Federal Judge Upholds State Department Rule Requiring Visa Applicants to Disclose Social Media Information
www.eff.org
Since 2019, people applying for a visa to the United States have had to register their social media accounts with the U.S. government as part of the application process. Two U.S.-based documentary film organizations that regularly collaborate with non-U.S. filmmakers and other international...

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.

  • @Raisin8659OPEnglish
    16•1 year ago

    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.

    • @ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
      18•1 year ago

      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.

      • @Takumidesh@lemmy.world
        17•1 year ago

        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.

        • Maeve
          10•1 year ago

          That’s invasive af and I’m sorry you had to experience that.

          • Maeve
            4•1 year 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.

        • @winterayars@sh.itjust.works
          1•1 year ago

          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.

    • sovietknuckles [they/them]English
      10•1 year ago

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

      • @Raisin8659OPEnglish
        7•1 year ago

        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?