From Border Security to Big Brother: Social Media Surveillance

Was the entire immigration reform rhetoric just a prelude to broadening government spying?

Let’s take a closer look: immigration became a hot-button campaign issue, with plenty of talk about “welcoming” migrants, combined with a healthy dose of hand-wringing about border security. Now, however, critics are uncovering what looks like the real priority—an enhanced federal surveillance operation aimed at monitoring not just new arrivals, but American citizens too. In the name of keeping tabs on who’s coming and going, the administration sank more than $100 million into a social media surveillance system designed to keep an eye on everyone.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) first flirted with these powers under Trump’s presidency, when ICE officials began monitoring social media under the guise of protecting the homeland. The Biden-Harris administration, having previously expressed horror at Trump-era excesses, took a softer tack, but actually increased mass surveillance. They rebranded the initiative as the Visa Lifecycle Vetting Initiative (VLVI), a name that practically exudes bureaucratic charm while implying a methodical, visa-centric approach. But if it was just an immigration program, why was it scanning communications between Americans and their international friends, family, or business contacts?

According to a lawsuit from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the program evolved into something much larger than a mere visa vetting system. The scheme entailed broad surveillance of communications and social media activity, conveniently sidestepping pesky things like “probable cause” or the First Amendment. “Government officials peering through their correspondence with colleagues visiting from overseas and scrutinizing the opinions expressed in their communications and their work,” read a lawsuit that laid bare the VLVI’s invasive nature. What started as a system to vet foreigners’ eligibility to enter the U.S. quietly metastasized into an excuse to monitor anyone who dared connect across borders.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
We obtained a copy of documents batch one for you here.
We obtained a copy of documents batch two for you here.

Of course, in true Washington style, this story wouldn’t be complete without a twist of political theater. The administration’s rhetoric has leaned heavily on a supposed dedication to protecting civil rights and personal freedoms—while simultaneously doubling down on programs that do the opposite.

A Little Privacy, Please? DHS Puts American Social Media on the Watchlist
Ah, the Fourth Amendment — one of those quaint, old-timey Constitutional protections that grant Americans the basic human right not to be poked, prodded, or probed by their own government without a solid reason. It’s a promise that Washington will think twice before sifting through your life without a warrant. Yet somehow, in the age of social media, this Fourth Amendment right seems to be slipping into the hazy realm of memory, particularly when it comes to Uncle Sam’s latest pastime: keeping tabs on everyone’s online chatter under the banner of immigration vetting.

Welcome to the VLVI, a Homeland Security special that appears to have mistaken “security” for “surveillance.” This bureaucratic marvel was dreamed up as a means to monitor non-citizens and immigrants, ostensibly for national security. But according to recent lawsuits, it’s not just foreigners on the watchlist—average Americans now get to share the surveillance limelight too, all thanks to the Department of Homeland Security’s fondness for “indiscriminate monitoring” of citizen communications. And why? Because in the brave new world of VLVI, any American chatting online with an overseas connection might just be suspicious enough to keep an eye on.

A Sweeping “Security” Measure or Just Mass Surveillance?

Here’s where the Constitution starts to feel like an afterthought. Traditionally, the government can’t simply jump into your emails, texts, or online rants without a warrant backed by probable cause. The Fourth Amendment makes that pretty clear. But in the VLVI’s playbook, this notion of “probable cause” becomes something of a suggestion, more of a “nice to have” than a constitutional mandate. Instead, they’ve embraced an approach that’s less “laser-focused security effort” and more “catch-all dragnet,” casting wide nets over American citizens who happen to connect with anyone abroad—no illegal activity necessary.

Imagine you’re a US citizen messaging your friend in France about a summer trip, or maybe you’re just exchanging memes with a cousin in Pakistan. Under this initiative, that simple exchange could land you in a Homeland Security database, your innocent messages cataloged alongside the truly suspicious characters of the internet. And this is happening without any individual warrants, without specific suspicion, and in some cases, without probable cause. One might ask, exactly how does that square with the Constitution’s protections?

Privacy Protections? That’s for Other People

This is all a question of government trust and hypocrisy. The program began under a previous administration but was quickly shuttled along by the current one, despite its public stance championing privacy rights. There’s something ironic about politicians who rally for civil liberties in campaign speeches, only to maintain and expand government surveillance in office. The backlash has been predictably loud, and for good reason. Here we have a policy that effectively treats every social media user as a latent threat and a government that somehow expects people to swallow this as reasonable.

Critics have slammed this “watch-all” approach, pointing out that it doesn’t take a legal scholar to see how this might just cross a constitutional line or two. It’s not just Americans with foreign friends who are worried—it’s anyone who believes the government shouldn’t rummage through citizens’ lives without cause. “This type of program, where citizens’ digital lives are surveilled under a sweeping policy without individual warrants or specific reasons, sounds like an unreasonable search,” privacy advocates say.

The Price of a Free Society: Now With Less Freedom

Of course, VLVI supporters wave away these concerns with a dismissive “it’s for security” mantra as if that excuse covers every constitutional breach. And true, there’s little doubt that some level of monitoring is necessary to keep the truly dangerous elements out of the country. But we’re talking about ordinary people here, law-abiding citizens getting swept up in a bureaucratic machine that fails to distinguish between a casual chat and a credible threat.

When the government can tap into anyone’s social media profile because of a flimsy association, what’s left of the citizen’s “reasonable expectation of privacy”? In theory, the Fourth Amendment protects it; in practice, programs like VLVI gnaw away at it, one seemingly “harmless” violation at a time. If we keep pretending this is just another harmless tool in the security toolkit, we might as well hang up any remaining illusions about the privacy rights we’re supposedly guaranteed.

Just Another Step Toward a Surveillance State?

For Americans, it’s a chilling reminder that a swipe on Instagram or a chat on Facebook can mean more than just casual social interaction. For the DHS, it seems the message is clear: treat everyone as a suspect first, and figure out the legalities later. What happens to the expectation of privacy for ordinary Americans? It’s probably time we all start looking over our digital shoulders, because in the world of VLVI, “reasonableness” is a government privilege, not a citizen’s right.

Related Topics:#ReclaimTheNet BorderSecurityToBigBrother ChristinaMaas DigitalSurveillance SocialMediaSurveillance

Up Next

Trump appoints Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy to lead new Department of Government Efficiency

Don't Miss

Breaking: Hogue Commission Will Hear From New Safety-Protected Witnesses On PRC Targeting of Chinese Candidates

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trudeau “Played Doctor” With Children

Business / 7 hours ago

Liberals, globalists flip out after Trump orders USAID freeze

Business / 7 hours ago

Trudeau Liberals pledge $41.5 million for over 100 pro-2SLGBTQI+ projects

Banks

The Great Exodus from the Net Zero Banking Alliance has arrived

Published on February 3, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Gina Pappano

Next, we need a Great Exodus from net zero ideology

In 2021, all of Canada’s Big Five Banks – TD, CIBC, BMO, Scotiabank and RBC – signed onto the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) and the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA).

U.N.-sponsored and Mark Carney-led, GFANZ is a sector-wide umbrella coalition whose goal is to accelerate global decarbonization and the emergence of a worldwide net zero global economy.

But now, in the first month of 2025, four of Canada’s Big Five Banks – TD, CIBC, BMO and Scotiabank – have announced their decision to exit the NZBA.

This came on the heels of similar announcements by six of the biggest U.S. banks – Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo as well as the investment firm BlackRock leaving the Asset Management subgroup of the GFANZ.

That group, the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, has now suspended operations altogether, and the GFANZ and all of its subgroups are falling like a house of cards.

At InvestNow, the not-for-profit that I lead, we’re considering these developments a victory and a vindication of our work.

In November of 2024, we submitted shareholder proposals to Canada’s Big Five banks asking them to leave both the NZBA and the GFANZ. As of this writing, all but one of them have done just that.

But this is only a partial victory.

When they signed on to the NZBA, the banks pledged to align their lending, investment and banking activities with decarbonization goals, including achieving net zero emissions by 2050. They pledged to focus on higher emitting sectors first and foremost. In practice, this means they would be setting their sights on Canada’s natural resource sector.

That’s because the net zero ideology motivating these groups requires the drastic reduction of oil and gas production and use over a comparatively short period of time.

That is a serious threat to Canada since we’ve been blessed with an abundance of natural resources. Hydrocarbon energy has become the backbone of our economy, and the war being waged against it has already made our lives harder and more expensive. Left unchecked, these difficulties will compound, with ruinous results.

In joining the NZBA, the Big Five Banks agreed to divest from oil and gas, eliminating projects and companies from the investment pool simply because of the sector they work in, as part of a long-term goal of totally decarbonizing the economy.

Presumably, having left the Alliance, those banks could now change course, increasing investment in and lending to oil and gas firms with an eye toward increasing the return on investment for their shareholders.

Except the banks have stressed that they have no intention of doing so. In the press releases and articles about leaving the NZBA, each bank emphasized that this move should not be interpreted as them abandoning net zero itself. All of these banks remain committed to aligning their activities with decarbonization, no matter the cost to Canada, the Canadian economy or the good of its citizens.

This means we still have work to do. While we applaud the banks for exiting the NZBA, we will continue to work to get them to leave behind the net zero ideology as well. Then, and only then, will we claim a full victory.

Gina Pappano is the former head of market intelligence at the Toronto Stock Exchange and TSX Venture Exchange and executive director of InvestNow , a non-profit dedicated to demonstrating that investing in Canada’s resource sectors helps Canada and the world. Join the movement and pass the InvestNow resolution at investnow.org.

