this one and other tech sites has grown significantly.

<comment><USER26> Who among us isn't already self-censoring?

In contrast to yourself, I'm most self-censored here. In a game or in person is where I feel like I can speak freely. Here, not so much.

<comment><USER27> I'm not self-censoring because my account is pseudonymous.

<comment><USER24> That does not make much difference to CIA or NSA to my knowledge. There are many ways to correlate pseudonymous with your real identity: IP address, usage pattern, speech pattern, or even patterns in the photos that you posted.

That's way I never used pseudonyms, they are practically useless in hiding your real identity. Additionally they give you a false sense of anonymity.

<comment><USER28> Your parents gave you the name "paradite", then?

<comment><USER24> I think it is a social norm in the English speaking countries to not use real name on Internet forums. So I wouldn't call the use of nicknames or Internet handles examples of pseudonyms.

Also, I have no intention of using this nickname to hide my identity. You can Google it to find everything you need to know about me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> What if you claim to not have any account, or refuse to provide it? Does it default to "terrorist"?

Also, I think there would be a better solution: Just give travelers a form with one question.

      Are you a terrorist?

      [yes (default)] [no]

<comment><USER30> It defaults to "you lied on your immigration form" which means you lose any conflict whatsoever that might happen. That's the entire reason the "do you plan on committing crimes" questions are there, after all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> As I've discussed in some of my comments in the past, the only morally principled way to deal with this is simply to say "No." and accept the consequences. It may suck, it may derail plans, or even alter the course of your life. But at the end, thousands of people saying "No." is the only way to stop this.

The US isn't the first country to do this and it won't be the last. It's a sadly hypocritical state of affairs, but not surprising given the way things have gone recently. I travel all over the world, and I will adamantly refuse to give any information about myself which isn't contained already on my passport. The entire point of a passport is to provide the relevant information to determine whether or not to admit me across a border. If that is not sufficient, then I suppose you'll have to deport me and deal with any PR fallout for doing so (if any).

<comment><USER5> If you do that, then you may be judged solely on your passport. That's fine if you come from a stable and prosperous country. Traveling abroad on a German or US Passport? You're probably fine. Try the same thing on a Syrian passport and you're probably going to run into problems.

I agree that we should protest, but it won't help that middle eastern student who wants to go to a conference or the business person who wants to meet a potential trade partner. Both need to travel for their livelihood, and depending on their circumstances it could significantly affect their life at home based on the opportunities they can find abroad.

They might not have the luxury or the courage to simply walk away.

In the US we have a way to stop this: we have to be loud enough to be heard. That doesn't involve civil disobedience (no one would listen to spoiled US citizens) but we can complain to our politicians, we can protest, we can get into the media with it. Unfortunately, it's not a majority opinion and will likely be drowned out in favor of the current wave of xenophobia sweeping US politics. If you did this coming into the US, half the country would just say they were glad you didn't come.

At this point, civil disobedience on the issue is likely irresponsible.

<comment><USER31> > At this point, civil disobedience on the issue is likely irresponsible.

That might be true if it were only the US doing this, as the US provides other measures to fight this type of ridiculousness. It's not /only/ the US that's doing this sort of thing, it's just that the US is now doing it too. Other countries have been doing the same thing for years, and it is something we should fight against worldwide. I see nothing irresponsible about civil disobedience given that this is a global issue of border agents requiring travelers to unlock phones, turn over passwords and social media accounts, etc.

I am fortunate to be traveling on a US passport, so as you point out the consequences for my refusal to cooperate are probably not as dire for me as it would be for someone from some other countries. Nonetheless, standing up for your basic principles and human rights is not a fight that is comfortable. I freely acknowledge that many people who disobey at the border could have life altering consequences for doing so, but it's also not acceptable for these sorts of questions to be asked. It's none of the government's business, frankly. Every individual has to make that choice for themselves.

<comment><USER32> > It's not /only/ the US that's doing this sort of thing, it's just that the > US is now doing it too.

No. Not even China or North Korea is doing this.

Most countries do hold high some principles like constitutional values or civilian rights. Only the US does not.

> I am fortunate to be traveling on a US passport...

Why is this fortunate? You are labelled part of a dark society with no constitutional protections for civilians, military order and generally an outlaw who likes to bully all others. This is not fortunate, esp. if you want to establish trade relationships with people from civilized countries.

<comment><USER31> Clearly you're trolling, but in the interest of anyone else who might stumble upon this. The US is not even remotely the only country which asks for or requires information at the border they have no business asking for.

* Canada routinely asks for phone unlocks or laptop passwords at the border and has tried and prosecuted one of their own citizens for refusing to give up the information. [1]

* As the currently top-rated poster in this article thread points out, the Thai government asks for social media information at the border. [2]

* It's common in many countries now to ask for access to laptops or phones. This includes Australia, Canada, and the UK as well as the United States obviously.

