Homeland Security passed on plan to vet visa applicants’ social media

[Vyxn]

Top officials at the Department of Homeland Security considered a specific policy to strengthen security screenings for foreign visa applicants’ social media accounts, but the proposal was ultimately not adopted, according to an internal department memo obtained by MSNBC.

While the U.S. visa screening process does not include formal vetting of social media accounts, the memo proposed the Obama administration “authorize” customs officials to “access social networking sites” to vet applicants. Such vetting could help catch applicants bent on fraud, crime or “national security” risks, the memo stated.

The federal government considered that policy, according to a former senior official in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), but officials passed on it in 2011.

RELATED: House tightens controls on visa-free travel to US

“I thought it was a done deal,” said the former official, who would only speak anonymously about internal security discussions.

The memo went through roughly a year of revisions with agency lawyers, privacy officers and senior staff, the official added, and was about it to be published as policy – but was then halted by senior officials.

“It’s unusual to go through the circulation process and revisions,” the official said, and then have a policy “not happen.”

“We are at war now,” the official added, “and we need all the tools we can get.”

The three-page memo, now published for the first time exclusively by MSNBC, outlines how officials could use social media to vet visa applicants abroad and inside the United States. MSNBC is publishing the internal memo, marked “law enforcement sensitive,” with redactions for selected operational details.

DHS officials did not dispute the internal memo when asked about it, but emphasized more recent efforts to vet social media accounts.

“The Department is actively considering additional ways to incorporate the use of social media review” for vetting, spokeswoman Marsha Catron told MSNBC, noting that the department began “three pilot programs” for that kind of vetting over the past year.

She said that officials must also ensure any vetting follows “current law and appropriately takes into account civil rights and civil liberties and privacy protections.”

Many in Congress are trying to change current law, arguing vetting should be more robust.

There has been especially harsh criticism from Republicans, but the issue has also cut across partisan lines since the San Bernardino attacks, with Democratic senators calling for a “more rigorous screening process” this week.

Asked about reports of a DHS decision to scuttle the 2011 proposal, several security experts said that was a mistake.

“The Internet is a treasure trove of intelligence gathering,” said former federal prosecutor Michael Wildes. “It’s shocking that this intelligence wasn’t utilized.”

Wildes, an immigration law expert, told MSNBC that if DHS did spike this proposal years ago, it reflects a “blind spot” for public safety.

As for potential privacy concerns, terrorism expert David Schanzer said that should not even be an issue for social media.

“Social media is on an open forum,” he said. “I don’t see the logic of not using something that’s already in the public space.”

Schanzer, who directs a terror and homeland security program at Duke University, also argued that visa applicants “don’t have constitutional rights” protecting their information, so he was especially “surprised” the DHS would reject the proposal. Some customs officials caution, however, that the legal rules can be complex, since screening also affects residents who are inside the U.S. and have various legal protections.

Apart from what’s legally allowed, other security experts said it would be tactically unfeasible to screen every visa applicant’s digital presence.

“Even a cursory look at the social media accounts belonging to the millions of visa applicants would bring the entire system to a halt,” according to a new briefing paper by the Soufan Group, a security and intelligence company. Still, the briefing noted that “governments will need to develop some practical way to incorporate” social media intelligence “into a workable vetting system.”

Current U.S. policy does not include a formula for when to vet social media. Administration officials have emphasized they are taking a “very close look” at visa screenings.


In addition, Secretary of State John Kerry recently acknowledged “social media has placed a whole new burden and a whole new set of questions” on the process. Those concerns have continued even as FBI officials have clarified that Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernardino shooter, did not publicly post support for terrorism on social media, as some originally reported.

Officials familiar with the 2011 social media proposal have not argued that any specific incidents would be prevented had it been implemented, but rather that the current controversy underscores how potential security reforms have been frozen within the federal government for years.

One source with knowledge of DHS screening said that, for years, employees were prevented from even accessing social media sites because of government firewalls designed to prevent staff from engaging in personal social networking on the job. The draft proposal sought to address that concern, stating that customs staff could only visit social media sites for “official government business,” and it sought to address privacy concerns by noting the vetting of social media information “must be limited” to “publicly available information.”

Even with those negotiated guidelines, however, the policy was never enacted — leaving many security officials stuck in the thicket of conflicting vetting guidance that continues today.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/exclusive...s-social-media

And many are questioning and criticizing the push back against SJWs and their PC absurdity
This here is the prime example why

PC has become a national security risk

SJW with their PC insanity started out at first just being an annoyance a pain in the ass but, when it has progressed to where it is at today. when policy is being formed with that absurdity in mind. putting PC above the countries safety there needs to be pushback and protest against it

when you put PC above the countries safety you know you have gone to far you have reached the realm of the absurd and you deserve to be called out, mocked, shunned, and run out of town

[Elegiac]

when you put PC above the countries safety

Aren't you one of the people who likes to butcher that Franklin quote, 'those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither'?

[Sunseeker]

Social media rarely provides any insight into criminal activity. I browse hundreds of social media pages every day as part of my job and it is by-and-large, complete garbage. The number of pages with any sort of information even remotely related to the activities that people like to regularly parcitipate in is among a handful. Many people don't even have pages or they are not regularly kept up. I don't think I've ever seen a single one that discussed potential criminal activity, even indirectly.

I even purposefully designed my social media pages to make me look like an ideal person to employ. I don't discuss my hobbies, politics and avoid liking or sharing or commenting on anything that is confrontational or divisive and I will unfriend people who share a lot of that sort of stuff. I don't even have my family on there for that latter reason.

[Vyxn]

Aren't you one of the people who likes to butcher that Franklin quote, 'those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither'?

social media is a public forum their isn't any expectation of privacy

[timberx]

I thought conservatives like you liked smaller government.

[Elegiac]

social media is a public forum their isn't any expectation of privacy

So you agree with Obama and the NSA spying, then?

- - - Updated - - -

I thought conservatives like you liked smaller government.

So small it can fit into women's uteruses', gay mens' assholes, and twitter accounts.

[Vyxn]

Social media rarely provides any insight into criminal activity. I browse hundreds of social media pages every day as part of my job and it is by-and-large, complete garbage. The number of pages with any sort of information even remotely related to the activities that people like to regularly parcitipate in is among a handful. Many people don't even have pages or they are not regularly kept up. I don't think I've ever seen a single one that discussed potential criminal activity, even indirectly.

when a social media page shows support for ISIS has clips of beheadings Tweets praise for mass murderer terrorist would you want them to get a visa to enter the country?

[nextormento]

As an externally identified anti-SJW, I'd like to distance my collective -in the capacity that my individual status makes possible- from the message contained in the OP.
#notAllAntiSJW

[Vyxn]

So you agree with Obama and the NSA spying, then?

- - - Updated - - -



So small it can fit into women's uteruses', gay mens' assholes, and twitter accounts.

its not spying it is looking at what anyone else could look at

[Sunseeker]

social media is a public forum their isn't any expectation of privacy

A "public forum" is a reference to government property, like streets, parks or government buildings. The Internet is not owned by the government (the cables are I suppose), and neither are social media sites, so actually yes there is an expectation of privacy from the government, not necessarily from the service providers though.

Though reasonably speaking, if you don't set your profile to private, then it's tantamount to leaving your doors and windows open and the cops looking in from the streets. However, if your page is set to private, then yes, the reasonable expectation of privacy applies.

- - - Updated - - -

when a social media page shows support for ISIS has clips of beheadings Tweets praise for mass murderer terrorist would you want them to get a visa to enter the country?

Mind you I don't browse the social media pages of terrorists, but I've never actually see one of these.

[Vyxn]

I thought conservatives like you liked smaller government.

one of the prime reasons for a federal government is the countries safety and defense
a conservative wants the government to limit its self to the responsibilities set forth by the constitution not all the self granted responsibilities it has given its self stated no where in the constitution

- - - Updated - - -

A "public forum" is a reference to government property, like streets, parks or government buildings. The Internet is not owned by the government (the cables are I suppose), and neither are social media sites, so actually yes there is an expectation of privacy from the government, not necessarily from the service providers though.

Though reasonably speaking, if you don't set your profile to private, then it's tantamount to leaving your doors and windows open and the cops looking in from the streets. However, if your page is set to private, then yes, the reasonable expectation of privacy applies.

- - - Updated - - -



Mind you I don't browse the social media pages of terrorists, but I've never actually see one of these.

there is no expectation of privacy
posting something on lets say Face Book or Tweeter it is the same as pinning something to a bulletin board in the public square

[Sunseeker]

there is no expectation of privacy
posting something on lets say Face Book or Tweeter it is the same as pinning something to a bulletin board in the public square

No, it is not. And I want to make something clear here: I am not arguing with you. You are wrong and I will not repeat myself.

[TZucchini]

And many are questioning and criticizing the push back against SJWs and their PC absurdity

What the shit does "social media vetting by the Federal Government" have to do with "SJW and their PC absurdity"? How are these two things related?

[Vyxn]

What the shit does "social media vetting by the Federal Government" have to do with "SJW and their PC absurdity"? How are these two things related?

because the excuse given why they shouldn't use social media to vet any one who enters this country because it wouldn't be PC to do so

[Narwal]

I thought conservatives like you liked smaller government.

Most conservatives like the government to do the job it was originally created for, defense of it's citizens. They support providing means to perform that task, particularly when it's against those not citizens of the country.

"Small government" is meant to define a "limiting to the scope of government" not necessarily the number of people doing it or the number of actors it takes to perform said task of government. It is common knowledge that as the scope of government grows, usually it's number of employees or bureaus grow as well to perform those new duties government has decided to take on, so a shortcut for understanding the scope of government may be to count the employees.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I love how Vyxn's blanket term for anything he disagrees with is now SJW. Heck that goes for a lot of people these days.

[Vyxn]

No, it is not. And I want to make something clear here: I am not arguing with you. You are wrong and I will not repeat myself.

do you have an expectation of privacy posting anything on MMOC forum?

[Deleted]

I can imagine the OPs social media pages

[Vyxn]

I can imagine the OPs social media pages

don't use one

[Deleted]

don't use one

I don't believe you