Humanities desk
< March 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 30

Countries that require social media information for visas

With reports that the US is planning to implement a rule requiring disclosure of at least five years of social media accounts and posts, I was wondering: do any other countries have similar rules or otherwise proposed similar practices for visa applications? Or just the US? A Google search couldn't find much information about non-US cases. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Israel does. As with the United States proposal, it is not a requirement. They will let you leave your social media section blank if you are not considered a threat of any kind. But, they can require it just as well. There are cases, going back to 2016, where they've required usernames and passwords for social media accounts. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's not a requirement? Most reports e.g. [1] [2] and the proposal document itself seem to disagree [3]. While it was previously optional in many cases, the new proposal is it is compulsory for the listed sites. Other sites will remain optional. It may be they won't investigate further in many cases if the applicant simply says there are none, OTOH, lying in a visa application form tends to be a good way to at a minimum, ensure you will never be allowed into the country in a long time even if you are later willing to be truthful, and can also affect you being allowed into other countries. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on WHAT is required. It is a requirement that all visa forms include a space for social media identification. There are many visa forms. You can use printed forms or web forms. They come in many languages. However, it is not a requirement that the person requesting a visa fill out the information. Then, all it takes is one news article to do a terrible job explaining it and then hundreds of articles source that news article and parrot a half-truth until it is truthy enough to replace the original story. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ignore the news sites then and concentrate on what the State Department themselves are saying since as I already said this is also coming from they themselves said. Can you explain why says: "One question lists multiple social media platforms and requires the applicant to provide any identifiers used by applicants for those platforms during the five years preceding the date of application." Can you explain why the State Department themselves are saying they will require the applicant to provide any identifiers if it is optional? Even in the Trump era, the state department seems to know how to use words. Since as I also said, they themselves also said "Will be given the option to provide information about any social media identifiers associated with any platforms other". Yes this only applies to DS-160 and DS-156. But DS-160 is what most tourists who need a visa need to fill out. Or for that matter, many others who need a visa, again as per the state department, it's even what diplomats fill out albeit they won't be asked the social media question. (At least that's how I interpret what the state department have said although weirdly DS-156 doesn't say this anywhere.)

I think one thing which perhaps quite a few media and even people here have missed is that this if you are eligible for a visa waiver, you don't have to fill out either form AFAIK. You do have to fill out the visa waiver thing, and I admit I missed until now that it is the thing that currently asks about social media as an optional question and I don't think it's being changed at the moment. DS-160/156 currently do not. Only the extra forms some people who require further vetting need to fill out ask for social media info when it comes to visa applications although my understanding is it isn't optional for them either.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually let's look at the further info [4]/[5]]:

Select from the list below each social media platform you have used within the last five years. In the space next to the platform’s name, enter the username or handle you have used on that platform. If you have used more than one platform or more than one username or handle on a single platform, click the “Add Another” button to list each one separately. If you have not used any of the listed social media platforms in the last five years, select “None.” Next, the form will include a data field labeled “Social Media Identifier” for the applicant to type in his or her social media “handle” or identifier. The applicant may select “Add Another” if the applicant has more than one provider/platform or social media identifier to disclose. Applicants will be advised they do not need to list accounts designated for multiple users within a business or other organization. Applicants may be provided help boxes to assist in common questions, such as how to find the “social media identifier” of an account. Applicants will be advised to list each identifier used, including multiple identifiers on a single platform. No visa application is guaranteed approval, and all can be denied for a variety of reasons, but an applicant who does not have a social media presence will not be denied on that basis.

and

In addition, a new optional question on the DS-160 and DS-156 will ask applicants if they wish to provide any other social media identifiers for platforms they have used within the last five years to create or share content (photos, videos, status updates, etc.) not listed in the initial social media question. The question will require applicants to respond “yes” or “no,” but applicants who decline will not be required to provide any additional identifiers.

The example form [6] (page 5) seems to confirm the info is an accurate reflection of what the proposed form will look like.

