Do You Have Any DHS Agents On Your Friends List?


Because you might, according to documents recently secured by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Two documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request describe how the Department set up a Social Network Monitoring Center before Obama's inauguration in 2008, and how federal law enforcement uses social networking websites to track potential illegal immigrants or fraudsters. The EFF says the following about U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:

[C.I.S. is] specifically instructing its agents to attempt to "friend" citizenship petitioners and their beneficiaries on social networks in the hope that these users will (perhaps inadvertently) allow agents to monitor their activities for evidence of suspected fraud, including evidence that their relationships might not live up to the USCIS' standard of a legitimate marriage.

The post goes on to explain how the USCIS's use of social networking "suggests there's nothing to prevent an exaggerated, harmless or even out-of-date off-hand comment in a status update from quickly becoming the subject of a full citizenship investigation." But it also concedes that "there are good reasons for government agencies and law enforcement officials to use all the tools at their disposal, including social networks, to ferret out fraud and other illegal conduct." So just like in the non-social networking "real world" that websites like Facebook try to emulate, there has to be some kind of equitable (and for that matter constitutional) balance between security and civil liberties.

Fair enough. But it's worth asking whether there are even any meaningful parallels between surveillance in the "real world" and surveillance in the online one. 

Unless you're, I don't know, the president of North Korea or something, it's impossible to figure out what absoulely everyone in your society is doing at a given time. And even in North Korea there are some serious (or at least serious from the leadership's perspective) blind spots. Facebook has no blind spots. It's a wealth of freely-available social information that virtually anyone can access at a given time. The surveillance potential is enormous, and so is the possibility of Facebook or Twitter users getting caught up in criminal investigations of which they have absolutely no knowledge. People have even been charged with "crimes" based solely on their online social networking activities. That's why, at the very least, the government needs to be held to extremely high standards of transparency in terms of how it uses social network surveillance as a law enforcement tool. Unfortunately, there's no sign of such standards in the documents unearthed by EFF. EFF's efforts are a reminder of how social networks expand the government's potential to violate the privacy of individuals, and of how vital it is for the first digitally-socialized generation to remain constantly, permanently aware of this. 

NEXT: Nobelist and Andropov Acolyte Slaps Russia's Leadership Duo

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Could you guys leave a couple of these for tomorrow. My blood pressure meds can’t keep up with the pace of posting.

  2. EFF’s efforts are a reminder of how social networks expand the government’s potential to violate the privacy of individuals, and of how vital it is for the first digitally-socialized generation to remain constantly, permanently aware of this.

    Violate the privacy of individuals using social networking? Aren’t the individuals waiving their privacy by Facebooking their lives away? If you don’t want your immigration petition denied, don’t put “today is anniversary of my sham marriage” on your facebook wall.

    1. I gotta agree here, up to a point. I’m sure these DHS fucks are using their “friend” status to track others who have not given them access.

      In my facebook days, I’d allow friends of friends to view some stuff on my wall so I could get in touch with people I hadn’t seen or talked to in years. The feds can use this to track more than their intended prey.

      As far as them determining what constitutes a sham marriage, I challenge them to look at half the relationships in this country. I will offer up the seven years of hell I spent with my ex-wife as Exhibit A.

    2. This.

      Another post about Facebook users and privacy:

      Facebook: An entire website peopled by “Hey, look at me!” types whining about privacy.

    3. As 99.9 percent of hot teenage girls are 49 year old 245 pound male virgins, isn’t the real issue the colossal waste of money monitoring a medium full of exaggeration, braggadocio, and posts from divorced from reality loons? (uh…not that anyone like that posts on the reason blog…)

  3. “…there are good reasons for government agencies and law enforcement officials to use all the tools at their disposal, including social networks, to ferret out fraud and other illegal conduct…”

    Not really.

    This is all a waste of my tax dollars.

    I personally don’t agree with the notion that a marriage – a legal construct – can be a fraud upon the state. If people are getting married for citizenship – oh well. I don’t see how the state can purport to hold the power to decide whether or not marriages that satisfy the legal form of the contract are “sincere”.

