Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Social Networks Communications Media Privacy The Internet United States Technology Your Rights Online

Homeland Security Plans To Collect Immigrants' Social Media Information (fortune.com) 197

The Department of Homeland Security plans to expand the files it collects on immigrants, as well as some citizens, by including more online data -- most notably search results and social media information -- about each individual. The plan is set out in the Federal Register, where the government publishes forthcoming regulations. A final version is set to go into effect on Oct. 18. Fortune reports: The plan, reported by BuzzFeed, is notable partly because it permits the government to amass information not only about recent immigrants, but also on green card holders and naturalized Americans as well. The proposal to collect social media data is set out in a part of the draft regulation that describes expanding the content of so-called "Alien Files," which serve as detailed profiles of individual immigrants, and are used by everyone from border agents to judges. Here is the relevant portion: "The Department of Homeland Security, therefore, is updating the [file process] to ... (5) expand the categories of records to include the following: country of nationality; country of residence; the USCIS Online Account Number; social media handles, aliases, associated identifiable information, and search results."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Homeland Security Plans To Collect Immigrants' Social Media Information

Comments Filter:
  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Thursday September 28, 2017 @12:18AM (#55267727) Journal

    as well as some citizens

    I like how they add that innocent little phrase. "...as well as some citizens".

    If you're a naturalized citizen, you're as much of a citizen as the Founding Fathers. Don't let anyone tell you different. Unlike citizens that were born here, you've proven that you can actually pass a civics test. You belong here. You have all the rights of any American.

    • by emag ( 4640 )

      as well as some citizens

      I like how they add that innocent little phrase. "...as well as some citizens".

      If you're a naturalized citizen, you're as much of a citizen as the Founding Fathers. Don't let anyone tell you different. Unlike citizens that were born here, you've proven that you can actually pass a civics test. You belong here. You have all the rights of any American.

      I'd like to think that, I really would. The wording, however, indicates otherwise. I hope that at least that part dies quickly under a flurry of lawsuits over Constitutional grounds.

      • What part of the Constitution says the government can't retain records after you gain citizenship? It might help to realize that those aren't the new words, that part has been there since 1945 and isn't controversial. You're just jumping to wild conclusions prior to reading enough of the words to understand what the fuck that section even says.

        • by hord ( 5016115 )

          The 10th amendment.

              "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

          What gives the government the "right" to do anything? Our "rights" are supposed to be encoded in our flesh. Not in documents.

        • What part of the Constitution says the government can't retain records after you gain citizenship?

          The better question is, what part of the Constitution says the federal government CAN gather and keep such records.

          Remember, the constitution is not there to grant rights to the people...people are BORN with rights.

          The constitution is there to list the limited, enumerated powers, privileges and responsibilities that the Federal Government has.

          • You're just burbling words out but you don't actually say anything. If you think there is a Constitutional problem, you need to be able to say what that problem is. If the Constitution doesn't address it at all, that means there is no problem.

            What part of the Constitution implies in any way that government records with your name must be destroyed if you're a citizen? How would we even have elections? How would people born on US Territories or military installations outside of a US State even get birth docum

            • That's not how it works. Constitution grants powers to the federal government. If there's no grant of power to do X, then federal government can't do X.

              • No, that is just niche propaganda you misunderstood. The Constitution grants Executive, Legislative, and Legal powers. That already covers the full range of powers. Clue up.

                • Constitution grants specific executive, legislative and judicial powers (I have no idea what "legal powers" are, except as a synonym for "legislative") to the federal government. It furthermore specifically states:

                  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

                  • You better tell it to the Solicitor General because he'll be arguing this week at the Court that the Executive was granted expansive powers over general subjects.

                    You also might want to check with some legal websites instead of just political ones, so you can find out what the propaganda means, because here you're way off.

                    The Constitution grants lots of powers, not all of them even clearly worded enough for it to be possible that they're "specific." I recommend actually reading it instead of just reading pro

        • What part of the Constitution says the government can't retain records after you gain citizenship?

          Indeed. One would presume that the government can't acquire new information due to the Fourth Amendment, so one key problem is then that the information retained is stale, and any mistakes are not corrected.

          • Of course it is stale, in the same way your birth certificate is stale. It is a historical record that would only be used in case it is relevant to some controversy.

            • I would assume that "search results" are not as carefully curated as birth certificates.

              • You assume wrong.

