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.
This is why I emigrated out of the US after the Patriot Act was enacted and I haven’t come back since. I saw the writing on the wall back then and it sure wasn’t lying…
Visiting the US today is like visiting Germany in 1936: yeah you can. But do you really want to?
While I agree with you, EU is currently expected to enforce client side scanning on all devices in the EU, basically outlawing e2ee. Where the fuck are we supposed to live that isn’t a fascist hellhole?
No way Germans will allow this
they let their allies blowup the gas pipeline that took them down to recession. Germans are cucks.
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:
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.
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.
That’s invasive af and I’m sorry you had to experience 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.
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 am not on social media.”
“A brief search showed that the applicant gave false statements in their VISA application form, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1546. Lifetime ban applied.”
“Then what’s these applications on your phone that you obligated to unlock for me?”
“I do not have a phone”
The judge basically said, if I am reading it right, that there is an argument but it needs work.
This is a BS requirement. I get asking for social media but such an ask is unenforceable. It’s like asking your favorite color.
It’s a motion to dismiss that was granted under rules of the court. The rules cited by the defendant (The Secretary of State) in the motion to dismiss:
- Rule 12(b)(1) — The plaintiff did not present enough evidence to show that they have standing to bring the matter before the courts.
- Rule 12(b)(6) — The plaintiff did not present sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face .
The court sided with the plaintiff that sufficient evidence was indeed presented before the court to indicate that the plaintiff did indeed have standing, BUT their argument brought before the court failed to state a claim under either the APA (the Administrative Procedure
Act) or the First Amendment. Thus the court has accepted the motion to dismiss the case, citing:A concrete injury is “foremost” among the standing requirements
Plaintiff could state in concrete terms the injury to be suffered by those affected by the two avenues of injury they (the plaintiff) had indicated. The plaintiff is the one who brought up the first amendment and the APA but failed to follow through on the argument before the court in terms of actual injury (a court CANNOT assume injury even ones that sound pretty obvious).
More importantly the first amendment issue brought before the court couldn’t be held. The court indicated that the Government has a vested interest (in the name of national security) to be all up in the business of people traveling here for work. But that the plaintiff did bring up a point about how that might also hurt their ability to work here, but failed to qualify it in their original argument (that basically means, “I don’t think this is a first amendment issue but you’ve got a point if you want to try something else.”)
The motion to dismiss is granted with perjury. The plaintiff cannot bring it back before the courts and cannot
usuallyappeal the decision.So yeah, the Judge sounds like he was interested in the issue being brought but the arguments that were critical to their case fell apart at the whole “for foreigners traveling here, the US has every right to monitor your social media accounts”. The argument that seemed to pique the judge’s interest was how that information might be used to remove business opportunities from people traveling here. Which is a good point because once a person is approved to work here in the US, the information obtained by the Visa application cannot be used to taint the work environment the person works in.
However, the plaintiff wasn’t able to provide a concrete way of how that would happen (that was outside of the “we’re arresting you and kicking you out” which the Government has a right to do). The thing is the plaintiff would need a way to connect the dots on how information obtained in the Visa might get back to their employer and then the employer keeps the person but alters their job based on that information released by the Government. If there is a manner by which that might happen, then yeah, that’s a no-no.
So to summarize, it’s not really a precedent or anything. The judge tried to give it as much chance as possible but they just brought a bad case that wasn’t really worth the trouble.
believe dismissal can be appealed
I personally think you have to be careful. If they don’t like your application and find that you are not disclosing the information, it might become a justification to reject the application. Remember that there are 3rd parties that massively correlate internet data that are sold to governments and corporations. Unless you accounts definitely cannot be linked to your real identity, there is a chance that they will find out what social accounts you have anyway.
What color do you like? …
WRONG! Friend Computer says you like blue, yet here you are, saying you like red; oh, Mr John Smith is a common name in your region of Canada?
Likely story!!!
Or, maybe, you… are a lying communist.
VISA DENIED
Canadian is a communist who lied about their favorite color
And when they’re asking you, they may already know. It’s a test.
It is conceivable to prove you have a social media account you denied having (seize your phone, your computer). It is not the same as having a favorite color.
The consequences of lying on a visa application can be severe, such as a ban on entering the US.
If there is a reason to seize your phone and computer, then your VISA has other problems.
And if not, Is an omission lying? It is exactly the same as listing your favorite color, and leaving it blank.
Yes it’s lying. What if you left blank a request to list your criminal convictions?
straw man. Nobody can fact check your favorite color which can change from month to month.
Your criminal history is factual and evidence based.
I never brought up colors, which are nothing like the specific and provable social media handles. Best not to lie on a visa application, especially not about something that can be proven with subpoenas.
I’m curious what the ofgicial definition of “social media” is. Is lemmy social media? What about github or stackoverflow?
There seems to be 20, some nonextant.
https://redbus2us.com/us-visa-forms-ds-160-260-has-social-media-questions-now-samples/
Reddit is in the list, so I’d say yes
Do you have any social media? Nope.
To others that might have also read this completely wrong: Visa as in immigration not the credit card.
This is why you should use all social media like linked in. Only post things that would look good in an interview. It’s a public, professional profile for self promotion.
And the only response you should give to DMs is to either ignore them or say “please message me on signal/wire/etc”
Anonymity should exist online. Not for all platforms, but I shouldn’t be required to reveal all the dumb things I’ve said on Reddit under a fake username, nor should the government be allowed to go check every YouTube video I’ve watched, unless I’m under criminal investigation and they have a warrant. This law is just another incremental infringement on our constitutionally protected privacy. They figure at least half the country will support it since it only impacts immigrants. Then when they expand it to impact them, they’ll be used to the idea and explain it away, or be unable to fight against it. “First they came for the socialists”… and all that.
Just use a fake username, as you said. Have a distinct user with your real name that you use for self promotions. That’s the one you gives at interviews for employers and visas.
This is what I do on both Lemmy and reddit. It’s only an issue on reddit, where you’re expected to only self-promote some percent. Of course it looks like your real-name-account does self-promotion 100% of the time because…that’s what it’s for. It should be expected that we do most of our main commenting and posting on an anonymous account