    1. Well usually the citizen who “marries” the non-citizen receives financial compensation, so in a way (I am not saying I a gree with it) the citizen is defrauding the government (and likely not declairing the payment on their income tax.

      1. What about the young hottie that marries an old rich dude?

        1. You leave my trophy wife out of this.

        2. Do you know any ? Young hotties that is ?

          1. Ask Gobbler, he’s got a whole stable of ’em.

            And he don’t pay a dime of taxes on any of ’em!

            1. As I have never actually touched a hottie, could you provide a description of the experience? Please do not leave emissions of fluids out!

      2. Well usually the citizen who “marries” the non-citizen receives financial compensation, so in a way (I am not saying I a gree with it) the citizen is defrauding the government

        I’m unaware of any marriages where money doesn’t change hands. If that’s all it takes to make a marriage fraudulent, well. . . .

      3. Are dowries illegal in the US?

    2. That is because you don’t beleive in borders or countries. But the rest of us do. And until the you are made king the law is what it is. And CIS is supposed to enforce it. And this seems like a perfectly reasonable way to do so. As someone said above, if you put “this is the anniversary of my sham marriage” as your facebook status, you have no one to blame but yourself when CIS kicks your sorry ass out of the country.

      1. Actually this has absolutely nothing to do with my immigration position.

        It’s more related to my position on marriage.

        The marriage contract is a legal contract that has precious little to do with the emotional attitude of the people who enter into it.

        It’s still legal for parents to arrange marriages, right? There are cultures where that’s still the norm. And when they get married in the US, they’re still married.

        If you show up in divorce court and say, “I shouldn’t owe alimony, your honor, because I never really loved her!” prepare to pay alimony.

        If during one of these so-called sham marriages, one party dies without a will in a state where the spouse is entitled by law to part of the estate, that spouse is getting that share of the estate. “But they didn’t really love each other!” So what?

        In states where all births within a marriage are automatically considered “legitimate”, can a father evade child support obligations by saying, “Give me a break, we had an arrangement!” Nope.

        Marriage for legal purposes should consist of getting the certificate/license and taking the oath before a properly constituted authority. If the legal form is satisfied, that’s marriage. And all benefits and obligations should flow from that.

        1. Preach it, brother.

        2. Indeed. Government defining marriage is bad enough. They shouldn’t be judging the quality or legitimacy of marriages which are legally entered into.

          1. Until human beings lose the perceived need to meddle in the affairs of the lives of others, I don’t see this problem going away 🙁

        3. I once asked a lawyer who did US immigration cases how a marriage could be disqualified as such for immigration purposes, considering there were no legal qualifications on marriage other than that the persons were eligible and willing. He answered that a marriage which was entered into solely for the purpose of qualifying for immigration would be disqualified. So I guess that means you just have to have some other reason for marrying.

  4. can’t you just invoke your constitutional rights via html tag?
    fuck the DHS! My wife loves me for my large “citizenship” and that’s the way I like it!

    actually wouldn’t matter, right, they can spy away.

  5. Threadjack:

    I just wanted to stand up and admit to the committee that I, too, find that many Latin Americans look Asian to me.

    1. That is because many Latin Americans have a lot of native blood in them. Native Americans came over on the land bridge from Asia and have more in common genetically with Asians than they do with Europeans. Look at a picture of a Nepalese or a Mongol sometime. They look a lot like American Indians.

      And not all Latin Americans have that look. The Spanish elite are very European looking. It is only the ones from the lower classes who have native backgrounds who look like you say.

      1. Exactly.

        But apparently the news of the day is that Sharon Angle is a racist because she agrees with this fairly simple, obvious, and straightforward observation.

      2. Native Americans came over on the land bridge from Asia

        Or on canoe from islands in SE Asia and Australia…..

        1. I mentioned this to a teacher a long time ago, who was Native American, and he said that his culture does not believe that. They believe they have always been in North America.
          I mentioned that my culture believes in this thing called “science”, but whatever, man. I’m doubtless a racist, or cultural empirialist or something.

