
US demands social media details from visa applicants - bkudria
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48486672
======
gniv
Also discussed a couple of days ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20065142](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20065142)

~~~
incompatible
I has been discussed several times, including over a year ago
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16710838](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16710838)

I remember one thread which I can't find, which considered whether Hacker News
counted as a site that should be disclosed. I also seem to remember a claim
that having an account on a site with "Hacker" in the title was an automatic
disqualification.

Hmm, this is the one I was thinking of:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17635403](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17635403)

------
HeavenFox
As any US Visa applicant can attest to, the DS-160 is already some of the most
annoying form you have to fill - in fact for most people it's less pleasurable
than doing 1040.

In addition to asking for details of every school you went to, every job you
had, every country you've been to, they ask you questions like this:

>> Have you ever violated, or engaged in a conspiracy to violate, any law
relating to controlled substances?

>> Are you coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or unlawful
commercialized vice or have you been engaged in prostitution or procuring
prostitutes within the past 10 years?

>> Have you ever been involved in, or do you seek to engage in, money
laundering?

>> Have you ever committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense
in the United States or outside the United States?

>> Are you the spouse, son, or daughter of an individual who has committed or
conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States or
outside the United States and have you within the last five years, knowingly
benefited from the trafficking activities?

>> Have you knowingly aided, abetted, assisted or colluded with an individual
who has committed or conspired to commit a severe human trafficking offense in
the United States or outside the United States?

>> Do you seek to engage in espionage, sabotage, export control violations, or
any other illegal activity while in the United States?

>> Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or
have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?

>> Have you ever or do you intend to provide financial assistance or other
support to terrorists or terrorist organizations?

>> Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?

>> Have you ever ordered, incited, committed, assisted, or otherwise
participated in genocide?

>> Have you ever committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise
participated in torture?

>> Have you committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated
in extrajudicial killings, political killings, or other acts of violence?

>> Have you ever engaged in the recruitment or the use of the child soldiers?

>> Have you, while serving as a government official, been responsible for or
directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious
freedom?

>> Have you ever been directly involved in the establishment or enforcement of
the population controls forcing a woman to undergo an abortion against her
free choice or a man or a woman to undergo sterilization against his or her
free will?

>> Have you ever been directly involved in the coercive transplantation of
human organs or bodily tissue?

And now, this.

And don't get me started on the stupid fact that you cannot renew your US visa
within the US, and in the end people on student/work visas have to take the
pointless trip to Canada/Mexico just to get a new visa.

I hope someone eventually realizes visa applicants are people too.

~~~
godelski
Can some lawyer explain why these questions are necessary? I understand that
you can add extra convictions for lying on these applications, but all the
above questions are quite damning themselves. Like

>> Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?

Assuming you are: you answer yes and you get denied a visa (duh). Answer no
and the gov doesn't know, what happens? You commit terrorist activities on
American soil and get charged with that activity, which I assume is FAR worse
than the punishment for lying on a Visa (if it isn't, somethings wrong). Can
we not kick out a terrorist (found out after they entered) without this
question?

It seems like the same goes for every single one of the above questions
(except the first one, "Have you ever done drugs"). Every one of these
questions is always going to be answered with a no, so doesn't that just
create noise in the data?

~~~
rdtsc
> I understand that you can add extra convictions for lying on these
> applications

You simply get kicked out pretty much immediately if they find out you lied.
It can mean also the revocation of citizenship as it is now considered
obtained fraudulently. That all can be done rather "easily" since it's
procedural, without a long legal battle involved.

Now all kinds of "funny" things can happen there. Say someone belongs to an
organization which was created and sponsored by the CIA and was not a
terrorist organization 10 years ago. A new administration comes in, and the
"friendly freedom fighters" are now the "evil baby killing terrorists". What
should happen then? Can the government go back and kick out all the members
they might have taken in? Technically they lied and they are now a part of the
terrorist organization...

~~~
caseysoftware
That one seems pretty simple.

If you played for a team, you were a member of that team.