                The care used in the curation is given to the entire record-keeping system used. Federal records are carefully curated.

                If you're curating one column differently from the rest of the database, or one page in a folder differently from the rest, the whole collection of data is only as carefully kept as the least carefully kept page. That is just a reality of data storage.

      • The thing is, they are already collecting everybody's everything. Or they can get it with a quick note to Facebook. what they are doing now is just formalizing it somewhat. But make no mistake, this goes on secretly all the time. It is unconstitutional but it's not being challenged or it's existence even acknowledged. Anyone who talks about it ends up hiding in Moscow or an embassy.
    • by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Thursday September 28, 2017 @01:17AM (#55267837) Homepage

      You misunderstood. Some citizens have an A-file, is what that means. There is no requirement in the Constitution for the government to throw out all records about you if you become a citizen.

      What this does has nothing to do with that. It was already true that an immigrant has an A-file, where the records relating to their immigration are kept. And also that citizens who sponsor immigrants also have a file in the same system, as do translators and other professionals who work with immigrants during the process.

      What this does is add "social medial handles" to the list of examples of types of alias, creates a place in the database for search results relating to social media. When somebody is asking to move here, why wouldn't that be part of their background check? Why wouldn't social media handles be a type of alias? They're not doing a background check on the US citizen who is sponsoring an immigrant, they're doing the checks on the immigrant. Why wouldn't there be checks? Why wouldn't the database have a slot for the data?

      • So what happens to those who refuse to hand them over? Am I not good enough for America just because I don't use Facebook?

        • by gtall ( 79522 )

          Yes, it means you are suspect because DHS will assume you are lying and sneakily posting messages to Twitter claiming el Presidente Tweetie's next tweet will accuse Kimmy of being a "poopyhead".

        • You don't seem to comprehend what a list of aliases is.

          On my wife's immigration application, she had to list her maiden name as an alias.

          On my application for her to receive immigration benefits based on my citizenship, I didn't list any aliases because my name didn't change when we were married.

          If my father was filling out that sort of form, he'd have to list an alias because he's often completed official paperwork using the colloquial nickname for actual legal name.

          There is no issue about having aliases,

      • When somebody is asking to move here, why wouldn't that be part of their background check?

        A citizen is not "asking to move here". They've been here. Even a naturalized citizen has lived in this country for years, passed more stringent background checks than President Trump, and went through a process that almost no native-born US citizen could pass.

        They're not asking to be here. They're here and no double-standard should apply to them.

        • by arth1 ( 260657 )

          A citizen is not "asking to move here". They've been here.

          Not necessarily. There are citizens who has never been to the US, including residents of US Territories, and children of American citizens born on foreign soil.

        • There is no double-standard, just a lack of comprehension on your part. I'd say "reading comprehension" except that you obviously didn't read about what the changes are.

          A naturalized US Citizen, by definition, first applied to be a Resident Alien, also known as an immigrant. As part of that process, they filled out various applications. On those applications are included questions including a required list of all aliases.

          US citizens who apply to have relatives receive immigration benefits also have to list

    • Almost... You can't become President (yet).

    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      Hmmm...maybe we should have civics tests for everyone in order to be a citizen, to be repeated every 5 years in case they've forgotten, and they end upon retirement.

      I can hear the gnashing of teeth by Conservatives and Libertards and Liberals right now. Conservatives: How dare you accuse me of being unamerican. Libertards: I am free to be stupid and not know how the Constitution works. Liberals: this is an attempt to suppress voting of minorities and poor people.

    • as well as some citizens

      I like how they add that innocent little phrase. "...as well as some citizens".

      If you're a naturalized citizen, you're as much of a citizen as the Founding Fathers. Don't let anyone tell you different. Unlike citizens that were born here, you've proven that you can actually pass a civics test. You belong here. You have all the rights of any American.

      "You have all the rights of any American".

      I like how you add that little innocent phrase as if it actually still means anything anymore...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Chrisq ( 894406 )

      If you're a naturalized citizen, you're as much of a citizen as the Founding Fathers. Don't let anyone tell you different.

      Except for those who say that their allegiance is to Islam and not America, and that they don't recognise the courts, rights of women, or anything else not based on "god's" law.

      • If you're a naturalized citizen, you're as much of a citizen as the Founding Fathers. Don't let anyone tell you different.

        Except for those who say that their allegiance is to Yahwe and not America, and that they don't recognise the courts, rights of women, or anything else not based on "god's" law.