      3. I always thought that native americans were the lost tribe of israel.

  6. I just wanted to stand up and admit to the committee that I, too, find that many Latin Americans look Asian to me am a racist.

    1. You have never seen a Peruvian and been confused as to whether the person is Latin American or Asian?

      Let me guess – you’ve also never seen a Greek and mistaken the person for an Italian.

      Whether people who hate Sharon Angle like it or not, some ethnic groups share similar physical features and are easily mistaken for one another.

      1. My brother’s ex was half-Filipino, half Caucasian. Living in South Florida, many Hispanics assumed she spoke Spanish, until she would reply “what the fuck are you talking about?”

        1. My half-Cuban/half-Iranian co-worker is constantly assumed to be Indian–to the point of guys hitting on her in Hindi. She replies in Spanish to confuse them.

          1. Half-Cuban, Half-Iranian, you say? I don’t suppose you could be a mensch and send me her phone number?

            “Senorita, sin sucre dijome ustedes eres muy bonita…”

            1. She’s recently married. Which is too bad, since she goes to Florida to see relatives all the time.

              1. In honor of Barbara Billingsly
                I am as white as a sheet of aged paper, but I speak jive.

        2. In AZ, all you need is olive toned skin and dark features for people to assume you are Hispanic. I’m Sicilian and would love a nickle for every time someone assumed I spoke Spanish.

          1. As a sicilian, you should just extort the nickel from them, and you’d grant your own wish.

            1. He said Sicilian, not Jewish.

        3. My brother’s ex was half-Filipino, half Caucasian. Living in South Florida, many Hispanics assumed she spoke Spanish

          Yeah, it’s not like there’s a good amount of Spanish DNA floating around the Philippines…oh, what, it was a Spanish colony for 300-400 years? Oh.

          1. wylie, have you seen many Filipinos? And her sister never got anyone speaking Spanish to her, because she looked completely Asian.

            1. Now, the Filipinos are the ones that look like they got hit in the face with a frying pan, right?

              1. I thought they were all MD’s? My Dr. and his sister (also a Dr.) and his son…..imports from Manila and District, all. [PS and damned good physicians]

                But they do look “Asian”, as opposed to “Hispanic”.

                I’ll ask my cousin about his Filipino ex, but I’m pretty sure he’s just going to say she looked like a “cunt”.

      2. I once saw a beautiful Romanian woman and initially thought she was Peruvian. One of the hawtest women you could ever imagine.

      3. Fluffy, when I look at people I don’t see a Peruvian, or a Latin American, or an Asian, I see human beings.

        Unlike a racist like yourself.

        1. LOL! You had me going there for a minute.

          1. Damn, he got me.

          2. I was trying to be overly obvious too. Had the strike quotes and all. Jeeze, yer ragin today.

        2. Oh come on! You just went full retard. Does noticing that someone is a girl make you sexist? Does noticing that someone is fat mean that you hate fat people? You are honestly saying that anyone who happens to notice that someone has a physical features that is typical to being of x race = racist?

          1. No it’s true, as I have prosopagnosia.

            You prosopagnosicst bastard!

            1. Ok, fine, I admit it. I think it is unfair that you can claim to not recognize someone and use your prosopagnosia as an excuse! Doesn’t Penn Jillette have that? What a weird condition.

              1. I have thought about lying and telling people that I suffer from it when I can’t remember their name.

                “Hey Bob howya been?”

                “My name is not Bob, it’s Zwitterion, you fuck”

                “Oh, sorry. I have prosopagnosia sooo…”

                1. 100 points for relevant use of an obscure medical condition.


                  Of course, I have vagisopagnosia

              2. I’m slightly but not truly that way. I’m not blind to faces particularly; I’m just not a people person. I forget (or fail to take note of) or at least confuse everything about people: appearance (body too, not just face), clothes, personal relationships. So I’ll remember that someone out of a group of people has a certain attribute, but I’ll mix up which. Takes me triple the time it takes most people to memorize names. The name itself I’ll remember, I just won’t remember whose it is. And when names are similar (whether in spelling or theme), I’m really in trouble. But that last goes for names of things too, like movie titles.

  7. The FBI used to infiltrate hippie groups and whatnot. They urge people to commit crimes so they can arrest them. The feds infiltrating social networks can’t come as a surprise to anyone.

    1. Used to? Have you been following the “domestic terrorist” cases lately?

  8. [C.I.S. is] specifically instructing its agents to attempt to “friend” citizenship petitioners and their beneficiaries on social networks in the hope that these users will (perhaps inadvertently) allow agents to monitor their activities for evidence of suspected fraud, including evidence that their relationships might not live up to the USCIS’ standard of a legitimate marriage.

    Aw crap. Gotta go change my FB relationship status and delete all people I don’t really know…Maybe that’s why my wife hasn’t heard back from USCIS yet… 🙁

  9. Fair enough. But it’s worth asking whether there are even any meaningful parallels between surveillance in the “real world” and surveillance in the online one.

    Reading someone’s wall posts isn’t surveillance.

    When are facebook users going to ‘get it’.

    I got in this discussion today on another forum.

    A typical facebook users was whinging on about how many hoops you have to jump through to make your facebook data “Private”.

    I schooled him.

    Making your data private is the easy route, not the hard route. Your choices in this area are:

    1. Open a facebook account.
    2. Don’t open a facebook account.

    Option 1 requires effort and action on the part of the user. By choosing option one, your facebook data is now public.

    Option 2 requires no effort or action on the part of the user, and your data is 100% private.

    “Oh, but I only allow my “friends” to see my data”.

    Mmmhmm. If I’m your friend and I can see your pics, I can copy those pics and post them anywhere else. I can cut and paste your wall posts and say “Hey, look what this guy’s been saying”.

    If the data isn’t stored on your own personal computer in a location which you have complete control over, you don’t own your data. Congress may pass laws saying that you own your facebook data. Facebook might have a “license agreement” which says you own your data. But you don’t own your data. Legally owning your data and physically owning it are two entirely different things. Because when your sex tape gets out in the wild, it’s out in the wild.

    1. you have to be flippin retarded to incriminate yourself via fb. oh wait, people do this all the time. nevermind.

    2. Whatever. I doubt you support CCTVs on every street corner. Spell out the difference between that and surveilling Facebook users.

      1. you have to be flippin retarded to incriminate yourself via fb on a street corner. oh wait, people do this all the time. nevermind.

        1. Making marriage a crime is “flippin retarded”.

          Additionally, whether it is stupid to incriminate yourself on Facebook or on the street corner is wholly irrelevant. The question is whether we want a government that has agents trained to monitor your activities in either of those fora. No thanks.

          1. We don’t want a government that has agents trained to monitor my activities, but I know we have one, hence I don’t put shit on facebook.

          2. Wait so we don’t want government agents trained to watch for crimes committed on the streets i.e. police? Strident libertarian i see…

      2. Read the post more carefully next time.

        The legal definition of privacy, and the data actually being private are two different things.

        Here are the rules of the internets:

        1. When you put your shit on the internets, other people can see it.
        2. There are no more rules.

        The legality of the government acting on this data is an entirely different thing. Of course I’m not making an argument that the government acts on the data.

        It’s the rank stupidity, and ever predictable righteous indignation of facebook users and their perception… nay, religious belief, that when they post their fucking drunk pics and wall posts, that no one else in the world will see it except those they explicityly approve.

        So, to sum up, I fucking hate CCTV’s that are cropping up pretty much everywhere but I know they’re there. And once I know they’re there, I’m not going to act surprised that I might draw the attention of law enforcement if I do something in front of them that might, you know, draw the attention of law enforcement.

        My advice to you: If you have something on Facebook you’re not comfortable letting everyone in the world see or read, don’t put it on facebook.

        1. I distinctly remember a Rule 34 in there somewhere.

          Def NSFW, but some Obama LULZ for those at home.

