
US Visa Forms DS-160, 260 Has Social Media Questions Now – Samples - elliekelly
https://redbus2us.com/us-visa-forms-ds-160-260-has-social-media-questions-now-samples/
======
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20065142](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20065142)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20078429](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20078429)

~~~
p1esk
Your links are from 2 months ago, and this submission has already generated a
substantial discussion. Why kill it now?

~~~
dang
Submissions count as dupes on HN if the story has had significant attention in
the last year or so. This is in the FAQ:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html).
When it's an ongoing story and a submission contains significant new
information, we sometimes override that. But it doesn't appear to be the case
here.

Marking this post a dupe doesn't mean the story is unimportant. It's just that
front page real estate is the scarcest resource on HN. More explanation here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19103247](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19103247).

------
Someone1234
I literally could not fill this out without perjuring myself. They say you
need to list even unknown/closed/deleted accounts for the last five years. I
don't know them all.

This either feels like an out of touch attempt by an older generation who
doesn't understand social media (only uses Facebook, etc), or a huge honey
trap tricking people into inadvertently "lying" to the USG. They can then use
these mistakes to then revoke anyone's status after the fact at a whim (inc.
for political reasons).

It reminds me of the pre-ACA health insurance forms, they were designed as
huge "gotchas" so they could revoke as needed ("undisclosed pre-existing
conditions"). This has that exact same feeling.

Also I wonder if a low/no social media presence will be held against you? I'm
assuming it will.

~~~
gruez
>a huge honey trap tricking people into inadvertently "lying" to the USG. They
can then use these mistakes to then revoke anyone's status after the fact at a
whim (inc. for political reasons).

Doesn't the USG have to prove that you were lying in court? Or can they cite
that your information is incorrect and immediately deport you?

~~~
Someone1234
An immigration court isn't a real court. It is an executive "court" with
appointed judges (essentially employees) and no judicial oversight.

If you think of the three branches of government, immigration proceedings are
squarely under the executive, the same branch trying to deport people.

~~~
rayiner
Not true. Immigration determinations are appealable, with certain limitations,
to the circuit courts of appeal.

~~~
Someone1234
How does that make what I said "not true?" What I said is a well established
fact:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Office_for_Immigrati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Office_for_Immigration_Review)

You can, under limited circumstances, appeal your case to a real court, but
the primary court that most people being deported deal with is in the
executive branch meaning the executive branch conducts a full deportation from
inception to execution in almost all cases.

~~~
rayiner
You stated there was “no judicial oversight.” The possibility of appeal to an
Article III court is “judicial oversight.”

------
dpau
A while back I tried to sign up for Airbnb, but it was impossible to verify my
identity without providing social media accounts. (At the time I didn't use
Facebook, LinkedIn, etc., and the photo ID upload verification failed.)

Due this experience, I later created Facebook and Instagram profiles populated
with minimal personal information and a few friends just so I could prove I
existed..

For these new visa requirements, at what point does NOT having social media
accounts become suspicious, a red flag warranting more in-depth review? And
how useful is the requirement if the natural response is to just create filler
social media accounts?

------
robteix
What happens when you lose an account now? Or if you close an account on a
service that doesn't reserve usernames (e.g. Twitter)? All of a sudden someone
is using "yourname" on twitter to say something the US immigration officers
don't like. That's not far fetched at all

~~~
Spooky23
You report it.

~~~
pintxo
You expect everyone to monitor all their deleted social media accounts for
reusage? For how long? Forever?

------
ricardobeat
> No, you should NOT answer NONE, if you were or currently are on any of the
> social media platforms. If you do so, you are lying and it is considered
> fraud and you can be penalized for it.

I guess this will be the end of traveling to the US after my current VISA
expires. This is beyond reasonable. My accounts are all public but I cannot
condone such policies.

------
defen
I’ve probably created at least 50 reddit throwaways in the past 5 years...the
platform encourages it. No way I’d be able to remember them all, and I’m sure
lots of other people are in the same boat.

~~~
Sendotsh
I create random usernames/accounts all over the web. Rarely do they have the
same names. I also regularly (yearly or so) scrap all of them and start again,
sometimes deleting the account if it has that feature, other times just
abandoning it and starting new ones.

