Author Topic: Trump wants to require US visa applicants to disclose 5 years of social media hi  (Read 1499 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jfkimberly

  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 2551
  • Joined: Aug 2012
  • Location: Southwest Wales
  • Gender: Female
  • Liked: 338
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-set-request-years-social-media-history-visa/story?id=54106598

I have not verified this, or checked the language of the proposed rules change, but if you're looking to repatriate with a partner, this could be something to consider in the future.

Edited to add: According to the BBC News article, the policy won't apply to applicants from "countries to which the US grants visa-free travel status - among them the UK, Canada, France and Germany. However, citizens from non-exempt countries like India, China and Mexico could be embroiled if they visit the US for work or a holiday."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43601557

I'm not sure how I missed this when the news broke a month ago.   It doesn't affect me, and I have nothing to hide, but it still doesn't sit well with me.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2018, 06:18:59 PM by jfkimberly »
9/1/2013 - "fiancée" (marriage) visa issued
4/6/2013 - married (certificate issued same-day)
5/6/2013 - FLR(M)#1 in person -- approved!
8/1/2016 - FLR(M)#2 by post -- approved!
8/5/2018 - ILR in person -- approved!

Offline lvjeremylv

  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: Sep 2016
  • Location: Las Vegas
  • Gender: Male
  • Liked: 64
What's wrong with that? Coming to the United States is a privilege, and the gov't has full authority to require those seeking admission to submit to anything they deem necessary. It's the job of the government to protect its citizens, and some further vetting is needed in order to ensure that.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2018, 08:16:57 PM by lvjeremylv »
Applied from Sin City, USA
Submitted online priority spouse visa Nov 2nd
Biometrics appointment completed Nov 6th
Package mailed to Sheffield Nov 6th
Received in Sheffield & e-mail received Nov 8th
Decision e-mail received Dec 5th
Approved or denied?    Approved!  Received Dec 7th

Offline ksand24

  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 19609
  • Joined: Jan 2007
  • Gender: Female
  • Liked: 1975
What's wrong with that?

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

It's an invasion of privacy, that's what.

I have a US visitor visa which expires in 2021 (by which time there may be a new administration anyway and this may not be a thing anymore), and I'm sorry, but if I have to disclose 5 years of my social media accounts when it's time to reapply, I'm afraid I will not be renewing my visa.

Offline lyonaria

  • *
  • Posts: 2802
  • Joined: Jun 2014
  • Location: Derbyshire, UK
  • Liked: 384
What's wrong with that? Coming to the United States is a privilege, and the gov't has full authority to require those seeking admission to submit to anything they deem necessary. It's the job of the government to protect its citizens, and some further vetting is needed in order to ensure that.

Um. No. Unless you also have to submit so many years of phone calls, text messages, post, etc. All that is is a huge invasion of privacy.

How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot and you were required to turn in 5 years of social media vetting?
The usual. American girl meets British guy. They fall into like, then into love. Then there was the big decision. The American traveled across the pond to join the Brit. And life was never the same again.

Offline F4mandolin

  • *
  • Posts: 1225
  • Joined: Mar 2013
  • Location: Harrogate
  • Liked: 113
I have no idea how they would enforce this anyway. Submit Facebook info? How about all the other sites? How many people would it take to go through the info?

But......if you ask people to register their guns.....all hell breaks loose. None of the governments business is the reason.
Fred

Offline masonjohnsmum

  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 325
  • Joined: Dec 2017
  • Liked: 86
What's wrong with that? Coming to the United States is a privilege, and the gov't has full authority to require those seeking admission to submit to anything they deem necessary. It's the job of the government to protect its citizens, and some further vetting is needed in order to ensure that.

Not even starting with violation of privacy. What’s wrong with it is that it’s being used as a tool for more discrimination. Unless ALL other countries are subjected to the same rules then it’s all bull.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#1 NON-PRIORITY UNMARRIED PARTNER
Living together since Nov 2014, son born on Mar 2016
Decision: Refusal (70 BD)
#2 PRIORITY SPOUSE
Married British Spouse: 07 Mar 2018
Online Application: 18 Mar 2018
Biometrics Appointment: 22 Mar 2018
Sheffield Received Email: 26 Mar 2018
Decision Made Email: 03 May 2018 (27 BD)
Received Passport: 07 May 2018 (APPROVED)

Offline jfkimberly

  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 2551
  • Joined: Aug 2012
  • Location: Southwest Wales
  • Gender: Female
  • Liked: 338
I have no idea how they would enforce this anyway. Submit Facebook info? How about all the other sites? How many people would it take to go through the info?