        FTFY

    • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

      You are American by your hopes and dreams, not by where you where born..

      • Ahh, Universal Americanism. Next thing you'll tell me is that Pax Americana should be instituted de jure, rather than left as the de facto state of the world. Oh wait, that's "White Supremacy", LOL.

        Unite the world under the Constitution of the United States of America, it's the unstated goal of Globalism anyway. If it's not done with Pax Americana, you can expect anti-white pogroms and other nasty business as the anti-western UN types take control.

        The US, and the West in general, are in a tricky position

        • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

          By all means I'll spare you the nazi comparisons, and just call you what you are. A god damn moron.

    • as well as some citizens

      I like how they add that innocent little phrase. "...as well as some citizens".

      If you're a naturalized citizen, you're as much of a citizen as the Founding Fathers. Don't let anyone tell you different. Unlike citizens that were born here, you've proven that you can actually pass a civics test. You belong here. You have all the rights of any American.

      This. This all day.

    • by q4Fry ( 1322209 )

      as well as some citizens

      I like how they add that innocent little phrase. "...as well as some citizens".

      This appears to be a rather broad category of people (solicitors, doctors, interpreters, and the like) who provide professional services to INA individuals and I quote: [federalregister.gov]

      Relatives and associates of any of the individuals listed above who are subject to the INA;

      There's a funny question I have about how that's interpreted. Does the final clause link to the "individuals listed above or does it link to the "relatives and associates?" Depending on the law's reading, this could be most of the USA and a fair number of everyone who has ever known a person who moved there.

      Did your uncle marry someone who w

      • Depending on the law's reading, this could be most of the USA and a fair number of everyone who has ever known a person who moved there.

        Kevin Bacon's file must be huge.

  • by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Thursday September 28, 2017 @12:19AM (#55267731)

    Before people go losing their minds again about how Trump is a xenophobic racist, please have a look at this Slashdot article from 15 months ago:

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/06/28/005202/us-customs-wants-to-know-travelers-social-media-account-names [slashdot.org]

    You will note that it was during the Obama administration. I am not making a value judgment on the practice, I am just pointing out that the previous administration did or tried to do something substantially similar.

    • by emag ( 4640 ) <slashdot AT gurski DOT org> on Thursday September 28, 2017 @12:41AM (#55267769) Homepage
      That didn't apply to naturalized citizens. This new one does. Naturalized citizens are now second class citizens.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

        That didn't apply to naturalized citizens. This new one does. Naturalized citizens are now second class citizens.

        They are second class citizens. A naturalized citizen is a person who was born to illegal immigrants. They are second class citizens already because they are not eligible to become President or Vice-President. We already have restrictions for these folks. Why all of the sudden right now are your concerned about naturalized citizens rights? If you want to cry discrimination, then it's been going on the whole time but it's only now that you're interested apparently.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          People were complaining that naturalized citizens couldn't become president or VP, it just wasn't a very urgent issue since it only affected one or two people who might ever have a chance of reaching that level.

          This affects millions of people and worse than simply being denied a particular job, it actively harms them.

          • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

            This affects millions of people and worse than simply being denied a particular job, it actively harms them.

            Please describe in more detail what "it actively harms them" means otherwise I think we can safely assume you're making an irrational appeal to emotion aka hyperbole.

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Knowingly having your social media accounts monitored and/or periodically checked creates a chilling effect. It may discourage people from discussing certain things, or even from passing through the US border.

              You know, all the usual reasons why giving border staff unlimited power to e-molest people is a bad idea.

              • Knowingly having your social media accounts monitored and/or periodically checked creates a chilling effect. It may discourage people from discussing certain things, or even from passing through the US border.

                Yet ANOTHER reason not to be on Facebook.....or other 'social media'....

                :)

                • by emag ( 4640 )
                  By the DHS definition, /. *is* social media. So is any site you log in to, like Reddit, HN, Digg (does anyone still use that?!), G+, or any web forum (Ford Explorer Owners, Ridgeline Owners, Tropical Fish Keepers, Dog Owners, etc).
                  • By the DHS definition, /. *is* social media.

                    Hmm...even the Feds have to be smart enough to realize that slashdot is anything but social.

                    ;)

          • by emag ( 4640 )
            Aside from the "Demolition Man" Schwarzenegger Amendment, I've never given a single flying fsck about being President or VP. This monitoring is... I don't even have the words for it. Especially considering where I currently work.
        • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Thursday September 28, 2017 @07:02AM (#55268489) Journal

          A naturalized citizen is a person who was born to illegal immigrants.

          Completely false! A naturalized is a legal immigrant who has become a citizen. Someone born here regardless of their citizenship parents is citizen and could be president.

        • by emag ( 4640 )
          This is probably the most ignorant post I've managed to read yet. My mother was from Maine, my father from Montreal. I was born in Canada, moved in 1979, became a permanent resident at age 4. Became a naturalized citizen at age 22. "Illegal" doesn't even enter into the conversation, you ignorant fuck. Learn actual immigration laws before passing judgement.
    • by deviated_prevert ( 1146403 ) on Thursday September 28, 2017 @12:42AM (#55267773) Journal

      Before people go losing their minds again about how Trump is a xenophobic racist, please have a look at this Slashdot article from 15 months ago:

      https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/06/28/005202/us-customs-wants-to-know-travelers-social-media-account-names [slashdot.org]

      You will note that it was during the Obama administration. I am not making a value judgment on the practice, I am just pointing out that the previous administration did or tried to do something substantially similar.

      The NSA seems to be a branch of government that does not answer to the executive office unless they fuck up. Same reason why several presidents tried to reign in the CIA and even before that the FBI under Hoover. This is the problem with civil servants who achieve too great a level of power independent of the executive branch and therefore can do shit behind the back of everybody. The CIA backing the crazy Cubans is one example of this level of independent action backfiring on presidents all the way back to when Kennedy took over from Eisanhoover and had to, somewhat reluctantly I might add, approve the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Which was a huge CIA intelligence screw up too say the least.

      It took until Regan for the executive branch to realize that the level of drug financing of bad guys for guns and troops by the CIA was going to create huge PR problems in the future when the public found out the truth. So Regan reigned in the CIA to an extent, but he had a hell of a time doing it and never really succeeded.

      The problems with the covert actions NSA/CIA are starting to show their ugly head, Obama had to keep tight lipped even when the idiots bugged Angela Merkel. Though it would be interesting to see what they got out of that little job. All and all it is a problem for any president even Lord Trump is going to have trouble with what they do behind his back perhaps even to him and his family if he tries to reign them in.

  • by emag ( 4640 ) <slashdot AT gurski DOT org> on Thursday September 28, 2017 @12:27AM (#55267743) Homepage

    The most disturbing part of this is that permanent residents and naturalized citizens are subject to these changes too. I can almost see how permanent residents should be subject to this. What I can't see is how naturalized citizens are. They've had to renounce their former citizenship and swear an oath to the United States...

    How do I know? I spent 18 years as a permanent resident in the US. I've spent the last 19 years and 11 months as a naturalized citizen. To my understanding, the only limit on naturalized vs natural born citizenship is that a naturalized citizen can't be President. (I'm OK with that, until the "Demolition Man"'s predicted Schwarzenegger Amendment happens.) Since becoming a "citizen" (I can no longer not quote it), I've voted in every election, I've gladly served jury duty, I've done everything expected of me. (Just living here, even before, I paid taxes and had an SSN... go figure)

    This change makes naturalized citizens a de facto second class of citizen. The ironic part is that most of those nearly-20 years of being a "citizen", I've been a contractor to multiple US government agencies, including the DoD, NASA, and NIH. I've had Public Trust clearances, access to information most wouldn't, etc.

    What I've learned in the past couple days is this...

    Natural born citizens good, Naturalized citizens bad...

    (apparently /. doesn't respect any type of overstrike... Imagine an overstrike on "Four legs" and "Two legs" on the above)

    • I'm sorry for how the country is treating you, emag. I want you here and will fight for your rights as I would my own.
      • by emag ( 4640 )

        Honestly, I think I'm going to land on my feet. I'm white, male, heterosexual, no accent (38 of 42 years here), and most friends and coworkers literally had *no* idea I wasn't born here until I started bitching about this. If anything, spend your efforts on all the *other* naturalized citizens who have to overcome things like skin color, accents, etc. They're just as much citizens as me. We're *all* citizens, and should stand together. The fact my parents came from a primarily white country (with no accents

  • A new law just passed, authorizing police to ask for all and everything "electronic" identifier you have.
    Forget one and risk 3 years in jail and a 45 000 € (close to $53 000) fine.
    Link : https://www.nextinpact.com/new... [nextinpact.com] (may be pay-walled)

    Of course, this can only happen when you are suspected of communism. Oh, sorry, I mean terrorism.

