Any social media accounts to declare? US wants travelers to tell The US Department of State wants to ask visa applicants to provide details on the social media accounts they've used in the past five years, as well as telephone numbers, email addresses, and international travel during this period. The plan, if approved by the Office of Management and Budget, will expand the vetting regime …
This is regressive and xenophobic posturing that is akin to something we would see in authoritarian regimes. It is fundamentally un-American.
If Trump has his way, the US will be joining the ranks of those authoritarian regimes.
Those of us with 3-digit IQs and the ability to perceive empirical facts have realized in the past year that our democracy is far more fragile than we thought.
no, no NO!
Have you ever KNOWN an 'authoritarian' manager? They have certain common characteristics:
a) must be involved in the minutiae, i.e. "micromanagers" [Trump is a 'delegator', big time]
b) The "I love me" wall filled with accomplishments and trophies. If Trump has a trophy room, I dont know about it, although I saw a funny comic that had a single stuffed elephant head with the caption "the establishment"... [I suppose you could count the buildings with 'Trump' on them, but they're more "accomplishments" than trophies]
c) No sense of humor about himself - Trump sometimes jokes about himself, even in a 'state of the union' address. I think if you told a Trump joke that wasn't "pandering to the perception" he'd laugh at it. But don't you DARE criticize Obama or Mrs. Clinton!!! [you get "racist, sexist, misogynist" etc. accusations thrown at you for DARING to criticize!]. Trump would be the guy to put a lampshade on his head at a party, and parade around as a parody of himself for laughs.
d) 'power motivated' - it's about having control (over others), and NOT about getting the job done. I think in Trump's case he's motivated to 'get the job done', aka 'achievement' motivation. Reagan was very similar.
Back when I was in the Navy they had this leadership school where they discussed management style. They did this movie with 3 CPOs in it. CPO number 1 was a delegator, and his immediate subordinate ran the division, whereas the CPO gave approval and got assistance from higher ranking people as needed. This is "a delegator". Then there was the 'authoritarian' CPO, who spent a lot of time yelling at people and telling them YOU ALL HAVE TO STAY UNTIL WE'RE DONE and things like that, the classic bad attitude authoritarian dictator. Then there was the 3rd CPO, "Chief Chuckles", who got along with his subordinates because he was "affiliation motivated" and wanted to be liked [nevermind his department was screwed over because of his incompetence].
SO that illustrated 3 management styles: delegator [the good one, like Trump], authoritarian [definitely Obama and Mrs. Clinton], and 'affiliator' (ineffective and incompetent). The delegator is 'achievement' motivated [get it done]. The authoritarian is 'power' motivated [_I_ am in charge, do it _MY_ way]. And the 'affiliator' just wants to be everyone's drinking buddy, "affiliation" motivation [or similar].
Trump isn't a dictator, because he's not "power motivated". Although you MIGHT make the case that ANY politician at 'President' level would have to have an ego the size of the state of New York, that doesn't seem to be Trump's motive. He wants to DO something, and spells out what that is, and then DELEGATES making it happen to others that he trusts.
Anyway, this is basic psychology applied to management styles. I know it's not the "anti-Trump" pandering to the perception, but it's pretty well known among those who do management training stuff. It seems to have been common knowledge back in the 80's.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but twitting all the time about he being right and the others being wrong does not count? And those in which he wrote he is a genius? And those fake Time Magazines with him in the cover he keeps in several locations?
Oh, never mind. Keep believing. Bob! All else are fake news.
a) must be involved in the minutiae
Check.
b) The "I love me" wall filled with accomplishments and trophies.
Check.
c) No sense of humor about himself
Check.
d) 'power motivated' - it's about having control (over others), and NOT about getting the job done.
Check.
But thank you you anyway for providing us with this nice list of criteria.
""I could not possibly remember all the information that is asked for, therefore setting the possibility for entrapment..."
One down, two to go.
Actually, this first one would probably lead to 43 charges totaling 217 years, but they'll offer you 12 years if you accept their plea bargain deal.
Since the Overseas Collectivity of Saint Pierre and Miquelon is a French external territory, and not a part of Canada, it's not exactly surprising, or unusual, that the official currency of the territory is the same as that of its parent country, France, rather than that of a neighbouring country, Canada, is it?
I have colleagues who decided to go to Canada rather than take another trip to the USA. One guy and his family made the decision because they were Black and anticipated hassles or refusal for entry. When they came back, they raved about Canada and wished that had been their go-to place years ago. Skiing is going to be in Castlegar this winter!