If 10 years after you leave, that team goes on to win the championship, you
are not and were never part of a "championship team."

~~~
rdl
Terrorist groups don’t have formal rosters the way sports teams do. It is sort
of like “former intelligence officer”. It is definitely a strong argument
(strengthened by time and distance separation, degree of clear separation or
renunciation, etc) but it would almost certainly cause delays and substantial
extra investigation, if nothing else.

------
diveanon
I meet a lot of tourists on a daily basis, and I have not heard anyone say
they want to visit the United States in a very long time.

I can't imagine how much worse it is for people that are forced to travel
there for business.

If the United States is trying to isolate itself from the rest of the world it
is definitely succeeding.

As a side note, I have not spoken to a tourist from the US on the island where
I live in several months. However there is a literal flood of French, German,
Chinese, Dutch, Singaporean, etc. Last night I had dinner with an Uzbek and
Tanzanian couple.

Where are you guys?

~~~
avocado4
>> "I have not heard anyone say they want to visit the United States in a very
long time."

US had the 3rd largest number of tourists in the world in 2017 (after France
and Spain). [1]

Though YOY is trending down in Trump years.

[1]
[https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284419876](https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284419876)

~~~
diveanon
I did not see a breakdown by age demographic in that report.

The overwhelming majority of the tourists I encounter fall into the Millennial
bracket, and I don't think it is possible for them to be less enthusiastic
about visiting the US.

Maybe that will change once they have kids who want to go see Harry Potter
World in Orlando, but as it stands I think most of my customers would rather
visit North Korea than the US.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _The overwhelming majority of the tourists I encounter fall into the
> Millennial bracket, and I don 't think it is possible for them to be less
> enthusiastic about visiting the US_

I’m a millennial with lots of international millennial friends. Nobody likes
these measures. But getting into most countries is no walk in the park. As
much as I hate to admit this, the pressure to end these policies will never
come from tourists.

~~~
diveanon
Depends on where you are coming from.

Most of the Europeans that come through have the financial means and strong
enough passports to go pretty much anywhere they please. Same goes for most
Japanese and Chinese.

My Arab customers however have the money, but getting a visa is a near
impossibility.

~~~
pnw_hazor
EU travelers should understand - because the EU screens social media as part
of visa applications too.

~~~
yani
To the best of my knowledge there is no such thing.

------
godelski
This seems isolationist. Why would we want to isolate ourselves? For a country
that was founded upon immigrants, that extremely benefited (and continues to)
from diversity of thought and ideas, why would we want to stop that? I'm just
under 30 and I still remember growing up how I was told that a major part of
what made America great was the melting pot. In academia and at labs I've seen
this be a huge benefit. But I don't really hear how great the melting pot is
anymore (I can only think of a few times in the last decade). Maybe it was
just childhood naivety. But it also seems to me that it isn't just the US that
is becoming isolationist. So I have to imagine that there's something, at
least in western culture, that is changing.

~~~
godzillabrennus
Nativism is a reaction to the decline of the middle classes prospects.

Half of America is not doing well and has been overlooked. The better educated
amongst us are blinded by their own progress and weren’t looking inward.

We will see more focus on nativist policies in our lifetime as automation
continues to eat jobs.

~~~
bloopernova
Correct. A lot of people wanted an "outsider" and to "drain the swamp". In
other words they don't feel represented by their elected officials, or treated
fairly by the government, and they want things to change.

Despite this desire being co-opted and twisted by Trump's campaign and Fox
News, the underlying feelings are valid for a lot of people across the USA.

The Democratic party should have realized this back during Obama's "Hope"
campaign. A message of change, of saying "what's happening right now isn't
right and we need to fix that", that message really resonates with a lot of
people.

Of course, as Obama found out when he became president, "the swamp" has its
own interests at heart. All that good energy and hope broke like a wave
against that huge political cliff, and had far less impact than everyone
needed.

If you ask a lot of people to articulate this sort of feeling, they'll have
difficulty. Hence the easier to understand populist rhetoric coming from
Trump. He steered that behemoth of public opinion towards xenophobia and other
negative feelings. It's easier to blame the other than to look deeply at your
own life.

