Is screening tourists’ social media legitimate security — or blatant authoritarianism?

In this timely episode, host Niall sits down with American-born social commentator Karl Deeter to unpack the Trump administration’s controversial new proposal to make foreign tourists hand over up to five years of social media history before they can enter the United States. The idea, part of expanded immigration screening, would apply even to visitors from countries that currently travel visa-free — including those using the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).

ABC

Supporters argue this sweeping vetting is a sovereign right — that the U.S. must do whatever it takes to protect national security and public safety. Critics, though, warn it smacks of authoritarian surveillance, chilling free speech by judging travellers on their online views or political expressions.

South China Morning Post

Niall and Karl dig into the implications for travellers, privacy, free expression, and global perceptions of American openness. Expect sharp analysis on questions like:

What exactly would tourists be required to disclose?

ABC

Could this chill legitimate criticism of U.S. policy or culture abroad?

mint

Is this really about security, or is it a political tool?

With Niall’s cynical edge leading the conversation, the episode asks listeners to confront the heart of the issue:

👉 “To visit the U.S., are you willing to bare your social media history — even if some posts might offend American sensibilities?”

A provocative, globally relevant discussion on freedom, travel, and how far governments should go in policing online life before you even board a plane

In this episode, host Niall dives into the government’s newly announced Digital Wallet and Age Verification Pilot, a scheme framed as a major step in protecting children online. But Niall isn’t buying the whole narrative. While he agrees that under-18s need better safeguards, he questions whether this “robust age-verification tool” is really just a backdoor for an EU-style digital ID.

Joining him are two key guests:

Patrick O’Donovan, Minister for Communications, who lays out the government’s plans for a nationwide pilot, the technology behind the digital wallet, and the legislation set to follow. He insists it’s all about child safety, limited data-sharing, and empowering families online.

Paul Treyvaud, social commentator and privacy hawk, who interrogates the unintended consequences—mission creep, data centralisation, and whether citizens should trust any system that links identity, login access, and government notifications in a single app.

With Niall playing the sceptic, the conversation asks the uncomfortable questions politicians tend to avoid:

Who controls your digital identity?

How much personal data is too much?

And once a national digital wallet exists, what stops it from expanding?

As always, listeners take centre stage. Niall opens the phone lines with the question at the heart of the debate:

👉 “Are you willing to sign up for a digital wallet or ID in the name of protecting children?”

On this episode Niall talks about : The British government is preparing to introduce next-generation surveillance cameras—systems engineered not only to capture images but to analyse movements, behaviour, and even emotional states in public spaces. Supporters say this leap in technology could revolutionise public safety: detecting suspicious activity before it escalates, identifying individuals who may be at risk of self-harm, and helping police respond faster and more effectively. But critics argue that this crosses a fundamental line—replacing human judgment with algorithms and turning every citizen into a potential subject of monitoring.

Across the UK, facial recognition cameras are already widely deployed, sparking repeated legal battles and public outcry. Meanwhile in Ireland, the debate has been far more heated. New legislation is moving forward that would permit An Garda Síochána to use facial recognition only in specific, retrospective investigations—for example, to identify suspects after a serious crime has already occurred. Crucially, this does not include permission for real-time surveillance on the streets. But many privacy advocates warn that this “limited introduction” could be the first step toward normalising broader use of the technology over time.

Tonight, Niall digs into the heart of the argument—here are some of the pros and cons raised:

Pros of Advanced Surveillance Technology

Crime Deterrence: The presence of intelligent cameras could discourage criminal behaviour in high-risk areas.

Faster Investigations: Facial recognition can help solve crimes that would otherwise take weeks or months.

Locating Missing Persons: Advocates say such systems could help find vulnerable people quickly, including children or those with dementia.

Suicide Prevention: Emotion-detecting algorithms might alert authorities to individuals showing signs of distress in public spaces.

Resource Efficiency: With stretched police resources, automated systems could monitor large areas more efficiently than humans.

Cons and Concerns

Mass Surveillance: Critics argue this creates a society where everyone is constantly monitored, regardless of whether they’ve done anything wrong.

Privacy Erosion: Once cameras can read emotions and behaviour, many feel the line between security and intrusion disappears entirely.

Algorithmic Bias: Facial recognition has a documented history of misidentifying women and people of colour, raising concerns about wrongful suspicion.

Data Security Risks: Storing sensitive behavioural and biometric data could make the public vulnerable if breaches occur.

Mission Creep: Even if Ireland starts with retrospective-only use, many fear it could slowly expand into real-time monitoring—just as it did elsewhere.

Lack of Accountability: There are concerns about who controls the data, how it’s used, and what oversight exists to prevent misuse.

Would you accept facial recognition cameras on public streets if it meant more crimes were solved?

Or is this a line Ireland should never cross, no matter the benefits?

Expect big reactions, strong opinions and callers who won’t hold back—from those demanding safer streets to those warning about the rise of a surveillance state. And as always, Niall is right in the thick of it, pushing back, asking questions, and challenging every assumption along the way.