My average Facebook post is usually about 1,000-1,500 words all of them exclusively to do with me moaning about my journey into work every day! I find Facebook, being such a cesspit that it's incredibly cathartic to dump all the irratating shite about my daily commute into Facebook posts that no one reads! I feel purged when I write a post and mentally ready to continue. I know someone else who does exactly the same thing on their blog, purely exclusive moans about smelly commuters, irritating people on trains and busses! Knowing the average TSA operative has a reading age of 8 years old, they're more than welcome to sit and read hundreds of posts containing thousands of lines about the 7:25 from Orpington and it's irritating passengers!
> Being a UK citizen we dont need a visa to enter the US
/pedant on
Actually, you do.
A visa is automatically created and granted in the visa systems, just because you didn't have to fill out any forms or see any specific paperwork, doesn't mean a visa hasn't been created and issued for you. Your entry and exit records will have a visa ID number associated with it. The Visa Waiver Program is not a waiver of having a visa for entry, it is a waiver on the standard visa application process.
/pedant off
The Visa Waiver Program is only applicable for certain types of less than 90-day visits. Therefore if you want to spend more than 90 days in the US or are travelling for one of the many non-applicable classes, then you need to apply for a visa.
And, note that this auto-allocated/granted visa only applies if you have an absolutely clean record. If you have ever been charged with anything, even if they were later dropped or the charges dismissed in court, you will need to go through the full visa application process. From the US embassies site:
We do not recommend that travelers who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, ..., attempt to travel visa free under the Visa Waiver Program. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to US visa law and spent convictions,regardless of when they occurred will have a bearing on a traveler’s eligibility for admission into the United States.
And:
Can you advise me if my arrest, caution, conviction will prevent me from traveling visa free and registering under ESTA?We cannot advise whether a traveler’s specific situation will have a bearing on their eligibility to travel visa free under the Visa Waiver Program. Our advice is that if you have ever been arrested, cautioned or convicted you apply for a visa.
So that arrest for drunken and disorderly 30 years ago where you were released the next morning without charge - apply for visa.
@eldakka
Thanks for that, good info!
For all intents and purposes though the vast majority dont need a visa - or at least dont need to go through the whole process...
I think my point is still valid, we are not required to provide this info at the moment and I dont think that we should follow suit by asking for this info as part of our application process.
Really, whats it going to prove anyway? That you're not stupid enough to carry out nefarious activities in the open? If I was doing something dodgy I'd have at least two accounts one nice clean one with pictures of bunnies bibles and american flags ready to be inspected and the other one where my secret stuff happened.
Of course I have no need to do that because I'm quite boring an have no need to hide my activities (This doesnt mean I want my personal accounts scraped at every border crossing though!)
I remember landing in Bangkok airport just after my daily connecting flight to Singapore had left.
Being there for 24 hours, I had to get a visa. $5 for neighbouring countries, $10 for Europeans and Canadians, $100 for USA citizens. Purely because the USA charged Thai people $100 for a visa.
This is 20 years ago but the concept remained in my head.
What if, like me you do not have any social media accounts? What happens then? Do they assume you're lying and send you to gitmo for torture?
Would it be safe to give them the many different usernames I use on private torrent trackers instead?
Would that stop them asking about the social media accounts I do not have?
I've been to the US once for about 6 weeks in late 90's. Most people were pretty cool and easy to get on with.
But now post 9/11 with all the paranoia, intrusive monitoring and rampant xenophobia there I would NEVER consider going there at all. This kind of crap now being asked for on VISA applications simply reinforces that. They only reason they're doing this is because they're judging people by their own standards, in a country where 55k people are shot by each other each year, where those with money are the only ones that receive justice, where the government is corrupted by money and the electoral system is being gamed from within by big money interests, and healthcare costs can bankrupt even quite wealthy people.
I have travelled most corners of the world including some places that have real, unapologetically repressive dictator governments and never had any of this intrusive scrutiny, and most people were pretty cool and easy to get on with, just like the US.
The worst thing is the US pushing this attitude out to the world, insisting on other countries following the same approach. I haven't seen any evidence that this has made the world more secure, it has just made travel a pain in the arse at any border point. And the less contact people have with each other as a result of of reduced travel, the less they understand each other, the more they mistrust each other. But maybe that's the point, it's much easier to attack the unknown 'them' than a friend. Sad.
.
Riiiiiigggghhhhttttt!
I mean, it’s not like anyone with nefarious activities in mind has never lied to anyone in authority.
And I hate to point out that the nasty people Trump is trying to stop are also those who come from countries with some of the poorest infrastructure and tightest controls on social media, and are therefore the most likely not to have social media accounts. Or maybe that’s the red flag they’re looking for?