I imagine they won't use people.  They'll probably use algorithms to analyze the applicant's digital footprint, flagging up key words that might warrant closer scrutiny.  If any are found, THEN live people will take a closer look.  And they'll use the information you DO disclose to try to connect you to everybody the applicant has ever had contact with (potentially including US citizens), and possibly invade the privacy of those people without their consent...

For better or for worse, remember what we've learned from Edward Snowden.
9/1/2013 - "fiancée" (marriage) visa issued
4/6/2013 - married (certificate issued same-day)
5/6/2013 - FLR(M)#1 in person -- approved!
8/1/2016 - FLR(M)#2 by post -- approved!
8/5/2018 - ILR in person -- approved!

Offline margo

  • *
  • Posts: 1237
  • Joined: Apr 2016
  • Location: NY - USA
  • Gender: Female
  • Liked: 269
Ugh. I was just reading an article about how it's time to start talking about data ethics at the dinner table since everyone and their brother *can* collect and analyse information for good and bad these days. This is a huge overstep in privacy, and another attempt to keep out brown people under the veil of national security. It can't pass but its shitty they are trying.
Met: 2013
Married: 2016
Biometrics: 7/25/17
Mailed: 7/29/17
Confirmation Email: 8/2/17
Decision Email:
Received:

Offline jfkimberly

  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 2551
  • Joined: Aug 2012
  • Location: Southwest Wales
  • Gender: Female
  • Liked: 338
This is a huge overstep in privacy, and another attempt to keep out brown people under the veil of national security. It can't pass but its shitty they are trying.

This is an executive branch agency rules change, not a bill going through Congress.  It can be enacted without the support of the people.  This is similar in decision process to the Net Neutrality question by the FCC.  The government will hear comments from the public, but they don't have to listen.  It will make up its mind with or without the will of the people.

If it the enforcement of it turns out to be racially or religiously discriminatory (as we know it is), it can be challenged through the courts, but that means some people will be harmed by it before it gets struck down.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 09:26:02 AM by jfkimberly »
9/1/2013 - "fiancée" (marriage) visa issued
4/6/2013 - married (certificate issued same-day)
5/6/2013 - FLR(M)#1 in person -- approved!
8/1/2016 - FLR(M)#2 by post -- approved!
8/5/2018 - ILR in person -- approved!

Offline durhamlad

  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 1178
  • Joined: Nov 2012
  • Location: Eee, bah gum.
  • Gender: Male
  • Liked: 117
I imagine they won't use people.  They'll probably use algorithms to analyze the applicant's digital footprint, flagging up key words that might warrant closer scrutiny.  If any are found, THEN live people will take a closer look.  And they'll use the information you DO disclose to try to connect you to everybody the applicant has ever had contact with (potentially including US citizens), and possibly invade the privacy of those people without their consent...

For better or for worse, remember what we've learned from Edward Snowden.

Remember also what we learned from Cambridge Analytica where people on Facebook who took part in a quiz were also exposing all their friends’ personal data as well.

I agree with you that the government will investigate not just the individual’s social media data but all of their contacts as well.
Adventure before dementia

Offline jimbocz

  • *
  • Posts: 3984
  • Joined: Sep 2015
  • Liked: 853
What's wrong with that? Coming to the United States is a privilege, and the gov't has full authority to require those seeking admission to submit to anything they deem necessary. It's the job of the government to protect its citizens, and some further vetting is needed in order to ensure that.

Entering the US isn't any more of a "privilege" than entering any other country. 

The US government does not have "full authority" to do anything they want.  Ever heard of the constitution?  It's what protects the rest of us from people that would gladly give up their privacy and human rights because they've been frightened and manipulated by people who want to take away their privacy and human rights. 

For someone who seems to think the US is so superior, you seem to have a lack of understanding of the best things about the US, like tolerance, free speech and the constitutional amendments protecting us against unreasonable search and seizure.   