Censorship Industrial Complex

‘Don’t Write About The Laptop’: Two Reporters Allege Outlets Killed Stories About Bidens

Published on February 1, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Harold Hutchison

“I was covering Biden at the time, and I remember coming to my editor and saying, ‘Hey, we need to write about the Hunter Biden laptop.’ And I was told this came from on high at Politico: Don’t write about the laptop, don’t talk about the laptop, don’t tweet about the laptop.

Two former reporters with Politico accused the outlet of suppressing negative stories about former President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden during the 2020 presidential election in a video clip posted to YouTube Thursday.

Dozens of former intelligence officials signed an October 2020 letter published by Politico that claimed a bombshell New York Post report about emails from a laptop supposedly abandoned by Hunter Biden “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Puck News reporter Tara Palmeri and Axios reporter Marc Caputo discussed the Politico newsroom’s alleged approach to unflattering reports about the Bidens on Palmeri’s podcast, “Somebody’s Gotta Win,” though the outlet has denied their allegations.

“Politico did that terrible, ill-fated headline: 51 intelligence agents, or former intelligence agents, say that the Hunter Biden laptop was disinformation, or bore the hallmarks of disinformation. Turns out that story was closer to disinformation because the Hunter Biden laptop appeared to be true,” Caputo told Palmeri, who responded. “But then Facebook also pulled all stories down about the Hunter Biden laptop, and I think Twitter did at the same time, too.”

WATCH:

Twitter locked multiple accounts, including the New York Post’s and the personal account of then-White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany for sharing the Oct, 14, 2020 report, citing a “hacked materials” policy. Documents released to journalist Michael Shellenberger by Elon Musk show that the FBI contacted Twitter about the potential for leaks involving Hunter Biden prior to the New York Post’s report.

“Correct, they punished The New York Post, that didn’t help. I mean, Politico, my former employer and I knew at the time, didn’t do itself any favors,” said Caputo. “I was covering Biden at the time, and I remember coming to my editor and saying, ‘Hey, we need to write about the Hunter Biden laptop.’ And I was told this came from on high at Politico: Don’t write about the laptop, don’t talk about the laptop, don’t tweet about the laptop. And the only thing Politico wound up writing was that piece that called it disinformation, which charitably could be called misinformation, at the least.”

Palmeri claimed to have experienced difficulty getting a story regarding Hunter Biden’s purchase of a .38-caliber revolver in 2018 published. Hunter Biden was convicted on three felony counts related to buying the gun in June 2024, but received a pardon from his father on Dec. 1.

Biden pardoned five other family members shortly before his term ended.

“Yeah, I mean, I had a hard time — you know I wrote some pretty serious reporting on Hunter Biden, which actually ended up getting him prosecuted — the story on the gun,” Palmeri said, with Caputo responding, “Yeah! And I remember you consulted with me cause you had, you did the original report on the gun and you came to me like, ‘How do I write about this?’ I’m like, ‘Honestly, I don’t know.’”

“Cause it was hard to get it done. I spent three months on it, I went to the laptop shop, and I did all of the reporting in Delaware, and I did all of that. But yeah it had, it had to be like much, it had to be 100% nailed down. I had everything, you know, the police reports, every, like, you know, I’m a solid reporter. But I do wonder if it could have, if it would have been published a little quicker if it was a different type of story,” Palmeri said. “It was the beginning of his administration, it was a honeymoon period — you know what I mean?”

Caputo recounted that Hunter Biden’s laptop was not the only story regarding the Bidens that was allegedly killed by Politico’s editors.

“Since we’re spilling tea about our former employer, I still have a copy of the story on my external hard drive. In 2019, a rival presidential Democratic campaign of Joe Biden’s gave to me the tax lien — the oppo research — the tax lien on Hunter Biden for the period of time that he worked at Burisma,” Caputo said. “And I wrote what would have been a classic story saying, you know, ‘The former vice president’s son was slapped with a big tax lien for the period of time that he worked for this controversial Ukrainian oil concern, or natural gas concern, which is haunting his father on the campaign trail.’ That story was killed by the editors, and they gave no explanation for that either.”

“We just get called, like, ‘the terrible mainstream media.’ It’s like you don’t understand the process there,” Palmeri said, with Caputo responding, “Well, you also don’t understand the dumb decisions of cowardly editors that are made above us.”

Politico disputed Caputo’s recollections in response to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation and sent a list of references to their past reporting on the Biden family.

“It’s bullshit. During the years referenced, POLITICO journalists lead the way on wide-ranging reporting on the business dealings of Joe Biden’s closest relatives. Ben Schreckinger was probably the top reporter in the country reporting on these matters—he literally wrote the book on it,” a Politico spokesperson told the DCNF. “Through deeply reported coverage—both pre- and post-election—POLITICO provided readers with a nuanced understanding of the dealings of James Biden, Hunter Biden, and other relatives of the president, along with the ethical questions they raised. Notably, POLITICO was the first to confirm that Hunter Biden’s laptop contained genuine material and to report on the gun incident that led to his conviction.”