    Permanent exception state is coming so is the Orwellian France. Please, send UN troops to free the people !

    • Don't whine for blue helmets, you have the EU to spank them if they were truly naughty.

      But you're probably just lying.

  • by pablo_max ( 626328 ) on Thursday September 28, 2017 @12:52AM (#55267791)

    I was, no doubt like many fellow /.'s a child of the 70's/80's. After hearing about the posted story a couple of days ago, I was trying to remember back to my youth.
    Was America like when I was young? Was our government actively and openly doing things contrary to the interests of her people?
    Perhaps I wear the rose colored glasses of those who look upon the past, but I don't recall that being he case.
    Sure, we still had a ton of racist. Especially where I grew up in "the valley". But America, in general term, was something to look up to.
    I had many pen pals from Europe as a child. Every one of them expressed the sentiment of wanting some day to go to America since so many wonderful things were happening there. Amazing technology, exciting movies and television shows, a government who protects smaller countries from bullies and all the rest of it.
    One of the pen pals is living in America. He got a green card in the green card lottery. Clever guy. Got his doctorate in applied physics. He has been in the US, geez... 12 years now. During our last phone call, he mentioned he was starting to look for something back in Germany. Things, as he put it, are just not the same.

    It makes me sad to think about the direction our country is headed. A government given to more and more excess, a population more and more introverted and xenophobic. The stead rise of populism and religious extremism.

    Even on this forum, which should be normally "thinking people" you can see it. People willing to defend every insane thing the government does with "well Bush did it first" or Obama did it first". People who treat their political party like their favorite sports team or even like a religion. It's insane!
    Do people truly believe that any party gives a single fuck about them? Because they don't. Both parties care about 1 thing. Power. Staying in power and expanding their power. Nothing else.

    So tell me follow /.'s, how the fuck did we get here?

    • by coastwalker ( 307620 ) <acoastwalker&hotmail,com> on Thursday September 28, 2017 @01:30AM (#55267863) Homepage

      Personally I blame the ending of the cold war and the passage of time. Now America has no need to even pretend to the moral high ground and it can adopt behaviour such as mass surveilance which used to be thought to be tôtalitarian. Also most of the people who were alive to see the horror of fascism in Europe are gone now and we have a president who openly supports Nazis because they are part of his base. The world has indeed gone mad.

      • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

        Now America has no need to even pretend to the moral high ground and it can adopt behaviour such as mass surveilance which used to be thought to be tôtalitarian.

        The guy you're looking for that wanted what you're describing is George W. Bush. He wanted the "Total Information Awareness" program [wikipedia.org] in a knee-jerk response to 9/11. It got such backlash that it was cutely renamed to "Terrorism Information Awareness". If the United States was going to do that, it would have done it by now.

      • Perhaps the end of the cold war has a lot to do with it. Truthfully, I have no idea.

        I suspect a lot of the current issues stem from the increase in difficultly of obtaining secondary education coupled with the decrease in quality for primary education.
        There is a growing rift between the educated and the under educated. Indeed, there is a growing tread of people taking pride in their under-education to the point of scorning those who have gone to university.
        I believe this is part of "the plan". I believe tha

      • The end of the cold war also led to runaway inequality, with no credible communist rival putting political pressure on the US to keep inequality in check, and other Western countries have let themselves go in turn (most recently Germany).

    • For me, instead of day-dreaming I just clicked the link to the Federal Register, read the words, discovered the changes are small and not at all scary, and only relate to immigration applicants, and moved on to thinking about the real problems facing immigrants.

      Don't just hear people tell you that something is scary and be scared without any verification. Especially when you only have to comprehend a couple thousand words in order to know for yourself if there is anything to be scared of.

      You never looked up

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by istartedi ( 132515 )

      Some things have changed, some haven't. The government was *always* abusing people both here and abroad. The Internet just makes it easier to hear about things, and easier to engage in different kinds of abuse. Tuskeegee experiment, MK ultra, CIA meddling overseas, FBI files on people, McCarthyism, eugenics, etc. All that stuff took place a long time ago in the America that people looked up to. It was easier to hide back then.

      That said, it does seem like there's something more than simply the removal o

    • Fear politics, fake victims, and a media willing to blow everything out of proportion for the sake of fearful eyeballs. Fear politics on both sides - Obama's going to take your guns, the Republicans are destroying the middle class, murdering immigrants are going to take your jobs, climate change is going to kill us all, killer storms, terrorists, crumbling infrastructure, etc., etc., etc.

      To varying degrees, all of these things have grains of truth to them. But what we lack is a press that has the ba

    • Identity politics. I was a child of the early 80s, and I grew up with the impression that all people were equal, and that's the society we strived for. I'd like to think my generation largely achieved that.. it's ridiculous to think any significant percentage of my age range (30-40) supports white supremacist views anymore.

      But alas, the newer generation supports divisive politics so much, by mandating that all sorts of people are in special 'victim' classes. Using obscene names like racist to denounce
    • The end of the Cold War is part of it, but to be honest the seeds were planted before that and the ball started rolling in the aftermath of Watergate. It was somewhere around the 1970s that a phase change happened.

      Between the end of WW2 and the 70s, society was optimistic. The leader who got elected was the one who could give us the greatest vision. Science, technology, and the new economy would make everyone's lives better. Everyone would get a piece of the pie.

      After that, society became pessimistic. Scien

  • by no-body ( 127863 ) on Thursday September 28, 2017 @01:25AM (#55267853)

    why I don't use social media - I just don't like being snooped, scanned, evaluated and judged by some unknown mechanisms which, excuse me, reminds me a lot of totalitarian systems where secrete files are kept, people in your neighborhood block have something like a block-ward looking after your activities, everyone suspects somebody and suspects to be suspected.

    We have been there (in other countries), done that (in other countries) and now - it's happening under the umbrella of a free country which more and more turns into a farce of the original idea.

    • by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      why I don't use social media - I just don't like being snooped, scanned, evaluated and judged by some unknown mechanisms which, excuse me, reminds me a lot of totalitarian systems where secrete files are kept, people in your neighborhood block have something like a block-ward looking after your activities, everyone suspects somebody and suspects to be suspected.

      Next step:
      They don't believe you when you say you don't use social media, and lock you up for contempt.

      Leading to:
      It's illegal to not actively use social media, and voluntarily report about your daily activities for their overseers to monitor for deviation from expected behaviors.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Hey, guy.

      You just used a form of social media to post that you don't use social media. You evendid it from a logged-on account. Do you really think the operators of /. are paragons of integrity who will resist divulging identities if it is demanded of them? You seriously don't think this site is heavily monitored?

      Don't fool yourself.

      • by no-body ( 127863 )

        Hey, guy.

        You just used a form of social media to post that you don't use social media. You evendid it from a logged-on account. Do you really think the operators of /. are paragons of integrity who will resist divulging identities if it is demanded of them? You seriously don't think this site is heavily monitored?

        Don't fool yourself.

        Hey - look who is posting.....

    • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

      why I don't use social media - I just don't like being snooped, scanned, evaluated and judged by some unknown mechanisms which, excuse me, reminds me a lot of totalitarian systems where secrete files are kept, people in your neighborhood block have something like a block-ward looking after your activities, everyone suspects somebody and suspects to be suspected.

      Except when you say "social media" it has nothing to do with the government. Facebook is already tracking you and advertisers and marketing agencies are as well. They are far more sinister. Where is your protest against that?

  • by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Thursday September 28, 2017 @01:31AM (#55267865)
    Inquiring minds would like to know....
  • No this doesn't say that DHS will keep tabs on naturalized citizens (that is part of NSA black ops). All it says is that online information collected during the naturalization process will be kept on file as the rest of the collected information. The reason this is done is because if you lied on your naturalization application your citizenship can be revoked by a court
    • by emag ( 4640 )
      No, you're reading it incorrectly. It very clearly calls out naturalized citizens as still being subject to these guidelines.
      • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

        The law or the "media narrative". There's a big difference.

        Even before the election you could be pretty much certain any situation you had personal knowledge of was vastly different than how it was being portrayed in the media. Different sources usually present different pieces of the "puzzle" or contradict each other. Sometimes the same source will contradict itself.

        You don't even have to be the "boot on the ground" to find the nonsense.

  • First! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by houghi ( 78078 ) on Thursday September 28, 2017 @03:44AM (#55268129)

    First they came for the immigrants, but I do not do anything, because I am not an immigrant.

"The Street finds its own uses for technology." -- William Gibson

Working...