US State Department begins social media screening for nearly all visa applicants(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
US State Department begins social media screening for nearly all visa applicants
https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/01/u-s-state-department-begins-social-media-screening-for-nearly-all-visa-applicants/
40 コメント
My wife mentioned this to me yesterday, and I laughed and said I guess it wouldn't have affected me anyways as I don't really do much social media (unless you count this as social media). Now I'm beginning to wonder if they'll assume you're lying if you said that, or somehow more suspicious...
Sounds like currently more of a black box to deny anyone a VISA that can't remember every website they signed up for in the last 5 years.
If you put "RT ≠ Endorsement" on your profile, you should be safe.
like so many other laws, it will be selectively used mostly on certain ethnicities/groups
It is worse. You can laugh until you realize that absence from social media is perceived as highly suspicious.
Would you immediately be rejected for the visa if you don't have a Facebook page?
Yes, your application will be flagged. I just commented above on how my toddler's application was flagged due to lack of social media profiles.
The only saving grace is that they don't/can't verify that you really own the social media profile. You can just put in Mark Zuckerberg's profile and apply
The only saving grace is that they don't/can't verify that you really own the social media profile. You can just put in Mark Zuckerberg's profile and apply
> Yesterday the U.S. State Department began implementing its requirement that nearly all U.S. visa applicants submit their social media usernames, previous email addresses and phone numbers as part of the application process.
> These new obstacles to immigration come at a time ...
If I understand this correctly, these are not obstacles to just immigrate to USA; these are obstacles for visiting USA.
> These new obstacles to immigration come at a time ...
If I understand this correctly, these are not obstacles to just immigrate to USA; these are obstacles for visiting USA.
these are not obstacles for visiting USA; these are obstacles even if you are just transiting through USA.
IMO this is how social media ends itself. As real world consequences become less distant and people have to be more ‘politically correct’ where being ‘politically correct’ is a function of which political party is currently in charge, people will use social media less and less. Social media will just become another outlet for ‘mainstream media’ and sycophants.
It’s been difficult to see anything positive in the social media sphere lately. I closed my Facebook account nearly 5 years ago because it just felt like a toxic influence. My reddit account nearly 6 years ago met the same fate.
These days I can only stand using Discord and WhatsApp for conversations with people I know IRL. I can’t imagine my kids ever being interested in most social media sites as they’ve already skipped most social media services to talk to their friends directly in video games like Minecraft and Roblox and using iMessage in group conversations.
It’s been difficult to see anything positive in the social media sphere lately. I closed my Facebook account nearly 5 years ago because it just felt like a toxic influence. My reddit account nearly 6 years ago met the same fate.
These days I can only stand using Discord and WhatsApp for conversations with people I know IRL. I can’t imagine my kids ever being interested in most social media sites as they’ve already skipped most social media services to talk to their friends directly in video games like Minecraft and Roblox and using iMessage in group conversations.
Or, this is how Facebook replaces US Customs and Border Protection.
I reckon Facebook could do a pretty good job at that. Deep network checks, location history, call logs, content history (if they're active on the sites you browse). Terrifying but through. Makes the NSA look like a nosey neighbour peeping over the fence.
I reckon Facebook could do a pretty good job at that. Deep network checks, location history, call logs, content history (if they're active on the sites you browse). Terrifying but through. Makes the NSA look like a nosey neighbour peeping over the fence.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." — The United States Bill of Rights
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal..." — The United States Declaration of Independence
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal..." — The United States Declaration of Independence
The people applying are not citizens, so ʾthe people' doesn't mean those particular people.
I think there’s likely a reasonable expectation of privacy somewhere, such as for private posts or protected tweets (which the measures FTA would not necessarily examine). At the same time, if someone’s sharing their support for ISIS on Facebook, I sure hope authorities would take notice and act accordingly.
[deleted]
I used my social media as a supporting argument for an O1 ama.
That said, requiring it for everyone seems heavy handed and feels wrong. I can’t quite put into words why, however.
And I bet most people who have not dealt with visas will just say “Well if you have nothing to hide ...”
That said, requiring it for everyone seems heavy handed and feels wrong. I can’t quite put into words why, however.
And I bet most people who have not dealt with visas will just say “Well if you have nothing to hide ...”
[deleted]
An interesting anecdote: Even if you are transiting through US you need a transit visa. So we were flying from Australia to Canada with a change of planes in US and we had to get an ESTA visa.
The visa application requires you to enter social media profiles for major platforms including facebook, twitter etc but there is no way for them to verify it's really yours. We did fill up ours but for my two year old toddler I just marked as no social media profile.