The Democratic party has to understand this or Trump will easily win his
second term. Back when Trump got the Republican nomination, I had a deeply
unsettling gut feeling about the election. Trump was entertaining, Clinton was
not. In the same way, Obama was entertaining, McCain was not. Bush was
entertaining, Kerry was not. Gore was not. I unfortunately don't really see
any entertaining people on the Democratic side.

As for the automation question, I think Trump, or his Republican successor,
could pivot very easily to saying that robots are going to take Good Old-
Fashioned American Jobs(tm) and a lot of people will follow that message.

~~~
humanrebar
> All that good energy and hope broke like a wave against that huge political
> cliff, and had far less impact than everyone needed.

He seemed happy enough with the party-line vote in the Senate on the first
major bill of his presidency:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvest...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009)

And he wasn't too concerned about bipartisanship when it came to passing the
ACA only a year later, arguably the biggest bill of the decade. There were
several forms of procedural hardball happening in the process of passing that.
It was certainly passed narrowly and along party lines. And, partly because of
the lack of bipartisan agreement, not all of it survived court challenges.

If it's true that Obama was genuinely optimistic and down on cynicism during
his 2008 campaign, he must have wised up quickly. Otherwise, maybe people read
some things into the "Hope" message that weren't actually there. He came from
the Chicago school of politics, though, so I'm skeptical that the narrative of
broken good energy really fits.

And I think this sort of thing feeds into the Trump narrative of a "swamp"
that needs draining. Obama certainly didn't come up with Washington
partisanship, but the hard landing after all the Hope posters probably
increased cynicism on the whole and gave Trump a chance. Remember, he didn't
exactly win his election by a landslide.

~~~
pas
The ACA is already a result of a lot and even more compromise. It's even
modeled after a Republican plan implemented in a red state. (In Mass. when
governed by Mitt Romney, who at first vetoed it then took credit for it.)

~~~
humanrebar
And yet it received basically no bipartisan support in Congress. The Romney
stuff is a talking point, not a reasonable way to pursue bipartisan progress
on healthcare (which is still a mess).

~~~
pas
It received just enough to pass, don't forget that. And also don't forget that
nowadays it receives just enough support to stay on the books.

Also. Talking point or not, it pretty much showcases that policymaking today
is not a deliberate good faith iterative process what it should be. It's just
a front in the culture wars.

~~~
humanrebar
> It received just enough to pass, don't forget that.

Kind of. One version passed the House, another the Senate ( _), and a
questionable reconciliation process created a unified bill.

My point is that I don't find the "Obama nobly lost to the Swamp" narrative
all that convincing. He could have required, say, 10 republican senators agree
before (unsuccessfully) overhauling one of the largest parts of the economy.
_That* failing is what losing to the Swamp might look like.

Maybe that wouldn't have worked, to be fair. But preemptively deciding to play
hardball doesn't fit the "The Swamp was too swampy for Obama" narrative.

(*) Including a vote from Arlen Specter, who switched parties mid-term and a
vote in exchange for the infamous "Cornhusker Kickback".

~~~
masonic

      Arlen Specter, who switched parties mid-term
    

He did so _twice_ (1965 and 2009).

------
makecheck
This was stupid when it was just _potential employers_ expecting this
information, and it’s even stupider here.

Let’s see how many bad reasons for this I can come up with in 30 seconds:

1\. Social media may be _popular_ but it is not _universal_ (I still know
people without a Facebook profile for instance). Thus, while the government
_should_ expect that someone may truthfully answer “I don’t have social media
accounts”, I’ll bet money that anyone actually giving that answer on their
visa application is _screwed_.

2\. _Huge_ numbers of social media profiles are completely FAKE. Combined with
#1 above, if you don’t actually use a particular site but it _seems_ like you
do, you are again screwed.

3\. Some people have extremely common names and legitimately do not want their
pictures posted. Therefore, it is likely there are _hundreds_ of _real_
accounts with _your name_ , many even in your city, that are not you. If the
government is trying to determine if you “lied” about having an account, how
many of these are they going to accuse you of owning? Or are they just going
to conclude, based on the stuff being posted by those people, that your
application should be denied?