Actually I didn't include DS-156 now partly because it's not that important since most people are required to use DS-156 in most circumstances, but also because the explanation is missed key part of the form. DS-156 [7] (page 2) says

Have you used any of the following social media platforms during the last five years? (If "Yes", provide social media identifier for platform.)

Can you explain what part of either form the person who is filing it should interpret to mean they are allowed to not fill out this info? Sure they said they will not deny visa because a person does not have a social media presence, and as I said in several places, it may be reasonable to assume in some cases they won't investigate further if the person just answers none. But I'd like to know what parts suggest; if you fill out 'none' when you do have profile, or you answer it as 'refuse to answer', this is not going to often be a significant barrier to entry. Of course there is no guarantee this proposal is going to be implemented without change, but I think most informed sources and those here were clear on that point.

I already provided most of this info before you responded albeit only in the form of refs, and yet you continue to insist stuff which is not supported at all by the refs including those coming from the State Department themselves and have provided zero evidence for your claims. I don't see the relevance of different languages. Is there some reason to think the different languages aren't simply going to be as reasonably accurate translation of the English form as the state department can manage? I'm not even sure if the 'there are many forms' is accurate, since it seems that they've consolidated on the single DS-160 and DS-156 for most visa types, but I don't know enough to say it's definitely not. Unless you actually provide refs, I'm going to assume you are wrong and there's no point engaging further. (Actually even if do provide refs, I probably won't be back.)

Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Schengen visa can require a face-to-face interview. That interview can escalate into a requirement for social media information. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hope everyone implements something like that but I do hope they do for American and European travelers. If we have to disclose our Pornhub accounts why shouldn't they?

Oops. I expect I'll have to discuss this one with an American or European embassy employee some time in the future.

Naaah. I'll just not post anything for 5 years. See you guys in 5 years.

Hold on now... Come to think of it, wouldn't that look suspicious?

There are many more, based on how the laws are translated. When you apply for a visa to anywhere, you are asked for your identity, including any aliases you use. What does "any aliases" mean? Is your Facebook ID an alias? Is your Twitter ID an alias? The two examples I gave, Israel and Schengen, both consider social media account names to be aliases. Under Obama, they were considered aliases as well, but now the state department is looking to make it very clear that a social media account name is considered an alias. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What if one does not have any social media accounts? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then one does not have a relevant alias. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if they would require one's Wikipedia account User name, if one had one? And if one was to declare that one does not and has never had any social media accounts (which is true of myself), would one be believed? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. Of course not. If they did everybody would say that, whether they did or didn't. No, what I advise you to do ahead of your next trip is to open a few token accounts where you do absolutely nothing, or, better yet, some silly innocuous stuff and then when they ask you about social media accounts you give them those. Gotta plan ahead. Basemetal 15:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I make occasional trips to other European countries, and have never been asked, nor heard of anyone I know being asked, for such online 'aliases'. As I have never and almost certainly will never visit the USA, the necessity for your logical suggestion will likely never arise. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be from the UK, it's likely UK residents at least until Brexit and even accepting they are not part of the Schengen have some additional protections as EU citizens. More to the point, 209 seems to be claiming that online alias are something that you are supposed to provide when asked if you have any aliases. I don't know how many forms ask for 'alias'. The UK [8] and NZ [9] forms ask for 'other names' not aliases. I guess it's not impossible that 'other names' could be interpreted to include aliases you've used online especially if you've used them a large amount, by some governmental agency. I have my doubts though. The UK's guidance [10] for example, doesn't say anything to suggest this.

(The US visa online form does ask "used other names (i.e., maiden, religious, professional, alias, etc." The guidance is "Other names used include your maiden name, religious name, professional name, or any other names which you are known by or have been known by in the past." This also doesn't seem to clearly include online aliases although per the other responses they are considering requiring social media profiles of certain networks.)

