127
[EFF] Federal Judge Upholds State Department Rule Requiring Visa Applicants to Disclose Social Media Information (www.eff.org)
submitted 2 years ago* by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Summary

  • 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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:

And while the court recognized the First Amendment rights of noncitizens currently present in the United States who limit their online speech because they may need to renew a visa in the future, it held that the federal government’s regulation of immigration should be granted significant deference.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So the same logic permitting enhanced interrogation in Guantanamo Bay, that being unconstitutional is fine as long as it's not on US soil?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    No I haven’t, and that’s extremely alarming. Got a link handy?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •