Filmmakers Sue State Department Over Social Media Surveillance Rules (theverge.com) 20
A group of filmmakers have sued the State Department for making visa applicants hand over details about their social media accounts. "The lawsuit argues that the requirement unconstitutionally discourages applicants from speaking online -- and, conversely, discourages people who post political speech from trying to enter the U.S.," reports The Verge. From the report: This lawsuit, filed by the Doc Society and the International Documentary Association, challenges the decision on First Amendment grounds. It calls the registration system "the cornerstone of a far reaching digital surveillance regime" that makes would-be visitors provide "effectively a live database of their personal, creative, and political activities online" -- which the government can monitor at any time, long after the application process has been completed. Applicants must even disclose accounts that they use pseudonymously, and if U.S. authorities fail to keep that information secure, it could potentially endanger people who are trying to avoid censorship from a repressive foreign government.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit say that some non-U.S. members have begun deleting social media content or stopped expressing themselves online because they're afraid it will complicate their ability to enter the U.S. Others have decided to stop working in the country because they don't want to reveal their social media accounts. "The Registration Requirement enables the government to compile a database of millions of people's speech and associations, which it can cross-reference to glean more information about any given visa applicant," warns the suit. And "the government's indefinite retention of information collected through the Registration Requirement further exacerbates the requirement's chilling effect because it facilitates surveillance into the future."
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit say that some non-U.S. members have begun deleting social media content or stopped expressing themselves online because they're afraid it will complicate their ability to enter the U.S. Others have decided to stop working in the country because they don't want to reveal their social media accounts. "The Registration Requirement enables the government to compile a database of millions of people's speech and associations, which it can cross-reference to glean more information about any given visa applicant," warns the suit. And "the government's indefinite retention of information collected through the Registration Requirement further exacerbates the requirement's chilling effect because it facilitates surveillance into the future."
The US is a very authoritarian country (Score:2)
Too bad the territory is so beautiful.
The people are nice, but they are careless and let bad people do bad things
Re: (Score:2)
One question IS bothering me a bit, it seems this suit is intent on having the US respect 1st amemendment rights of non-US citizens that are outside of our borders too?
I mean, until they pass through customs, I believe legally they haven't yet entered the country, right?
To me, that seems to open up a whole larger kettle of fish on the US having to extend all US Constitutional rights to non-US
Re: (Score:2)
I wish everyone didn't get this wrong. US Constitutional rights are NOT granted by the government. The Bill of Rights lists some rights you, me, and everyone is recognized to have - granted to us by our creator - that we have simply because we are people.
They are not granted to us by the government - we already have them.
What the US Constitution says is that the US government is not allowed to trample on any of them, by law or deed.
So yes, that applies to non US citizens too. When they are beyond our bor
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you fully, I often state this myself.
I disagree with you on this.
I don't think the US government has to recognize or respect the
Re: (Score:2)
Respectfully, can you show me where, in the Constitution, it gives the US government any authority or license to NOT respect peoples rights - the ones we are already born with, none granted to us by the government - outside of our borders? It has the power to regulate trade, impose tariffs and duties, and defend against foreign aggression. And IIRC, that's it.
Re: (Score:1)
What people are failing to understand is that the constitution applies to American authority over all people, in or outside the border.
It will be thrown out at the first hearing (Score:2)
The same should happen here, and after the IDA conference, anyone who was d
Re:It will be thrown out at the first hearing (Score:5, Insightful)
> "I'm worried about speaking for fear of what the government will do" has never been a valid complaint before
Tell that to East Germans that lived under the Stasi.
We've never had this level of technological amplification of surveillance before. We now have 'data driven chilling effects', and we are seeing politicians becoming aware of these subtle, 'second order' effects on free speech. I know because I'm organizing a small conference on the subject in januari which will mostly be visited by politicians. So even if it's not against the law right now, it is being recognized as a serious issue. Laws can be made.
One of the topics will be https://www.socialcooling.com/ [socialcooling.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain why you believe it is wrong for a country to look into the what someone has publicly said online?
Would you feel the same way if someone was denied a visa because someone with the same name had been posting about how he wants to kill Americans?
What would your reaction be if a foreign nationals was given a visa, then committed a violent crime or a terrorist act in the U
Re: (Score:2)
Except this isn't about people living in the U.S. This is about foreign nationals who are seeking visa to enter the U.S.
The US banned Cat Stevens for his political beliefs.
It was "legal", but immoral and wrong.
What would your reaction be if a foreign nationals was given a visa, then committed a violent crime or a terrorist act in the U.S. and was later found to have social media full of allusions to committed violent crimes he had committed and/or hate for America and Americans?
So Cat Stevens being banned for life because of political reasons, not violence or terrorism, is perfectly fine, so long as someday they might once catch an actual terrorist?
The far-right Conservatives and near-right liberals agree on almost every topic. The only question is where to draw the line. Both would keep out a terrorist with criminal convictions. Both would allow in a white person from a friendly country
Remind me again... (Score:1)
Re: It will be thrown out at the first hearing (Score:1)
You will never know if you were refused entry because of social media post or other reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HOWEVER, while I am inclined to agree with you, the Court has not.
It cannot stand (Score:1)
A good reason (Score:2)
This is a good reason to have social media that can't be 100% verified to be tied back to you.
I don't count Reddit, Slashdot, etc or any other forums where you can use a pseudonym.
Anyone who may _think_ it is me cannot _verify_ that it is me.
Plausible deniability and all that.
If a platform wants my real name to post? Pass.
Shouldn't that headline read (Score:2)
What with them all being makers of documentaries.
Enter the USA (Score:1)
First Amendment grounds? Thats not going to stop questions and searches when entering the USA...