* The UK has detained reporters [4] and seizes laptops from reporters [5] simply because they were encrypted and refused to turn over passwords. They've prosecuted and jailed 3 people for refusing adamantly to turn over their passwords, including a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who was a UK citizen. [6]

* Australian Customs requires you to declare pornography at the border, and if you don't or any pornography is discovered which violates the draconian obscenity laws there you can be detained and deported, or criminally charged. [7]

These are all "Western" nations I'm picking on here, but my point is that this isn't some special feature of the "evil US imperialist pigs" as you seem to think. This is a widespread and growing issue all over the world, including in places which most people would consider traditionally to be bastions of human rights. This doesn't even begin to discuss China, or as you mentioned North Korea, or my own experiences traveling in the Middle East and North Africa.

I'm very proud to be American, because I live in a society where despite how far we've fallen, the basic philosophy our country is founded on is one which respects and defends human rights including the right to privacy. It may require a lot of time or something disastrous happening in order to return things to a semblance of reason, but I have a lot more hope for the future of the United States than I do for nations with long histories of being violently oppressive.

Please spread your Pro-NK/China propaganda elsewhere.

[1] [http://www.cbc.ca/news/alain-philippon-phone-password- case-p...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/alain-philippon-phone-password-case-powers- of-border-agents-and-police-differ-1.2983841)

[2] [http://www.khaosodenglish.com/wp- content/uploads/pre/1460977...](http://www.khaosodenglish.com/wp- content/uploads/pre/14609779491460977993l.jpg)

[3] [http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/smartphone-laptop-searches- know...](http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/smartphone-laptop-searches-know-rights/)

[4] [http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23782782](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23782782)

[5] [https://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/2013_02_25/Outrageous-...](https://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/2013_02_25/Outrageous- searches-on-UK-border-or-how-to-avoid-having-your-laptop-seized-by-airport- authorities-if-you-are-taken-for-a-terrorist/)

[6] [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/)

[7] [http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/05/australian-customs- officia...](http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/05/australian-customs-officials- will-search-your-laptop-for-porn/)

<comment><USER33> Sigh, please spread your anti-China propaganda elsewhere. The reality is that going through immigration in China is no where near as draconian or intrusive as in the US and most other Western countries. You don't have people inquisiting you or going through your stuff. It's a quick and efficient and painless process. I do it about every 2 months. I do wish people with no real experience outside of their country stop listing to the massive and unjustified anti-Chinese propaganda the US spews. The reality on the ground couldn't be more different. You have much more to fear for a privacy standpoint entering the US than you do entering China.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The headline is misleading. I'd suggest changing the submission URL to use the original Politico post and their title: "U.S. government begins asking foreign travelers about social media".

Not that I approve of this policy. Maybe it's time to kill off my social media accounts.

<comment><USER35> I know someone (who will no longer travel to the US for conferences now) who had this shakedown attending a conference earlier this year. Not having a Twitter account immediately got him the third degree, because not having social media accounts is a red flag.

<comment><USER36> Could you elaborate further on the situation without compromising details on the person? I.e. Who gave them the third degree and under what circumstances were they asked for their twitter account ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Doesn't seem like a problem. The fake outrage about it is laughable. This is no different than any other kind of personal interview. They want to see evidence that you're a normal ass person, this isn't some sort of action to de-anonymize the internet, spy on your private whatever.

</comment><comment><USER32> The article has several mistakes:

The new ESTA has those fields: Facebook, Google+, Instagram, Linkedin, Youtube. No Twitter, no VKontakte.

To fill out those forms is optional, not mandatory.

</comment><comment><USER38> Thanks Obama?

</comment><comment><USER39> China doesn't do that. The US makes China look free and friendly.

<comment><USER40> A friend travelling in China was shocked to discover that the government there apparently shares your identification documents with private businesses. Her passport scan was on the screen in some random shop (IIRC she saw it on a screen behind the counter when she went to pay).

Also, when you apply for a travel visa in China, you have to tell the government exactly where you're travelling within China (e.g. x days in Beijing, x days in Shanghai), and who you're going to stay with (names, addresses). It's designed to prevent foreign journalists from digging up dirt, especially around election years (they increase the visa fee and make a double entry visa more awkward during these times, so journalists travelling between mainland China and places like Hong Kong will find it more difficult).

<comment><USER39> #1. Never heard of that, doubt it, but would be interested to see any evidence.

#2. Yes, they ask for that but they don't check. The AU, NZ, RU, UK and US authorities also routinely ask for a travel itinerary.