4\. The government does not run these sites, corporations do (and ultimately,
random employees made some rules for running them). Suppose #2 above occurs,
and someone is posting insane stuff as “you”; great, now _your entire damned
visa application_ is in danger, and some random set of rules made up by an
employee at Facebook or Twitter is going to decide your fate. Can you get the
profile taken down? Ask Facebook. Can you “prove” the profile is not you?
Follow random rules from Facebook. And so on.

5\. Not everything I do is on social media. And if I _were_ to set up a secret
club or criminal enterprise, do you think I’d be writing about it on Twitter
and Facebook?!?!? What _will_ exist on social media for a lot of people is an
endless firehose of crap, which will mostly give the government way too much
information to sift through. It will be a huge waste of time.

In other words, this policy can definitely hurt legitimate applicants and is
not likely to add any useful information when screening applicants that
“should” be denied.

~~~
mLuby
>if I were to set up a secret club or criminal enterprise, do you think I’d be
writing about it on Twitter and Facebook

You'd be surprised… :D

>In other words, this policy can definitely hurt legitimate applicants and is
not likely to add any useful information when screening applicants that
“should” be denied.

Exactly, I think that's the point. "Give me six lines written by an honest man
and I will find something in them which will hang him." (~Card. Richelieu) All
that extra content from social media will give decisionmakers _plenty_ of
latitude to justify whatever decision they already wanted.

------
AaronFriel
This will have a chilling effect on speech in this country, which is extremely
sad. Academic and trade conferences would be best taken elsewhere. And job
seekers? Prefer remote.

For me as an American, this is, I guess, fine now. I won't be affected right
away. But I fully expect other countries to institute reciprocal policies.

~~~
human20190310
1) Doesn't the First Amendment restrict the US government from curtailing free
expression and free association anyplace, not just within US borders?

2) Isn't anything that results in a "chilling effect" tantamount to
restriction?

I expect this will have a chilling effect abroad, among people who travel to
the US, more than within the US.

~~~
mushufasa
1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil.

That's the legal rationale for a lot of 'bad behavior' such as PRISM -- they
can intercept undersea cable traffic to legally spy on foreigners, as
foreigners lack constitutional rights. Nothing new there.

~~~
jMyles
> 1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US
> soil.

Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of
saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the
sake of it?

The suggestion that the US Bill of Rights only applies to citizens is so
unbelievably toxic and contrary to the history of the country I am saddened to
even read the words.

The Bill of Rights intentionally does not even include the word "citizen" and
instead uses "people."

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

~~~
nothrabannosir
_> Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of
saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the
sake of it?_

I imagine your reply came from a good place and you're genuinely trying to
improve the knowledge out here, but I just want to take a moment to address
something that comes up often: this tone is very combative and it makes it
incredibly hard for someone to yield and turn to you. What is OP supposed to
say to this? "Oh I guess you're right. Thanks for taking my pride and putting
me down. I see your point now." \-- this is not how people work.

Or, from another angle: you can usually tell a sarcastic question is off, if
the honest answer is readily found, and defensible. In this case: OP said such
things because they _thought_ it was true. The point was to share information
with someone else and contribute to a conversation.

If you think they're wrong, there's more productive ways of getting that point
across than calling into question good faith.

For the record: I thought it as well, so there were at least two of us, out
here ;) and now after Googling, and judicial rabbitholes far beyond my
expertise I still can't tell whether it's limited geographically or also meant
to apply world-wide, or how I was meant to know, to avoid getting told off for
being toxic if I ever daresay something else about it...

~~~
jMyles
You're right of course.

But I also think that there is a palpable and strange injection into the
zeitgeist a notion that non-citizens are less human - and it comes at the same
time that a lot of racism and anti-immigrant ideology is reaching its way into
public policy.

I'm finding myself with decreased patience for it than I might have for other
falsehoods making their way through echo chambers.

But yeah, that's probably my bad.