        2. Tautological Paul is tautological. Tell me, Paul, have you ever smoked TEH EVIL WEED? ’cause if you have, you know you are a dumb ass, right? Because that shit’s illegal.

          1. What the fuck is your point? Or are you feeling wounded by the whole notion because you’re another one of those facebook users who plays farmville and just discovered all your wall posts were going into the cloud even though you marked everything “private”?

            1. Very amusing. But wrong. I hold no notion that anything on Facebook is private. You, however, are acting quite the smug twit on the subject; and your quasi-hipster “I don’t watch TV/Facebook/Do anything the proles do” attitude has actually leaked out into “eh – who cares that the government spends time surveilling facebook? Bring on the CCTVs!” Oh, wait, you hate CCTVs, you just love the logic underlying them, is all.

              1. I don’t watch TV/Facebook/Do anything the proles do” attitude has actually leaked out into “eh – who cares that the government spends time surveilling facebook? Bring on the CCTVs!” Oh, wait, you hate CCTVs, you just love the logic underlying them, is all.

                Oooh, I can play this game too. Ayn_Randian spends all day playing Farmville!

                First of all, fuck you. You keep extrapolating a view I have on a narrow subject we’re talking about to a whole set of positions I have made no statement on, or actually don’t hold. “Bring on the CCTV’s”? Fuuuck you. I love the logic underlying them? Fuck you again. I’m asking you serious questions. If that’s what you’re left with in response, I know you got nothin’.

                1. FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

                  1. Dude, I TOTALLY linked this to my FB account, LOL!

    3. Yes it is most certainly surveillance. It may not be illegal in any way, and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is surveillance. It is the same as the police following you around for whatever reason. They don’t need a warrant, but it damn well is surveillance.

      1. So is it surveillance when I stand on the median in front of my house and a cop drives by and sees me? Because newsflash, when you post on facebook, that’s what you’re doing.

        1. It most definitely IS surveillance if the cops get to work in the morning, say to themselves, “Let’s go watch Paul until he does something we can drag him in for” and they then proceed to park in front of your house for weeks on end hoping to catch you doing something.

          While you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for things visible from a public way, the essence of surveillance is the deliberate choice of magistrates to keep you under observation.

          1. But is that what’s going on with the social network site? Or is it just another patrol beat? Ie, when a cop drives down the street, he is “surveilling” the neighborhood. Because it’s not targeted to a specific person, it’s not illegal.

            I hear what you guys are saying, but you’re sticking to an overly nuanced definition.

            Let’s do this. Ok, WHAM a court declares that this behavior by government agents is illegal and/or improper. Fine. Paul is all for that.

            Now that it’s illegal, PROVE to me that no agency or agent for the government is doing this surveillance. Prove to me that not a single agent employed for the government isn’t ‘friending’ people on facebook on his own personal time and using that information for his job– even if indirectly. Prove it.

            1. Prove the government does not torture, even though that is illegal as well.

              Do you have a point here?

              1. Yes. My point is this. From the blogpost:

                It’s a wealth of freely-available social information that virtually anyone can access at a given time.

                “freely available social information” the users of which have control over in the form of:

                1. Post it on facebook.
                2. Don’t post it on facebook.

                Does it not occur to the users of facebook that they may want to, you know, limit what they put on their facebook pages?

                Do I really lose my libertarian card because I’m not surprised that government agencies are looking at this stuff… even though I’m against the concept morally?

                Let me ask you a question:

                Where does your right to privacy end? Serious question.

                1. Oh now you are morally opposed. Because you could have fooled me upthread, what with your defense of the government in this story and all.

                  1. Quote the passage where I defended government.

                    1. So all that “this isn’t surveillance” wasn’t an attempt to justify an odious practice against those lower-classes who use Facebook? That was just…what, an exercise in pedantry?

                      Saying “reading Facebook isn’t surveillance” is exactly akin to saying “CCTVs are not surveillance”. Well, guess what, they are and you are wrong.

                    2. Ok, so you couldn’t quote the passage.

                      But I’ll address your broader reference.