<comment><USER41> I've been to AU several times. UK and USA twice. In all cases I've travelled without telling my itinerary. Generally their border control people will only want to see edvidence of onward travel out of their country and/or back to home country and nothing more. I usually just present my ticket for the relevant mode of transport departing their country. Standard practice in most country I've travelled to. YMMV.

<comment><USER42> They do not check but they ask for it. You got off like most as they did not have a reason to ask further, however when you travel a lot to any of those, you still might get unlucky-ish. I for one got asked for detailed itenary and names of friends I will visit (because I was visiting friends) at the US and CA borders. And at the Thai border for that matter. But then again I travel a lot; when I go for business (once or twice a month) to UK (very strict even though I am a regular and from the EU) & China (where I never had any issues or questions asked), I often add on a trip somewhere else just for fun. The US is mostly quite easy, UK the hardest of all (very annoying).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> How many people complaining about this policy enthusiastically voted to elect the political party that has put into place this policy in 2008, 2012, and 2016, and insisted that even considering any alternative was a straight slide into fascism?

</comment><comment><USER44> Does this law also make it possible to prove a negative?

</comment><comment><USER45> Since when is Social Media participation a compulsory activity?

<comment><USER46> Since they raised $16 billion, making it the third-largest in U.S. history.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47>
        > started demanding

        > the request is currently
        > "optional."

Law of the excluded middle

<comment><USER48> Not sure what you're trying to accomplish in this comment, but you're wrong anyways. This is an example of contradiction (~(P/\~P)), not excluded middle (P\/~P)..

<comment><USER47> Go on then kiddo, explain how in this context they differ. I'll Paypal you $5 if your answer is both coherent and correct, and there's any evidence at all that you understand the difference _in this context_.

<comment><USER48> I'm at a loss as to how I could successfully explain the difference to someone who is clearly full of shit and doesn't himself understand the difference.

There's really nothing to explain: You quoted a contradiction. You then typed the _non sequitur_ "law of excluded middle"; I take it we were supposed to infer that the quote is false because of excluded middle. However, the quote is false because it is a contradiction, not because of excluded middle.

I can alter the quote so it is false because of excluded middle: > did not demand > the request is currently not "optional"

(Feel free to send BTC to 1L941R7SdDRGrVhgckCLABWuabQrniZTtP.)

<comment><USER12> Personal attacks are not welcome on HN. We ban accounts that post like this, so please don't post like this again. Comments here need to be civil and substantive.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I wouldn't tell them shit. I would tell them I have none. Prove me wrong brown shirts.

<comment><USER50>
      "Our analysis suggests that you do. You've been denied entry."
      "Can you show me the details?"
      "I'm sorry, we're not permitted to do that. The software just gives us an approve or deny response. Please move to the red line over there."
      "I am speaking at a conference in two days!"
      "I'm sorry sir. The decision cannot be reviewed, but you will be permitted to try again in two years."
      "Two years?!"
      "Please move to the red line, sir."

I enjoy visiting the US as a tourist (hiking, etc). I also tweet occasionally about politics, including US politics. A move towards analysis like this would concern me a lot, largely because I can see it operating as a black box and leaving no options for review.

<comment><USER25> > _A move towards analysis like this would concern me a lot_

I'm an American who has never left the country and probably never will apart from a planned cruise next year, and this scares the shit out of me. It's definitely a chilling effect, which I believe is the point. The US is about to become the very thing it ridicules North Korea for: isolationist, nationalist, and possibly fascist (the last based on Trump's picks for a racist filled far- right cabinet to go along with the Republican-controlled congress and his stated desire to have an all-Republican Supreme Court).

These are dark days ahead.

<comment><USER51> As a frequent internationally traveling U.S. citizen I understand your newfound reluctance to travel but in light of the NSA reveals this is mostly just theatre in my opinion. With how much data is already collected when you pass a U.S. Border this is more just formally doing what they likely already can do. When you cross you scan your passport several times, pose for a new picture of yourself for a database, present you itinerary on how you got to the border, and non-native citizens get 10-printed on site by digital fingerprint readers.

There's a very tiny leap to connect that to the already publicly available information, which likely already has a few thin threads connecting you.

I would suggest that you shouldn't let it intimidate you from traveling if you are lucky enough to be able to. The government will do what it will do regardless. If it assuages your fears slightly, all through the Ukraine crisis and the standoffs with turkey and with the U.S. over Syria, I traveled to and from Russia. One time I was held for extended questioning, but it was mostly corroborating my story I think.

The more paranoid side of me says this is to try to discourage people from travel and spending money outside the U.S., so the best "up yours, Uncle Sam" to me seems to be travel as much as possible. And while rogue or borish border guards do happen, most of my experiences with border guards are employees who wish they were doing absolutely anything else and just process as they're required.

It is a scary precedent happening, but nothing they're doing is new, it's just ou in the open now. So do as you would, but I'd not give them the satisfaction of me not traveling.

<comment><USER25> > _I would suggest that you shouldn 't let it intimidate you from traveling if > you are lucky enough to be able to._

My fear isn't in leaving the country, it's that they might find the slightest reason to not let me back in. Granted, I'm probably not even on the radar; I'm a boring person who isn't politically active and I don't hold any extreme views (that I'm aware of). However, I usually vote Libertarian, I'm nearly 40 years old and have never had a passport, and I have never drank alcohol, smoked, or taken illegal drugs my whole life.

I just wonder if I fit the profile of some sort of Leftist-Straightedge punk that would be stopped and questioned every time I'm near the border. I've read horror stories of journalists and other heavily scrutinized types who, despite being law abiding US citizens, were detained for days or even weeks at the border in the so called "Constitution-free zones".

Then again, I'm probably worried over absolutely nothing. My wife has traveled outside the US several times in her adult life with zero issues; we mostly hold the same views, mostly vote the same way, and she abstains from alcohol/drugs/tobacco as I do.

<comment><USER52>
      slightest reason to not let me back in

I think if you are a US citizen there is no way they can "not let" you back in, but they certainly can make your entry quite unpleasant.

I have been flying from and to the US about once a year in the past quarter of a century. It used to be that crossing the US border was tedious, long lines and all that (especially in airports like JFK) but otherwise efficient and professional. In recent years it changed, at least in my perception, to the effect that I feel the US border is less pleasant than the Russian border. At least as a citizen of both countries I am unlikely to not be able to enter either (exit is another matter).

DHS is a mess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> As far as I understand it, the requirement would be for foreign travelers to enter information about the social media that they use, but not their account passwords.

If you have a Twitter account and you provide that information (your Twitter handle), what practical difference does it make? Twitter posts are public by default. Anybody can see your Twitter posts; you don't even have to be a follower, so I don't quite see what difference it makes to tell the US government the name of your Twitter account.

Can somebody point out the error(s) in my thinking?

<comment><USER8> A lot of people on Twitter don't associate their twitter handle with their real name. That anonymity provides them safe haven to say things they might not say in public.

Plus Twitter is just one social media platform. Reddit, 4Chan, Facebook, Hacker News, and so on are also considered social media. And once this becomes mandatory you risk getting in trouble for neglecting to provide some or all. Plus once they're tied to your real life identity they can use that information indefinitely.

As an aside, I find it ironic all the people posting from anonymous accounts "why is this a big deal?" Why do you have anonymous accounts if you feel that way? Hugely hypocritical.

<comment><USER28> I'm sure there's an interpretation under which Gmail is a social media platform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> The upside here is that these are the sorts of measures that will allow visa- free travel to continue.

Ultimately, many countries that were once zero-risk considerations for entry are becoming riskier. The world is changing, people are migrating away from war in the middle east and other places and the US governments policy is to deny people deemed risky entry. Other countries require visas to deal with this sort of thing. US citizens of Pakistani origin need to jump through hoops to get an Indian visa, for example. That's far more intrusive and harmful.

It's intrusive, but why should your virtual identity be different than your physical identity?

<comment><USER8> > It's intrusive, but why should your virtual identity be different than your > physical identity?

Said the person posting from an anonymous account. Why is this online identity not tied to your physical one? What is your name/street address/mother's maiden name/email addresses? I don't really want the answer, I just want to point out the hypocrisy.

Plus there's no evidence that these measures make the US safer, least of all because a "bad guy" will be ready with fake clean accounts. It will only catch low level naughtiness and most of that will be false positives anyway (e.g. you made a joke ten years ago that is going to be misinterpreted on purpose).

Ultimately this kind of behaviour at the US's borders only harms tourism/business. Why would I go to a US trade conference when I could go to China or Europe instead and get treated far better? Why would I start a business in the US when nobody wants to travel there?

But Americans will just sit in their little bubble and continue to trade other people's privacy for minor and impossible to prove increases in security. America has become a snivelly coward of a country.

<comment><USER54> If I was asked for my HN handle, I'd respond truthfully. Lying to a Federal law official is a felony in the US and if not a crime a very bad idea everywhere else.

There's a lot of outrage and knee-jerk outrage and down-voting, but nobody has meaningfully answered the question I posed. People who have committed lone- wolf terrorist attacks have voluntarily and publicly posted their intention to do so on social media. It's a thing. Why is that irrelevant to a customs official?

If you try to enter Canada as a US Citizen with a 20 year old DUI conviction, you'll be barred for entry without a visa-like process. Why is that acceptable?</comment></comment></comment>