Offline Texas2uk

  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Joined: Dec 2016
  • Liked: 3
You are subject to quite broad authority when passing through a point of entry in any direction. We’ve seen stories here before of the UK border force pulling people aside so they could go through diaries or phone messages to see if there was a genuine relationship and if the foreign national is planning to leave or may overstay. The same happens with US Customs. It is not an invasion of privacy. You volunteered yourself and everything you carried for thorough search when you entered another country. They of course must have some basis for suspicion, but your alternative to the search is getting back on a plane headed the other direction.

I don’t know if people get this, but every single passenger on every single international flight between global entry countries undergoes a background check before they land, often before they board. You know that checks against no-fly lists, but it also runs a criminal history check. It’s imperfect when it’s a fresh national flying from London to the US, but the automated system does the best it can. It then spits out persons of interest, who are then reviewed further. That could already easily include looking at their social media. You voluntarily put that stuff in the public domain. You don’t really have a privacy claim over what people who aren’t friended with you can see. And if when you touch down they think there is reasonable suspicion to perform a further investigation, then they will.

The UK does the same thing. So does France and Germany and every country in the global entry group. That’s why citizens of those countries are able to travel without having to apply in advance for a visa. The only reason India or China or Saudi Arabia or Kenya or wherever else are not in that group is because they cannot or choose not to spend the resources necessary to satisfy they participating countries that the pre-screening information they send will meet the standards.

All this proposal would do is expedite the process and help eliminate false positives with less resources wasted. I understand it is a stiffer touch than all the things going on out of sight and out of mind. And if you don’t want to do it then they don’t have to allow you entry.

Of course these things could be abused. Just like having cctv cameras all over the place could be abused - could be and is a massive invasion of privacy. But, you don’t walk around a city in the UK worried that some perv is checking you out on the cameras or looking through your windows. That probably does happen a lot more than you think, but you don’t flinch at that. Yet, that is a greater invasion of privacy without consent and without reasonable suspicion, versus a passenger voluntarily placing themselves at a port of entry.

I’m very happy to be appalled when civil liberties are trampled. I don’t hesitate to push back on govt overreach, and I do fear the potential for abuse when power increases. And I do like my privacy. But this just really isn’t that scary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline KFdancer

  • *
  • Posts: 11989
  • Joined: Jun 2012
  • Location: Wokingham
  • Liked: 2523
But, you don’t walk around a city in the UK worried that some perv is checking you out on the cameras or looking through your windows.

I do!  I definitely have those worries.

I don't fully agree with your "background check on everyone on a flight".  There will be a check against known terrorism records, but not all criminal records.  I say this with confidence having worked in a role confirming warrants in the past and also working for the company who created NCIC.  If they were, several people on each flight would be arrested for outstanding warrants.   ;D

Offline historyenne

  • erstwhile vespa girl
  • *
  • Posts: 6064
  • Joined: Nov 2008
  • Location: Baku, Azerbaijan
  • Gender: Female
  • Britannicaine
  • Liked: 179
But this just really isn’t that scary.

It may not be scary to you as a white man (going by your profile pic) but it's pretty damn scary to people who aren't part of that privileged group. Your civil liberties may not be threatened but it's the height of privilege-blinded arrogance to assume that no one else's are either.
On s'envolera du même quai
Les yeux dans les mêmes reflets,
Pour cette vie et celle d'après
Tu seras mon unique projet.

Je t'aimais, je t'aime, et je t'aimerai.

--Francis Cabrel

Offline Texas2uk

  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Joined: Dec 2016
  • Liked: 3
Entering the US isn't any more of a "privilege" than entering any other country. 

The US government does not have "full authority" to do anything they want.  Ever heard of the constitution?  It's what protects the rest of us from people that would gladly give up their privacy and human rights because they've been frightened and manipulated by people who want to take away their privacy and human rights. 

For someone who seems to think the US is so superior, you seem to have a lack of understanding of the best things about the US, like tolerance, free speech and the constitutional amendments protecting us against unreasonable search and seizure.
While I somewhat agree with your characterization of the other poster, the Court has been quite consistent on the border exception. I do hate to cite to Wikipedia, but this is well sourced.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk