Privacy

2229 readers

102 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

danielintempesta@programming.dev

192

You Shouldn’t Have to Make Your Social Media Public to Get a Visa (www.eff.org)

submitted 3 weeks ago by Blaze@piefed.zip to c/privacy@programming.dev

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 47 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

if applicants refuse to unlock their accounts or otherwise don’t maintain a social media presence, the government may interpret it as an attempt to evade the requirement or deliberately hide online activity.

Here I was, wondering why people don't just say they don't have a social media account.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 23 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

So I have to create a Facebook account just to enter the country? It was bad enough having unrelated websites demand it.

Good thing I have no plans to ever visit again. Elbows up.

[–] IhaveCrabs111@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

So what happens when you don’t have any?

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 31 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

if applicants ... don’t maintain a social media presence, the government may interpret it as an attempt to evade the requirement or deliberately hide online activity.

Presumably it's disqualifying.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

Straight to the gulags

[–] refalo@programming.dev 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I have not seen any language that suggests that, nor what EFF is saying.

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

A separate cable, obtained by multiple news outlets, directed embassies and consulates to vet applicants for “hostile attitudes towards our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles”

...

Applicants for student and exchange visas will now have their “entire online presence” vetted, per the cable reportedly said. If students refuse to change their accounts to “public” and “limited access to, or visibility of, online presence could be construed as an effort to evade or hide certain activity.”

Seems like a reasonable assumption to me

[–] refalo@programming.dev 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I don't see how that even implies that not having a presence in the first place is inherently a red flag...

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

limited access to, or visibility of, online presence could be construed as an effort to evade or hide certain activity

Do you really not? Can you not connect the dots between "limited access to, or visibility of, online presence" and not having a social media account? Do you truly not understand how these two things are related?

[–] refalo@programming.dev 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I understand how people can infer subjective conclusions, but I don't agree that it objectively says as much.

[–] refalo@programming.dev 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I guess nobody can really know for sure, but in my opinion, if you truly don't have anything, nothing happens, as that's what they want, complacency.

I think EFF is just what-ifing things they could theoretically do in the future... which they do a lot. Not saying EFF is bad, but they do speculate a lot. Sometimes it's a good thing though.

[–] Zedd_Prophecy@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

I've recently deleted all my accounts except here - Now I look guilty by lack of social media.