------
pgt
If enough heretics have your name in their social network, your visa will be
denied. Requiring social media on visa applications is like enforcing everyone
to use Truecaller (don't use it!).

This feels like the start of a U.S. social credit system.

~~~
pnw_hazor
Not a fan of this, but the US is late to the game -- and has received
criticism because of it.

Most developed countries already screen social media when processing visa
applications.

~~~
llamataboot
oh, make no mistake the US /already/ screened this stuff. My now-wife had all
her social media pages printed out and waiting for her on an entry to the US
in the Obama years. Difference is now they can ban you for lying...

~~~
mysterypie
Since you have actual first-hand knowledge of border officials doing social
media questioning, could you tell us more about this? What did they ask her?
What prompted them to print out the social media pages? Which social media
sites? What country was she coming from? How long did they question her?

~~~
llamataboot
I mean, keep in mind this was 8 years ago.

Not sure why they had them printed out - could have been to review them, could
have been for intimidation.

IIRC they asked her why she had changed her FB location to the American city
she would stay in for the next 3 months, asked a bunch of questions about past
posts in the US talking about helping build our home, buy decorations, etc
(all as proof she was intent on overstaying her visa, which was vaguely
ridiculous as we had applied for a fiance visa at that point, so she was
pretty clearly intending on living here, but we were also pretty clearly
intending on going through the legal visa process)

Also asked a bunch of questions about some posts she had made seeking design
clients in the US as proof she was working here illegally (even though she
owned her own design business and paid taxes on it in Europe, obviously are
allowed to take on US clients, but they were sketched out that she was
soliciting US clients while in the US)

They questioned her for about an hour with no access to phone/lawyer/etc and
gave her the option of immediately voluntarily leaving the US. At the end of
the process they told her that it would be the last time she could enter the
US on an ESTA and next time it would have to be on the fiance visa, they also
told her verbally she had to leave within 14 days, but they still stamped her
for a 3 month entry as per regular ESTA guidelines.

\--

It was mostly a bunch of silliness about work/residency/intent to work without
a work permit/intent to stay in the US without a visa even though all things
were aboveboard. The most concerning to me remains that her facebook at the
time was not in any legal name, certainly not the name the passenger manifest,
but she was still obviously tracked down

------
keerthiko
“A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”

Immigrants are non-citizens are among the weakest members of American society
(an outsize number of laws that impact them and zero capacity to participate
in its political machinery)

~~~
ycgeu
Non-citizens aren't members of the nation, so the US are okay if we base
morality on that random quote.

~~~
Buttons840
That's not a satisfactory excuse or interpretation of the quote.

Let's say North Korea selected a few of the leading family and declared they
are "members", under such circumstances would that quote imply that North
Korea is the greatest nation, because all its "members" have near King-like
status?

Or likewise, can a nation increase its greatness by declaring the weakest
among them to be "non-members".

------
billforsternz
I travelled to the US recently for the first time in 20 years or so. I had to
apply for a Visa waiver (ESTA) and from memory they had a social media section
that was flagged as "optional". I'm not big on social media and decided that
my rarely used accounts would be of no use or interest to anyone. If I
remember correctly though I did put my Github account on there (unless my
memory is playing vicious tricks on me, yes Github was listed). Call me crazy
but I decided that if the US government was interested in my C++ chess code,
great!

