Visa applicants seeking entry to US may have to give up passwords, says DHS chief

Previous proposals involving the inclusion of social media profiles in background checks have met with swift criticism from civil-liberty groups. This time is no different.

Andrew Harnik/AP
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly listens to a question while testifying on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2017, before the House Homeland Security Committee.

The Trump administration has vowed to introduce “extreme vetting” of individuals coming from certain Muslim-majority countries. According to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, that could include demanding their social media passwords.

On Tuesday, Mr. Kelly appeared before the US House’s Homeland Security Committee, fielding questions from lawmakers about the new administration’s immigration policies, including its plans to aggressively vet arrivals from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen.

"We want to get on their social media, with passwords. What do you do, what do you say?" ,” Kelly said, as reported by NBC. "If they don't want to cooperate then you don't come in." Kelly stressed that this was one of just several ideas under consideration and mentioned access to financial records as another possible condition for entry.

But in a sign of social media’s far-reaching importance, his suggestion that US immigration officials should examine visitors’ Facebook and Twitter accounts sparked concern around the world.

“Today they are asking for our personal social media passwords, tomorrow our house keys perhaps?” wrote a commenter on the Times of India’s website. “Why go to a country where we will be treated as second class individuals?”

In the past, concerns about civil liberties have derailed similar proposals.

The idea of using social media to screen visitors has been around since at least 2011, when a Department of Homeland Security policy memo proposed that US Citizenship and Immigration Services “authorize certain agency personnel to access social networking sites for verification purposes.” The policy was never implemented, according to NBC.

In 2016, Customs and Border Protection proposed adding a line to the forms that foreigners without a visa fill out upon entering the United States. The line would have given visitors the option of sharing their “social media identifiers,” such as Twitter handles, but not their passwords.

That proposal drew swift condemnation from 33 civil-liberty groups, who in a joint letter described the move as “an intelligence surveillance program clothed as a customs administration mechanism.” Several months later, that line has not been added to either the I-94 or the I-94W, the two forms in question.

For now, at least, Kelly’s suggestion that Homeland Security will ask travelers for their passwords remains just that – a suggestion. But it will likely face even stronger pushback if the federal government tries to make it a reality.

A taste of this opposition came last month. Amid the chaotic implementation of President Trump’s executive order on immigration, some customs officials may have taken it upon themselves to examine new arrivals’ social media accounts.

Trita Parsi, the president of the National Iranian American Council, emphasized this as one of his main grievances with the ban.

I want to repeat: Green card holders were handcuffed, their social media was reviewed, and they were asked their views on Trump,” the activist tweeted in January.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.