The Schengen visa form doesn't seem to ask at all, it only seems to ask for current name and also name at birth [11]. The Israeli form is similar asking for current names and previous family name [12]. I'm concentrating on visitor visas since that seems to be what the original question and many of the concerns are about. Maybe 209 is thinking of some other visa type given their comments below.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get at least one visa every year because I work with various foreign medical aid organizations. Every year, I answer "None" for aliases. I've never been asked if I'm telling the truth. If I were to be asked if I have social media profiles, I wouldn't mind showing them that I have a profile using my real name - which is not an alias. I've never been asked about that. Instead, I am more often asked who I voted for in the most recent election or if I donate money to Israel - things like that. It is a vetting process. They don't want more trouble than they already have. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have suggested something similar relating to requirements to hand over devices and sometimes even encryption passwords e.g. burner phones etc [13] [14] [15] [16]. You'd note though that many of these themselves note, and experts elsewhere have pointed out that going to far can actual be problematic in itself, raising suspicion and increasing problems for you [17]. They've especially note that it's generally a bad idea to lie to border agents. And if you've been asked to hand over all profiles for Facebook but only hand over your dummy one, well.... (Before some nitpicks, yes I'm sure there is some allowance for people who can't remember some old profile. But if you're regularly logging in to your profile, this isn't likely to work.)

If we're talking something with a public profile e.g. Facebook and your Facebook etc account is with your real name, even if your name is a very common one, it seems to me you're normally hiding something which you have zero point in hiding. Even if it's not in your real name, if your friends list includes anyone who people could fairly easily associate with you and any of these friends have their friends list public, you're still hiding something people with a small amount of info could like uncover in less than an hour. There is perhaps a small risk they may require you to hand over passwords at a later stage so in that case you now have a problem however that risk seems to be fairly small and as said before, trying to harder counteract that risk is likely to increase the chances you get a lot more scrutiny.

To be clear, I'm not saying the US requirement is innocuous. I agree it's a disturbing requirement. I'm simply saying that the best way to counteract it is simply to not visit the US if it matters that much to you. (Or if you don't mind handing over the profiles, but do mind the passwords hand over the profiles, and make a plan of what to do in the unlikely event they do demand passwords.) Creating other profiles and not revealing the main ones seems a recipe for disaster. (I'm sure if done well and there isn't any reason why you set of a red flag, it probably isn't going to be picked up. That still doesn't mean it's a good idea. The risk-reward simply seems to high.)

Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I should make clear that in many ways the social media situation is worse that some of the advice for devices. If the form asks for all social media accounts from a certain network and you hid your main ones, you have a significant problem from the get go. You may want to at least say you've hidden your personal profile as it's private in the form and hope for the best. With devices, you can follow reasoned advice and then tell the truth and refuse to cooperate (or be unable to cooperate) if you are unhappy with the demands and accept being rejected at the border. Also although the author of the Medium article said they'd provide advice in a followup, it doesn't look like this happened. Also by refuse to cooperate, I don't mean don't hand over a device. Simply saying you refuse to provide a password, or some other detail despite a request. As many of the sources say, physically refusing is a very bad idea. Refusing to provide some detail may not be completely risk free, but the most likely outcome for a non-citizen without any real right of entry is rejection. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What if my alias is the name of a licensed character? Will I have to prove I've paid royalties? Basemetal 15:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russia may ask for similar things in some circumstances [18]. The Russian spokesperson quoted there claims the UK does the same thing but I tried making an application (not submitted obviously) as a Russian want a UK tourist visa and there was no such question. It doesn't matter if you've visited Syria and Iran for a few years, nor if you declare you've been a member of a terrorist group or expressed sympathies for terrorism. (Although you re asked to provide details in 500 characters or less for the later 2.) They do however ask for at least 2 parents details, dependent children (but not non dependent), all income (not simply if you have enough), any work for the government, judiciary, media, armed forces and security organisations. Of course details could be requested in an interview but this seems to suggest it's not a regular thing. Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty obnoxious requirement if they want all your online nicknames, since if you post under a pseudonym that means they're basically asking to see your private correspondence (the words are out in the open, but their connection with you is private). Is there much opposition to the proposal from activists etc.? I'm suddenly gladder than usual that I don't use a Wikipedia account. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal only makes certain sites compulsory. As per below, Youtube is likely to be one of them. I quite doubt Wikipedia will ever be. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fo an important caveat to any of my earlier responses not dated today, see my response dated 08:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC) here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#What is social media anyway? Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]