Federal Judge Upholds State Department Rule Requiring Visa Applicants to Disclose Social Media Information
www.eff.orgSummary
-
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging a rule that requires visa applicants to disclose their social media accounts to the U.S. government.
-
The rule, which went into effect in 2019, applies to visa applicants from all countries.
-
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, two U.S.-based documentary film organizations, argued that the rule violated the First Amendment rights of visa applicants.
-
It’s unclear if the plaintiffs plan to appeal the ruling.
Additional Details
-
The rule requires visa applicants to disclose their social media identifiers, including pseudonymous accounts, for the past five years.
-
The plaintiffs argued that the rule would chill free speech and association, as visa applicants would be less likely to express themselves on social media if they knew that the government could see their posts.
-
The ruling is a reminder of the challenges faced by people who want to protect their privacy online.
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 57 users / day
- 383 users / week
- 1.5K users / month
- 5.7K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 2.96K Posts
- 74.6K Comments
- Modlog
Damn, this is absolutely terrible. I never heard this before.
Does this also apply to people applying for US citizenship?
This article specifically addresses Visa applications. So, if the person is already applying for a citizenship, there is most likely already a residency which doesn’t require Visa on entry. There also seems to be a different set of rules for people already in the country. From the article:
This is all pointless technicality.
Whichever person in charge or agency, merely requiring any human being to disclose such information is odious. It’s literally 1984 made real.
It doesn’t matter that it happens in the US and how, but the fact that it’s even a thing in this country says a lot about the kind of “democracy” it has.
When I went through the immigration process with my spouse we were asked to provide Bank statements, Affidavits from friends, coworkers, peers, and family, Photographs (including being interrogated about who was in the photos), Perform separated interviews where personal questions were asked and then cross verified (what side of the bed do you sleep on, what color is her toothbrush, what are some shows or movies you watch together, etc), We were notified that we may be surveilled, to verify that we spend time together (don’t know if it actually happened or not) My spouse had to have a full biometric physical performed and the result given to USCIS, Medical history, And about 100 pages of forms where you are required to disclose all affiliations with any groups you may have, political affiliations, etc.
Granted this is for permanent residency, not a visa, but the level of information you are required to divulge to USCIS is astronomical.
It’s been many years thankfully since I have had to do anything for USCIS, but it would not surprise me if they already ask you for social media information, and regardless of if they ask you, they are definitely finding everything they can about you.
The kicker is that everything is discretionary, so it doesn’t matter what they ask, since they can just say no if they feel like it anyway.
Aside from the horrendous privacy implications, this sounds like a gigantic waste of money. It’s just waste for the sake of waste. there’s no benefit to doing all that.
I have no idea what color my SO’s toothbrush is, and we’ve been together over 20 years. That’s insane and I’m sorry.
I don’t look at toothbrush colors when I buy them, I look at bristles and firmness, and the size/shape . I do miss whatever brand used to put the rubber massaging picks on the other end.
That’s invasive af and I’m sorry you had to experience that.
So the same logic permitting enhanced interrogation in Guantanamo Bay, that being unconstitutional is fine as long as it’s not on US soil?
It seems more or less. Have you seen the recent news about US government’s arrangement to have an eastern European country running a platform to collect data on its own citizens to skirt around the warrant law? If citizens are being treated as such, how are non-citizens being treated?
No I haven’t, and that’s extremely alarming. Got a link handy?
https://www.404media.co/revealed-the-country-that-secretly-wiretapped-the-world-for-the-fbi/
It’s already behind a paywall. But it was really a sting operation, using fake “secure” phones, to catch criminals, by skirting constitutional requirements.
I used to buy a particular Lithuanian product no longer available here. I need the rest of the story! Thanks. I’ll do some searching at some point.
Forget eastern Europe, that’s the whole premise of Five Eyes. The UK spies on American citizens and gives it to the NSA, and vice versa.