The lack of social media profile on one of the application meant the whole application was flagged delaying our ESTA. I would have assumed that the system would have a check to allow no social media for people younger than 13 (or 16)
The visa application requires you to enter social media profiles for major platforms including facebook, twitter etc but there is no way for them to verify it's really yours. We did fill up ours but for my two year old toddler I just marked as no social media profile.
The lack of social media profile on one of the application meant the whole application was flagged delaying our ESTA. I would have assumed that the system would have a check to allow no social media for people younger than 13 (or 16)
I had no problem getting ESTA approved without mentioning any social media accounts within an hour!
I wonder if not having any social media presence would be a problem; I think that would be the more insidiuous thing. Social media posts are, effectively, publications; whether they tell you it's policy or not, it's likely that they would (and perhaps should) look.
My main concern is that they would be suspicious of people who don't publish their every thought on the internet.
My main concern is that they would be suspicious of people who don't publish their every thought on the internet.
"Sure.. check out my blog. lemonparty.org"
... actually. We should/could setup a group collaboration site on a different shock URL that's close to this which would have plausible deniability if you gave them the shock URL.
"OMG! I mean lemonparties.org.. not lemonparty.org... WTF"
... actually. We should/could setup a group collaboration site on a different shock URL that's close to this which would have plausible deniability if you gave them the shock URL.
"OMG! I mean lemonparties.org.. not lemonparty.org... WTF"
Expect tit-for-tat responses from other countries for Americans trying to visit them.
They already have access to 100% of social media. This is just to have a plausibly official second source.
I can’t tell if coming through with a B1 or B2 with globs entry is included in this.
This is what happens when you believe you're the greatest country in the world and that anyone trying to visit is up to no good and just wants to overstay their visa and take advantage of your amazing system.
The reality couldn't be any further from that!
The reality couldn't be any further from that!
If the reality couldn't be further from that, how do you explain that nearly everyone in the world thst wants a better life comes to the United States?
That is what basically every country says about themselves:
- https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article177733806/Neue-EU...
- https://www.metro.se/artikel/nej-eu-planerar-inte-att-placer...
- https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article177733806/Neue-EU...
- https://www.metro.se/artikel/nej-eu-planerar-inte-att-placer...
Do you have any numbers to support your statement? I just looked up migration stats from the UN, and found:
1. The vast bulk of migrants do not go to the US
2. International share of migrants has grown much faster than the US share
The US has a large overall number of immigrants as it is a large country, but per capita many countries are taking in more. Canada takes in about 3x per capita for example.
1. The vast bulk of migrants do not go to the US
2. International share of migrants has grown much faster than the US share
The US has a large overall number of immigrants as it is a large country, but per capita many countries are taking in more. Canada takes in about 3x per capita for example.
Here is a nice info-graphic about it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/04/03/lebano...
'Everyone in the world' does not. That you think that shows your incredible myopic bias.
[deleted]
What? America's great and a lot of people indeed try to overstay visas and take advantage of the system. This is an easily established fact.
Just last week, a thousand people in one solitary moment on one day formed a line and forced their way into the country for the privilege of being an unwelcome, tenuous inhabitant; that's how much some people want to be in the U.S.
This is the wrong line of argument if you just want to say that it's inappropriate for the government to scrutinize social media posts as part of the visa application process. You're setting yourself up to defend an unnecessary point rather than the actual argument.
Just last week, a thousand people in one solitary moment on one day formed a line and forced their way into the country for the privilege of being an unwelcome, tenuous inhabitant; that's how much some people want to be in the U.S.
This is the wrong line of argument if you just want to say that it's inappropriate for the government to scrutinize social media posts as part of the visa application process. You're setting yourself up to defend an unnecessary point rather than the actual argument.
It is an historical fact that the United States has profoundly and repeatedly screwed over nearly every single nation south of it on the two American continents, starting coups to topple democratically elected governments, invading, supporting dictators, and destroying economies over the last century. I think claims about economic migrants and/or refugees that don't acknowledge this background are absurd.
But now I'm physically reluctant to type out this fact, because it could conceivably jeopardize my next visa application.
The values and freedoms that people picture America stands for, and that it bases its claims to legitimacy on -freedom of thought and speech, democracy, for example- aren't values that America has any interest in upholding for people outside its own borders, instead it repeatedly shows contempt for them; and in the case of dozens of minorities (ethnic, religious, gender and sexual) it shows little interest in upholding these values and freedoms for its own citizens.
It's mind-numbing to me that Americans speaking to non-Americans who might begin to encounter reasons why American foreign policy in particular is littered with atrocities will now be even less exposed to that information of that because of the chilling effect of social media screening.
But now I'm physically reluctant to type out this fact, because it could conceivably jeopardize my next visa application.
The values and freedoms that people picture America stands for, and that it bases its claims to legitimacy on -freedom of thought and speech, democracy, for example- aren't values that America has any interest in upholding for people outside its own borders, instead it repeatedly shows contempt for them; and in the case of dozens of minorities (ethnic, religious, gender and sexual) it shows little interest in upholding these values and freedoms for its own citizens.
It's mind-numbing to me that Americans speaking to non-Americans who might begin to encounter reasons why American foreign policy in particular is littered with atrocities will now be even less exposed to that information of that because of the chilling effect of social media screening.
> It is an historical fact that the United States has profoundly and repeatedly screwed over nearly every single nation south of it on the two American continents, starting coups to topple democratically elected governments, invading, supporting dictators, and destroying economies over the last century. I think claims about economic migrants and/or refugees that don't acknowledge this background are absurd.
Dude, I just said that people want to be in the U.S. I didn't write an essay on the ultimate moral high ground of America, nor claim that they've done no wrong. I just said many people attempt to illegally enter the country because they want to be there.
>But now I'm physically reluctant to type out this fact, because it could conceivably jeopardize my next visa application.
The values and freedoms that people picture America stands for, and that it bases its claims to legitimacy on -freedom of thought and speech, democracy, for example- aren't values that America has any interest in upholding for people outside its own borders, instead it repeatedly shows contempt for them; and in the case of dozens of minorities (ethnic, religious, gender and sexual) it shows little interest in upholding these values and freedoms for its own citizens.
Well, if you hate the place so much, then why apply for a visa? As for the U.S. "upholding" "freedom of thought and speech" "outside its own borders", that is entirely outside its remit, and it seems that countries outside the U.S' borders have no interest in upholding freedom of speech anywhere (including at home), how exactly is the U.S. supposed to ensure the civil rights of people it does not govern, in countries where those civil rights are not protected?
Dude, I just said that people want to be in the U.S. I didn't write an essay on the ultimate moral high ground of America, nor claim that they've done no wrong. I just said many people attempt to illegally enter the country because they want to be there.
>But now I'm physically reluctant to type out this fact, because it could conceivably jeopardize my next visa application.
The values and freedoms that people picture America stands for, and that it bases its claims to legitimacy on -freedom of thought and speech, democracy, for example- aren't values that America has any interest in upholding for people outside its own borders, instead it repeatedly shows contempt for them; and in the case of dozens of minorities (ethnic, religious, gender and sexual) it shows little interest in upholding these values and freedoms for its own citizens.
Well, if you hate the place so much, then why apply for a visa? As for the U.S. "upholding" "freedom of thought and speech" "outside its own borders", that is entirely outside its remit, and it seems that countries outside the U.S' borders have no interest in upholding freedom of speech anywhere (including at home), how exactly is the U.S. supposed to ensure the civil rights of people it does not govern, in countries where those civil rights are not protected?
> Well, if you hate the place so much, then why apply for a visa?
If you see me feeling an ethical duty to scrutinise the widespread and damaging effects of US foreign policy and immediately decide that must mean I "hate the place" (or the people), it doesn't leave much cognitive room for any genuine engagement with the idea that American foreign policy could be harmful.
Secondly, one of my claims was that US foreign policy actively harms values and freedoms when it "topples democratically elected governments, starts coups and supports dictators".
I've nowhere argued that the US has a duty to "ensure" the civil rights of people it does not govern (a gargantuan undertaking), but that is actually quite a seperate question than whether the US has an ethical duty to avoid actively harming them (eg with behaviour such as toppling democratically elected govts, staging coups, supporting dictators et cetera).
If you see me feeling an ethical duty to scrutinise the widespread and damaging effects of US foreign policy and immediately decide that must mean I "hate the place" (or the people), it doesn't leave much cognitive room for any genuine engagement with the idea that American foreign policy could be harmful.
Secondly, one of my claims was that US foreign policy actively harms values and freedoms when it "topples democratically elected governments, starts coups and supports dictators".
I've nowhere argued that the US has a duty to "ensure" the civil rights of people it does not govern (a gargantuan undertaking), but that is actually quite a seperate question than whether the US has an ethical duty to avoid actively harming them (eg with behaviour such as toppling democratically elected govts, staging coups, supporting dictators et cetera).
[deleted]
American people are wonderful and there is no better place to be IMO but the current government is not representative of this great majority. Please don't blame us all for Trump and his cretins.