"I mean, it’s not like anyone with nefarious activities in mind has never lied to anyone in authority."
Agreed. I was going to add that I can't imagine anyone posting terrorist videos and content along side pictures of their pet kitten, so why get access to the social media accounts. But I then remembered that those committing the recent terrorist activities in the States (the bomber in Texas comes to mind plus miscellaneous mass shootings) had posted stuff to their social media accounts which would have given them away (IIRC). So maybe the US immigration department is judging everyone else by their own standards and expecting professional international terrorists to be as stupid as the home grown variety and to post the extremist material to their own personal accounts?
1. If I were a cynic, I would surmise that, as with the US-Visit scheme generally, Uncle Sam is requiring all this - mainly useless - information on purpose in order to deter all those from coming to the US except those who really want/need to come.
Reason: to reduce the risk of terrorism by keeping out the wackos. (This is also why they ask you if you have ever been a member of a Communist party: it keeps out all the nutcases, dangerous or otherwise.)
But as someone once said (it may even have been here, too), if you're looking for a needle in a haystack, you don't keep piling hay onto the stack.
2. But as I really am a cynic, it's clear that the US-Visit scheme is, in fact, not designed to prevent terrorist attacks but simply to show the American people, i.e. the voters, that Uncle Same is "doing something" about 9/11. It's not supposed to "work", it's just window-dressing. (How many terrorists have been caught as a result of the US-Visit programme?) Not that any of this is news but it's worth re-stating for the record.
And Uncle Sam can get away with it because foreign visitors have no lobby in the US. But if it gets votes, well, hey, I guess that "works" too.
"Reason: to reduce the risk of terrorism by keeping out the wackos."
All of the 'wackos' are part of carefully planned false flag events.
No tinfoil hat is required to see the gaping holes in all the attacks in the US, only people ignorance of Operation Gladio (a NATO terrorist program in europe) would think terror comes from the population.
So if I provided that information, what, realistically, can they do with it? Verify it in the time between the request for a visa and its granting? I doubt it, with that kind of volume. Its only purpose will be to piss some people off ( I'm not seeing any happy commenters here) and scare off the rest.
The best thing this country could do is gut the CIA, DHS, NHS, FBI and start over.
If it takes more than about 10 minutes for me to fill out any forms for visas then I simply don't go to that country or use a visa free option where it's available which often comes with a reduced time allowance like 90 days instead of say 6 months or 1 year. For vacations this will often suffice.
If you want a 6 month (that's right just 6 months) visa for Thailand they will without fail audit your bank account for the last 6 months to make sure your balance has not dropped lower than £5000 in that time period. If your balance has dropped below the £5000 minimum then the visa will be denied. This is already hurting the Thai tourist industry where many people go for the entire winter season. There are other warm and easier countries to spend the winter season in within the same region.
I've been to the US many times over the last 20 years and travelled extensively all around the world, in the past I found that the smaller and more insignificant the country the more stringent the checks are, this seems to be reversing these days.
People from the UK, Europe and a lot of the more developed world travel mostly on the visa waiver scheme so my guess is that these would be unaffected unless the 'ESTA' (not a visa so they say) starts to include questions about this.
If you want a 6 month (that's right just 6 months) visa for Thailand they will without fail audit your bank account for the last 6 months to make sure your balance has not dropped lower than £5000 in that time period.
Not that I have any plans to go to Thailand, but how on earth are they going to audit my bank account unless I tell them my bank details, and also give them authority to contact my bank to get that information?
And if I have to do that to go to Thailand (or anywhere else) that's another country to add to the growing list of countries I'm never going to visit.
Which is a shame.
While it won't impact the majority of us (at least from the UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ, Most of Europe end so on) just visiting on 90 day visa waivers, it's still potentially incredibly intrusive. Also a lot of people coming from countries with rapidly growing IT sectors, aren't entitled to visa-waivers into the US, so will be subject to this kind of stuff.
Also, given the way the US has gone politically, pretty normal views could be seen as 'un-American' by someone with a very right wing political leaning.
I could see a lot of people deciding to have conferences and so on in Europe or elsewhere instead of US cities as a result of this. It's really over the top.
They've only got 17+ security agencies paid billions to hoover up all our data, so obviously we need to donate our information to immigration on arrival to help them make our lives difficult for 'impure thoughts'.
Hopefully the TSA will like reading it too, they've cost a lot of money, caused a lot of problems and caught exactly 0 terrorists.
At this rate they might as well burn the Constitution + Bill of Rights and start again.
You would literally be better off having a trusted third party do the vetting for them, having your laptop, phone etc scanned before traveling and information collated into a neat PDF containing the sort of information they are looking for.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