I did gird my loins for a horribly unwelcoming experience at the airport (semi
off topic but widely discussed here). At JFK it was actually super nice, but
we were first off the plane and there was no queue to hit. We did take a side
trip to Canada and had to enter the US _again_ at O'Hare and that was a
different story entirely. Seemingly a million planes arriving at once. Even
miserable looking and bemused cabin crew queuing from here to eternity. When
we finally got to the head of the queue(s) the over-worked, under manned staff
were perfunctory but non unpleasant. I haven't seen anything as disorganised
and shambolic in arrivals at a European airport ever, but maybe I've just been
lucky.

~~~
prawn
I’m here in the US via ESTA (sixth time in ten years maybe? More?). Three
month road trip. I have active social accounts (not without a political slant)
and didn’t list them. Didn’t seem to be a factor when I came through (with
wife and kids), nor previous trips.

Colleague with minimal social profile but travelling by himself copped a three
hour pressure-grilling last year. They were most concerned with the idea that
he’d try to work and overstay.

------
darkteflon
“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I
will find something in them which will hang him.” - Cardinal Richlieu, 17c.

------
codedokode
It might be difficult to provide the truthful answers. For example, I don't
remember all of my current phone numbers, let alone those that I might have
used in the past. Also, I don't remember all the names of fake SNS accounts I
created, and don't remember throwaway email account names.

Also, US three-letter agencies already have access to Google, Twitter,
Facebook and have all necessary information, as Snowden has said, so I guess
it makes no sense to provide it again.

Maybe they just are trying to build a cause to be able to deport anyone from
the country or reject entry. In this case it would be better to pass a law
that allows to do it.

Also this is a good reminder that you better not post too much details about
yourself in social networks, otherwise it can be used against you. And
Hackernews is not considered a social network, right?

------
robocat
I am happy to never visit the US due to the rules.

However it sucks that the US is the easiest/cheapest way to transit to many
countries.

However I can't transit through say LA without "entering" the US.

So I can't visit other countries easily (especially Canada, or central
America).

~~~
fastball
Huh?

If you don't want a visa, why do you care about this?

~~~
tialaramex
They explained that pretty clearly. The US insists that you are entering their
country if your route of travel passes through US territory. So sensible
routes to lots of other countries that don't themselves have obnoxious rules
are off limits if you don't want the US nosing thorough everything.

~~~
fastball
If your social network accounts are public, the NSA can already see them, it
doesn't matter if you explicitly give them your username.

If your accounts are not public, giving them your username won't really do
anything.

I'm still not sure I see the problem? "Oh no, I'm traveling through the US and
now they know that I have a social network account!" ?? They already knew that
if you were actually a person of interest.

~~~
robocat
But the TSA and whatever other relevant departments don't have access to the
NSA databases (or don't publicly show it, same thing from my POV).

I perceive that I might be denied entry to the US because someone shares a
photo of me doing something the US doesn't like .. Then my trip to Canada gets
cancelled, and I get to say "yes" when asked by every other country "have you
ever been denied entry".

Meanwhile I must also provide biometrics.

And it is a federal form. The theoretical risk is high (although actual risk
is low if you are a normal person).

------
benevol
"The State Department regulations say people will have to submit _social media
names_ and five years' worth of _email addresses_ and _phone numbers_.

When proposed last year, authorities estimated the proposal would affect 14.7
million people annually." [0]

[0] [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-
canada-48486672](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48486672)

~~~
jkaplowitz
I don't think they've thought about how precise 100% compliance is literally
impossible for those of us with catch-all email domains, unless we have a
record of every email address at that domain we've ever given out or through
which we've received unsolicited email.

(Yeah, I realize that in practice they will probably accept partial compliance
in that scenario, and that it won't affect me as a US citizen. But it could
certainly affect people I care about.)

~~~
optymizer
It can be advantageous for the government to issue laws that citizens can't
comply with. That way they can prove you lied because you haven't provided
this one e-mail address that they were able to trace to you. Now you're a liar
and they can hold that against you.

~~~
jkaplowitz
All true. This particular one has no impact on US citizens since we don't need
US visas, but other overly demanding laws certainly can affect us, and even
this one can affect non-citizens We care about (even ones we may count as
family).

------
freeflight
I'm a bit confused, hasn't this been happening for years already? [0] [1] [2]

[0]
[https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16810312](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16810312)

[1] [https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/22/14066082/us-customs-
bord...](https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/22/14066082/us-customs-border-
patrol-social-media-account-facebook-twitter)

[2] [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/01/us-now-
ca...](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/01/us-now-can-ask-
travelers-facebook-twitter-handles/102393236/)

~~~
Mindwipe
It's been an optional question for people unless they had been to certain
areas recently in the middle east.

------
qrbLPHiKpiux
This is an unintended consequence of social media. It is the same as it was
centuries ago. If you’re known to criticize someone else, and it gets back to
them, of course there will be ramifications.

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with this comment. I’m just stating fact.

------
dmode
This is just nuts. I have several social media accounts and in many of them I
have said not so nice things about various governments across the world,
including the American government. Wonder how that will be treated.

------
drskaugen
Just filled in ESTA application, it is not demanded as the question regarding
social media does not have to be answered.