I've done this as long as online accounts have been a thing, even as far back
as early IRC days.

I honestly wouldn't have a clue what half the accounts I used last year were,
let alone going back further than that.

~~~
elliekelly
> I honestly wouldn't have a clue what half the accounts I used last year were

What's scary to think about is whether you've associated your phone number
(which they also ask for) or other PII with any of those old accounts. I don't
think it's a stretch to imagine the government having an easier time figuring
out your list of old accounts than you would.

~~~
Sendotsh
Oh I have no doubt they know every account I’ve had. This whole thing reminds
me of doing your taxes. They already know all the information, they just want
you to tell them again so they can see if/where you lie.

------
oneplane
I wonder why the US sees everyone who is not from the US as having a lower
worth or being a lower class or something like that. Even the laws are
constructed around that...

~~~
r32a_
It's not like that, Within the U.S itself some people have higher worth than
others. Look at their medical system for example.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

~~~
EGreg
When people would pull my girlfriend for random checks, I used to joke:

Some travelers are random

But others are more random than others ;-)

------
Arun2009
The US is well within its right to decide who should be allowed within its
borders, but this requirement will drive away precisely the kind of immigrants
that the US (or any other sensible country) might want to attract.

~~~
hannasanarion
I'm sorry to inform you, but the people who currently run CBP are not only
incompetent, but opposed to all immigrants regardless of qualification,
especially if they're nonwhite.

------
josu
The only silver lining is that they still have to ask. In the direction we are
going, in a few years they will both know and have access to all your social
media accounts.

~~~
humbleMouse
This is the most prolific and dark comment on this thread.

~~~
p1esk
I think you might be using the word “prolific” incorrectly.

------
duxup
This just seems silly.

I applied for a security clearance ages ago, before social media, and I could
understand the gotcha style questions and background stuff when applied to a
security clearance.

I didn't expect anyone to honestly answer the question about if they had ever
been a member of an organization dedicated to overthrowing the US
government... but I understood why it was there.

This, this is just dumb and seems like it would produce nothing but bad will.

------
Jedi72
Yep, applying for a US visa now.

I wonder what the actual changes are, is someone in ICE stalking your FB
looking for pro-Hillary memes or something? For anyone who actually needed a
security clearance, they wouldn't need you to volunteer it.

~~~
pkaye
I think it is more of a "perjury trap". If after admittance, they need a quick
way to kick you out of the country they can dig into things and say you lied
on the forms.

~~~
wbl
Why wouldn't you tell the truth?

~~~
DoreenMichele
Some people simply aren't going to remember every single social media account
from the past five years. That's what makes it a potential "gotcha."

It potentially creates this scenario:

 _Missed one? You "lied." Buh-bye!_

~~~
drusepth
Is it correct to assume a Visa application is now just harder to fill out
correctly?

------
nihonde
This is the first of many forays to come by the US government to outsource
identity management to Facebook. It’s coming, whether you like it or not.

------
jessriedel
Can someone familiar with the Visa process describe other personal information
that is required so that we can compare the level of invasiveness?

~~~
Someone1234
Income. Job. Previous jobs. Previous travel. Previous residence. Entries to
the US. Family member's biographic info (e.g. place of birth, DoB, etc). A
medical screening in some cases for some communicable diseases (e.g. HIV used
to be a ban, no longer, TB still is banned). Asking about spousal relationship
(inc. personal questions) if it is a marriage based visa.

This is a HUGE step up. There's nothing even ballpark like this. It is
essentially de-anonymizing anonymous internet speech and then using it all
against potential immigrants. It also may punish people for not providing
information they may no longer even have (e.g. old accounts).

This is like a 10/10 in privacy invasion, the old process was like a 4/10\.
The medical is likely the most invasive but the doctor only gives them
specific information about diseases.

~~~
klipt
> A medical screening in some cases for some communicable diseases (e.g. HIV
> used to be a ban, no longer, TB still is banned).

Only for immigrant visas (green card). Ironically you could be spreading TB
for years in the US on a student or work visa, but until you can apply for a
green card they won't bother to check. I assume this is the legacy of a system
where people used to be able to apply for green cards a lot sooner and spent
little time on other visas.

------
alongtheflow
Will my Visa be Rejected, if I do not share Social Media accounts?

You need to share your social media accounts details for past 5 years. You are
not sharing info and they discover your info, you may be tagged for not
telling truth and maybe subject to visa rejection.

------
noncoml
I legitimately don’t remember most of the usernames I used in HN alone the
past year alone. Who doesn’t use throwaway accounts?

~~~
cj
I don’t.

But just curious. What type of scenario do you register throwaway accounts
for?

~~~
xtracto
I've read accounts of Google or Facebook employees who post on throwaway
accounts to prevent being identified.

------
mlmartin
I have an extremely common name (There are at least 5x people with my name in
my city alone). I have one social media account.

Lets say I disclose that social media account. The Immigration agent searches
the other social media platforms, and the other people with my name show up.
The agent then accuses me of lying on this question.

How do I prove that those other accounts _aren 't_ me?

------
woogiewonka
Wow, when is HN getting added to the list? This feels like a form of dystopian
future is already here.

------
xtreak29
How does this work with platforms that create shadow profiles like platforms
that gather information from internet and form an entity out of the details
without the person knowing it.

------
dorkwood
Nothing heats up my phone like one of these ad-laden blog or news websites.
What exactly is happening under the hood that requires so much power?

------
zmmmmm
The retrospective nature of this seems most problematic: the question is being
introduced now but applies to the past 5 years, including to pseudonymous
accounts such as Reddit. And whatever service isn't on there now that you feel
safe using could be on there tomorrow, just as retrospectively.

That means that services which the user may have considered as platforms for
anonymous free speech are being now retrospectively turned into identified
speech. This seems to, either by intent or as a side effect, significantly
compromise the whole idea of anonymous speech on the internet. For example,
there must be many people who, prior and during the 2016 election campaign
posted some pretty extreme comments about Donald Trump. Having those now re-
interpreted as public statements on their visa applications in the light of
him being president could be extremely worrying. There will be people already
living in the US who have to fill these forms just to stay and their entire
livelihoods could be threatened by not receiving a visa renewal.

In other words, it seems like this decision could have a massive chilling
effect on speech everywhere, which is a really big concern.

~~~
conanbatt
Foreigners do not have a right to free speech.

It is a grave weakness in the American constitution that the rights of foreign
nationals have not been declared or compared to the actual nationals. On this
particular regard the Argentina constitution really upended the American one
with its preamble declaring: this constitution is made to protect the
liberties [...] of all those who wish to live in Argentinian soil.

~~~
elliekelly
> Foreigners do not have a right to free speech.

This isn't really true. From wikipedia[1]:

>> The government may not criminally punish immigrants based on speech that
would be protected if said by a citizen.

Non-citizens _can_ be denied entry to the U.S. based on things they've said
that, if said by a citizen/permanent resident, would be "protected" speech
under the first amendment. (Which is why the government looking at someone's
social media history before deciding whether or not to issue a visa is
troubling.)

There's also some grey-area with respect to people on short-term visas and
undocumented immigrants because a non-citizen/non-permanent resident doesn't
have any permanent "right" to be/remain in the country.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#As_regulator_of_immigration)

~~~
conanbatt
> The government may not criminally punish immigrants based on speech that
> would be protected if said by a citizen. > Non-citizens can be denied entry
> to the U.S. based on things they've said that, if said by a
> citizen/permanent resident, would be "protected" speech under the first
> amendment.

Strange to me to draw this distinction. Denying entry is a prohibition
exercised by the state. If you can be punished in any way, you don't have a
right.

------
kevml
What if there was a GDPR removal request?

~~~
sgjohnson
United States aren't subject to GDPR.

You still had that account. Yes, if the company complied with your GDPR
request, there would be no record that you had it, but as far as the United
States are concerned, you have to disclose it.

------
ggm
Thankfully not HN but enough deep links to Reddit and it will join the list
methinks.

