- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.world
Five years of your social media just to visit the US on an ESTA, and 50,922 phone searches at the border in a single year with no suspicion needed. Part 1 of my Five Eyes series: who else gets to see it?
There are about 257 million people traveling to the US to or from other countries each year. That means less than 0.02% of those encounter a device search. The article itself also notes that the social media reporting system is not even in effect.
Is the situation is worse than in the past? Absolutely! Is it still deteriorating? Yes. Do we need to improve it? Yes! But perspective matters too. Your chance of a device search upon entering the US is really small. There are many countries around the world where dev searches happen, and some even have criminal penalties for refusing.
I would say the US is scary-ER than in the past. But the scary-EST? Social media doesn’t do nuance, and everything is either the very best or the very worst thing ever…
The title’s a question. It’s the one I asked myself when I saw the proposed changes, would I even want to go there now? I never said America is the scariest country in the world. When I went looking, what I found was different, an alliance between five countries that’s been running for nearly 80 years, and by the end of the piece I say the title’s question stopped being the real one.
You’re welcome to read it again, because most of what you’ve raised is already in there. The line about the social media rule not being in effect goes on to say visa applicants, students, workers and immigrants have had to hand theirs over since 2019, and the proposal would extend that to everyone. It’s still on the table, and if it goes through as written it won’t be a 0.02% chance, it’ll be every one of the 14.5 million people a year who come in on an ESTA.
The 50,922 are the searches that needed no suspicion at all, out of 55,318 in a year, and in the article they sit right next to Canada searching 1,108 devices in the whole of 2024. I looked at North Korea, China and Russia too, and I said they’re worse once you’re inside, in every way that matters. None of them ask for five years of your social media or your family’s details before you get there, though.
So yeah, perspective matters. It’s just hard to get much of it from one line and one number.>
Grok, how does the Panopticon work?
I think it works in some way that doesn’t allow you to avoid scrutiny by leaving your phone at home when you travel internationally?
Actually I think it may be hard to travel at all when locked inside a prison? idk lol
The Panopticon works by making you worry you are always going to be surveiled even if there’s a statistically small chance you are.
That’s the joke.
Not sure why the Lemmy Privacy Community didn’t quite understand it, besides the obvious
My point is that a small chance of being searched at a border crossing is a far cry from a panopticon.
I’m sorry, do you understand that you are repeating the definition of the panopticon, but say you don’t understand how a panopticon is a panopticon?
I’ve already explained I think there’s a big difference between a chance of being searched at an airport and a chance of being observed at any moment while imprisoned and I’m not sure what else might be unclear.
The definition of a panopticon is not “a small chance of being searched”, just to be clear. It’s a specific thing and you’re saying it’s similar while I’m saying it’s different enough.
You might want to take a quick look at Wikipedia, because you are trying to use inaccurate distinctions.
No, it’s not placed in a prison, it’s about the structure of a surveillance society.
From the first paragraph:
(emphasis mine)
Bentham designed the Panopticon as a prison. It sounds like you’re using the word as a metaphor.
I don’t think such a metaphorical usage is that great in this case. It works OK when you’re talking about big-brother style surveillance that is potentially present in your private life at all times (like the panopticon’s guard can potentially see any one inmate’s private activity at any time) but not when you’re talking about potentially being searched in a specific, limited, avoidable, circumventable circumstance.