~~~
jkaplowitz
ESTA is an application for permission to travel to the US by air carrier or
cruise ship to apply for admission under the Visa Waiver Program. As the word
Waiver suggests, that permission is not a visa.

People of VWP nationalities can apply for true US visas, but for short-term
tourist or business visits there's usually no reason for them to bother unless
they've been individually denied VWP eligibility or they want one of the few
extra procedural rights which come from the visa and not through the VWP.

All of which is to say, maybe they're only asking this horrible new question
of true visa applicants and not VWP applicants.

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
I’d wager VWP visitors outnumber Visa applicants by a wide margin. Assuming
they actually intend to perform even a cursory check of each social media
account they’ll get bogged down for hours by trying to prove someone lying
about _not_ having a certain account.

As an aside: someone posted a screenshot of the form showing one of the named
sites was MySpace but doesn’t include Telegram (and you can use Telegram
without a username too). Anyway - I hope someone comes to their senses
(perhaps an ACLU lawsuit re: should people be forced to disclose membership of
sites like Grindr?) and they remove the stupid question.

~~~
jkaplowitz
My guess (pure speculation) is that they won't manually check most social
media accounts indicated on the form, but will automatically check the
provided info against (and add the provided info to) some intelligence
community database. Then they'd manually check any cases where security
concerns are flagged by that database or otherwise.

------
redbluegreen
Do I have to submit all my spam email addresses as well? Madness

~~~
evolve2k
There’s the loophole. Just send them all 500 of your email addresses!

------
mjevans
All the more reason to not have them. Though email addresses? Are they
demanding all pen-names too?

~~~
addicted
My fear is the day when the absence of a social media presence itself makes
you a suspicious character in the government, and AI’s eyes.

~~~
snazz
Do you have any reason to believe that it hasn’t already come? You’re
certainly a suspicious character in the eyes of some employers for non-tech
(and occasionally tech) jobs.

------
glbrew
I think it is fantastic our beloved government is making these admirable
changes to protect us!

~~~
craftyguy
I don't. It's fear-mongering bullshit.

~~~
godelski
I assumed the parent was being sarcastic. Though HN isn't really the best
place for comments like that (without added context or /s)

~~~
inflatableDodo
I think the word 'beloved' did all the job of an /s tag and more.

------
ktpsns
So what prevents me from leaving the requested fields empty or even put wrong
account names on it? What if I lie about my phone number? Will they call me to
check wether it rings in my pocket? Will they write me an email to check
wether I recieve it?

~~~
Jach
Presumably something at the bottom you sign that says the information above is
true to the best of your knowledge under penalty of perjury. Willing to risk 5
years in prison for lying?

~~~
rjsw
The old visa waiver form asked whether you were a gunrunner, everyone lied
about that.

This was when strong crypto was classed as a munition.

------
apo
Very discouraging to see this, especially because the overreach appears to
have no limit. Today it's visa applications. Tomorrow it could be US citizens
trying to get passports, driver licenses, or collect social security/medicare
benefits.

On the other hand, a growing awareness of the many dangers posed by poor
digital hygiene could ultimately lead to greater interest in privacy tools and
practices. Along the road, though, lives will be destroyed as the ground
shifts underneath them. Especially troubling is the possibility that
previously-legal activities could be punished well into the future if not
outright prosecuted.

~~~
umanwizard
> Tomorrow it could be US citizens trying to get passports, driver licenses,
> or collect social security/medicare benefits.

Not really, since jurisprudence gives the executive a very wide latitude in
deciding which foreigners to grant the privilege of entering the US. Much
wider than it would give if it were a question of citizens applying for
documents that they’re entitled to.

~~~
apo
The groundwork for domestic implementation is already in place:

[https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-
la...](https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/)

~~~
umanwizard
Yes and the federal courts are taking her side (so far):
[https://www.texastribune.org/2019/04/26/Texas-bahia-amawi-
sp...](https://www.texastribune.org/2019/04/26/Texas-bahia-amawi-speaks-out-
against-anti-israel-boycott/)

------
jacques_chester
One of the reasons immigration laws ask so many questions is to set up an easy
way to deport unwanted people without the tedious bother of an actual trial.

This seems like a goldmine. Forgot an email? Didn't turn over your account
details on pornhub? Had a single-use throwaway account you can't remember the
password for? Congratulations, you qualify for easy eviction.

------
glbrew
My reddit throwaways too?!?

~~~
mattigames
SPECIALLY your reddit throwaways (and incl. twitter/fb/instagram/porhub
throwaways too)

------
jammygit
Everyone knows that the real danger of all this tracking and social media is
that governments will start stealing the data and using it against people, or
else by censoring things/manipulation.

This is how it starts in-earnest, rather than half heartedly. See China for a
demo of the future

------
maxxxxx
What are they going to do with these? Just take a quick look or constantly
keep monitoring them?

~~~
dredds
They will go into a yuge database and you can lay pretty good odds on what
will happen next.

------
unionpivo
What I wonder is what is considered a social media. Twiter, facebook, linkedin
sure.

But is github social media site? How about medium ? Steam webstore ?

How about reddit and hackernews ? Stackowerflow ?

~~~
blablabla123
Exactly, also what about E-Mail accounts from the 90s of which I hardly
remember the spelling? What about usenet? Oh, and I must guarantee that
everything is correct.

If this applies also for the visitor visa, this is really not good news.

I don't care that they ask about why I visit, about the person I visit, what
is my relationship to that and more personal questions. But it's starting to
get a bit too much.

------
suyash
Perhaps it would help is US Gov explicitly mentions that they are looking for
and specially what are the red flags that they consider in applicant social
media accounts.

------
DC-3
Whatever happened to 'those who would trade liberty for security deserve
neither', America?

~~~
dmode
That was just a feel good message like “All men are created equal” or
separation of church and state

~~~
masonic

      separation of church and state
    
    

... is not an element of the U.S. Constitution. It simply prevents
establishment of an official religion.

------
kndjckt
What happens if you run / have run a social media account for a company?

------
hannofcart
I wonder if there is any sort of oversight of the process to ensure that the
determination made as to whether to approve or deny is not arbitrary.

While I will grudgingly hand over my social media details, and I have no fear
of being linked to terrorism or calls for violence or anything of the sort, I
am worried that my anti-Trump posts (I'm an avid follower of American politics
despite not being American) and other posts condemning Republican party
politics will hurt my chances. Again, I've never called for any violence
against the man, but have indeed called him a moron more than a few occasions.

------
athaca
does this impact Eb2/EB3 green card applications and TN visas as well?

------
goodold
So is PornHub considered a social media?

------
jorblumesea
It's interesting how the US implements a policy, and is rightfully scorned for
it. Meanwhile Europe continues to do similar things, yet Europe implements
similar policies, and no one cares. Politics as usual I guess.

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12054754...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12054754/Immigration-
officers-to-check-social-media-of-applicants-to-root-out-fanatics.html)

~~~
nutjob2
The immigration policies of the UK are very much not representative of other
European countries.

~~~
jorblumesea
That's not my point, you don't see UK under the microscope. Just seems to be
another case of "US bad/Europe good".

~~~
llukas
UK is not in Schengen zone - so it is not "Europe" \- even EU citizens go
through customs when entering UK (unlike within Schengen zone).

~~~
jorblumesea
That's not what I'm getting at, I'm not debating Europe vs "Europe". It's when
a Europe area country does something, everyone seems to give them a pass. When
the US does something similar, it's viewed with a different perspective.

~~~
llukas
Which country in Europe has has policies affecting 300M+ people (domestic) and
eagerly exports it's policies to other countries?