                      I’m not sure when a government agency reading widely available public internet pages becomes ‘surveillance’. When they target a specific user? When they act on the data? That’s hardly a broad defense of “government”, and you know it.

                      Since you have specifically avoided my serious question above, I’m guessing you don’t know and have no insight either.

                    3. If your serious question was “where does your privacy begin/end”, well, I have already heard the sand-heap game in philosophy class, thankyouverymuch.

                      Did you ever spell out the differences between Facebook surveillance and CCTVs? ‘Cause I didn’t see it.

                      The issue of “privacy”, as I said, is irrelevant. The issue is whether we want a government that does these things.

                    4. I’m not trying to trap you into a sand-heap game with you (whatever that is… I’ll google it later). I’m asking you a serious question. But you’re right, the question is a little broad. Let me narrow it down. Anything to bring this back to civility:

                      Where does surveillance begin and ‘patrolling’ end? If the government is merely navigating open, public pages on the internet and looking for relevant law-enforcement situations (and please, I think the government deciding what marriages are ‘sincere’ vs. those that aren’t is complete bullshit) should that be illegal ala warrantless wiretaps?

                      If the government doesn’t have to break into accounts, tap into a wire using a non-standard method of intercepting communications which are defined by law to be private, does this make the surveillance something which is unconstitutional?*

                      I’m skeptical. I don’t think it is. I may not like it. I may fight it with my representative.

                      To spell out my view of CCTV surveillance and facebook, I’m not sure I can. I feel the way about cameras the way that you seem to feel about facebook. I was really angry when they started popping up in Seattle, but courts have repeatedly indicated they’re above board– because they’re merely watching what’s being done in public. The best I can do is draw some line about watching live images of people in a public space vs. the voluntary placement of information in a public sphere with the knowledge and intent that it be read by the public. The fact that people are shocked that the ‘wrong’ public is looking at it, you know my opinion on that. Also, facebook is not a public concern or throughway, whereas the city street is. I *have* to travel on city streets. I don’t *have* to travel on facebook. Posting on facebook is a choice.

                      *you might be able to make an argument about agents of the government misrepresenting themselves to gain ‘friend’ access to a space that the user otherwise believes is ‘private’. Unfortunately that opens up the can of worms that is anonymity on the internet, and unfortunately, anonymity is precisely what gives us a modicum of privacy on the internet in the first place.

          2. Yeah. I had a friend get a DUI case thrown out of court because a state trooper followed him from a bar parking lot all the way to his driveway and pulled him for not signalling. The judge asked the cop if they were roads he typically patrolled and if he left because the driver did. Also it didn’t help that the dashcam video showed the cop had his hi-beams on the guy the entire time.

          3. For surveillance in public places, there’s no need for a magistrate’s permission. Cops do it frequently. sometimes, they do it just to harass a suspect. (see Dr. Steven Hatfill, former anthrax suspect and a guy who always had company when he left his house).

            I’m the first to say it’s dirty pool, but it’s also long been held to constitutional.

            1. Even if it’s unconstitutional, my point is that it’s going to happen anyway, so act accordingly.

              1. Why not just make the President Jefe-For-Life? I mean, yeah, it’s unconstitutional, but who cares about that old thing anyway…

                1. Now you’re aggressively trying to miss the point.

                  1. Try not to insult my intelligence. Your first point in all this has been to insult the average intelligence of Facebook users, rather than even try to lift a tiny pinky in outrage about the fact that the government is surveilling Facebook accounts.

                    Seriously, Paul, I have no interest in going about my life constantly being watched, or even having to act as if I am constantly being watched. Your short-term practical advice is fine; long-term, you’re practically saying “May as well lay back, shut your eyes and pray that it ends soon”.

                    1. I don’t have to insult your intelligence, you’re doing fine on your own.

                      Yes, my outrage on the facebook surveillance may be smaller than yours, I grant you that.

                      However, I too have no interesting in going about my life constantly watched, and having a long, personal history of distrust in government, yes, I assume it’s being watched all the time, even though there are laws on the books saying it’s illegal. Because, newsflash: that’s what governments do.

                    2. Exactly what you said, Paul – it’s what governments do. Act accordingly.

  10. It seems likely to me that the vast majority of “sham” marriages would involve a member of the military… as they’re the ones most likely to be young, unmarried, and overseas meeting all kinds of folks (some of whom have enough cash to send their sister/daughter to a real country).

    Is that a leap?

    1. I did twenty years in the Navy. I’ve seen lots of shipmates married to foreign born women. While third world women often will marry an American in order to escape life sucking poverty,* the American servicemen who marry them are actually trying to start a family.

      Yeah, it’s a leap.

      I doubt that the fraudulent marriage “problem” is large enough to waste resources investigating. I suspect the whole todo is just a way to fuck with foreign born fiancees and the Americans they are betrothed to.

      * This does not mean that they immediately file for divorce upon receiving citizenship. A house in the ‘burbs, three squares a day, US citizenship for your kids, people have married (and remained married) for far less. If the guy/gal is going to drastically change your life for the better, who’s to say that’s not love?

      1. I think it’s a perverse overreaction to the outrage the bureaucracy feels when confronted with anecdotes about people “getting away with something”.

        Some bureaucrat somewhere once heard a story about someone who entered into a purely formal marriage to evade completing certain types of paperwork. This, of course, is so intolerable than the entire machinery of the state must be brought to bear regardless of expense to set it right.

      2. In my case, my wife and I specifically did not get married for years because we did not want anyone to think that we got married for immigration. When her exploitative workplace’s sponsorship seemed like a never-ending abyss, she quit her job and we got legally married. Still waiting for paperwork over a year later, but we were hoping to wait until after she could leave the country so we could go get married for real back in Japan.

        In the interim, we’ve been considering ourselves “engaged” because we can separate the legal status from the fact we haven’t had our official wedding yet. So I guess I have to either delete my Facebook or tell everyone we’re already married, to prevent DHS snitches from arresting us both for fraud and deporting her? Great.

      3. Thanks.

        I was just curious… that means that the majority of sham weddings would involve those foreign bride websites.

        Which makes sense, I guess.

    2. Why do you hate America, Jaybird?

      1. He doesn’t hate “America”, he just hates The Troops?.

        And their spouses….

      2. Poutine, or the lack thereof.

  11. Just how bad is Facebook app privacy breach? coupled with the “nobody could have foreseen this” government observation merely confirms my wisdom in not having a goddam thing to do with the site.

  12. I swear to christ if I hear the word “facebook” and “privacy” in the same sentence ever again, I’m going postal.

    1. Do you have to actually hear it, or is reading it on the internet good enough?

      And where do you live?

      1. I’d point you to my facebook page, but I don’t have one.

  13. Ahh Facestalker.

    The government is always just a hair behind 16 year old kids these days.

    1. My bet is that there is some Carnivore software that has recognized your sequence of “hair” “behind” and “16 year old kids” such that you now have a black mark in the perv column in your permanent record.

  14. “Facebook has no blind spots.”


    I’ve encrypted my profile name in a way so that it’s not computer searchable, but somewhat human readable.

    If oyu wnat for olny hmuasn to be albe to raed waht you psot tehn jsut ecnyrpt waht oyu wrtie.

    1. I hvae sene tihs dnoe bfeor. prttey naet!

      1. There are so many typos in these last two posts, it’s ridiculous. You guys need to use a spell-checker before you post.

        1. *head esplodes*

        2. John is probably wondering what you are talking about.

        3. God DAMN it, sloopy – that’s the SECOND time today reading H&R that I squirted pop through my nose from laughing so hard.

          * memo to self – stop drinking pop while reading H&R comments – DUH *

          1. Where the hell are you from? Its soda, or coke – no matter the actual brand.

  15. Great, now the DHS knows which Harry Potter character I am most like.

    1. And William Sonoma knows how many waffle irons you bought last year.

      1. *frantically trying to figure out how to no longer be a fan of Reason Magazine*

    2. We also know which one you fap to.

      1. Can vaginas make a fapping noise? I thought “fap” only applied to men?

        1. Can vaginas make a fapping noise?

          Fuck yeah they can!

          1. It’s really more of a low octave sputter.

            1. Hmph…you’ve obviously never met H______ Mc________

              ….”fapfapfapfapfap” – yep, that’s her…

        2. I’d say that was sufficiently answered.

          1. As best as a sex related question can be answered on Reason. Capitol excitedly let us know how true this was, Sugar made a queef reference, and Almanian made fun of someone on here and I am not positive as to who (Hazel maybe?).

            1. He was speaking of hmm. Whose full name is actually Hmm McFappy.

  16. I remember a commenter here who used to regularly suggest that we take up arms and rebel. I always figured he was some sort of agent provocateur.

    1. You’re only saying that to lull us into a false sense of security about you Typical narc behavior.

      1. Man, we are in serious trouble if our security establishment is spending its time commenting on blogs.

        Though, after typing that, I wonder what blog bin Laden comments on? Not here, I don’t think–too much to offend him.

        1. I wondered where all those bloggers on the DNC payroll went after the 2008 election. Now we know they all got (union?) jobs at the CIS.

        2. “I wonder what blog bin Laden comments on?”

          The Daily Kos.

          1. I was thinking more Gawker. Or maybe io9.

            1. Hello – jezebel

      2. We’re not falling for your Serbian Narc Doublebluff, Special Agent Fluffy.

    2. It was just a phase I was going through.

      1. Who was that guy? I want to say he commented under the name Terry something or maybe just Terry, but I can’t remember for sure.

        1. Terry was re-educated he now posts under Hobie Hanson.

          1. Well, that would explain a few things.

            1. Was this the guy?

              1. Maybe. Whoever he was, he’d regularly suggest that it was time to revolt.

        2. The archives is a pain to search for such common phrasing. On naughty cop threads, it came from a number of different handles, which means a cop apologist sock puppet. I remember you you are talking about though, used to just pop up a say it all the time.

          1. *who you* leave me alone, still hungover…

          2. I am going to go ahead and copy the post linked above, its brilliancy should be shared:

            Cumberland School of Law, isn’t that the law school where Jerry Garcia and Phil Lesh ment, and after missing their midterms on “Wills and trusts” because they were in the middle of jam session, quit and went on to create the Grateful Dead?

            Speaking of communatarism or whatever, what about the Reason community? How armed are you?
            Especially because your in Washington. If the Feds come busting down the door, how will you repel them?

            Don’t know what this is in response to, don’t care either. It stands tall all on its own.

            1. I’d repel them with the strength of my moral force.

            2. I’m an advanced Libertarian Druid, so I would use my Collodial Silver/Tinfoil Shield, which earns me a saving throw of 10 or higher on a d20.

    3. Remember rule #1: Anyone offering to sell you explosives or kill your spouse is an undercover cop.

      1. Many years ago, I was sitting on a truck tailgate in a bar parking lot waiting for 2 friends to come out. A guy I had never seen before in my life walked up to us and asked if we had any weed. If that doesn’t trigger every narc instinct you have, you deserve what happens next.

      1. And this is a response. Kind of sad.

        pxt|7.30.08 @ 3:51PM|#

        Terry, you’re wrong as hell.

        If there’s one thing I trust Obama to do right–and there may only be one–it’s to not spend federal funds harassing medical dispensaries or basement grow ops, provided that they do not get too large-scale or loud to ignore.

        1. Wow. Why anyone believed a Democrat would be better on that is beyond me. Bill Clinton fought the WoD with great zeal–even before 1994.

  17. So it’s safe to assume DHS is stalking tweens on facebook? Isn’t that illegal?

    1. It’s legal as long as no animated depictions of tweens are involved.

      1. Not in Idaho.

  18. Personally I know a guy is gay when we meet and i feel the need to check my fly~45ter

  19. I also have one question in mind,” Isn’t that illegal if it’s safe to assume DHS is stalking tweens on facebook?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.