Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

DS-160 (US Visa Application) now requires social media accounts

DS-160 (US Visa Application) now requires social media accounts

Reply

Old May 30, 19, 10:06 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Francisco/Sydney
Programs: UA 1K/MM, TK Elite, DL Gold, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum, IHG Gold, Hertz PC, Avis First
Posts: 6,770
DS-160 (US Visa Application) now requires social media accounts

This appears to have been added during a planned outage this evening.

The question below has been added to the DS-160 - the form required to be filled out by anyone applying for a Visa to enter the US. Unlike the similar question on the ESTA application, this does not appear to be optional.



The full list of options available is :

docbert is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 19, 5:41 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by docbert View Post
This appears to have been added during a planned outage this evening.

The question below has been added to the DS-160 - the form required to be filled out by anyone applying for a Visa to enter the US. Unlike the similar question on the ESTA application, this does not appear to be optional.


Only those who believe they have "nothing to hide" will answer this fully and completely.
scottpenderson and AceReport like this.
petaluma1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 19, 10:28 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 1,624
Originally Posted by petaluma1 View Post
Only those who believe they have "nothing to hide" will answer this fully and completely.
But that is the point. If an applicant does not answer fully and completely then that can very well be used as evidence of not being truthful or being evasive and therefore potentially used as grounds (among other things) for refusal.
Section 107 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 19, 10:34 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: San Antonio, TX
Programs: AA EXP, DL Silver, Global Entry
Posts: 1,538
Originally Posted by Section 107 View Post
But that is the point. If an applicant does not answer fully and completely then that can very well be used as evidence of not being truthful or being evasive and therefore potentially used as grounds (among other things) for refusal.
Absolutely. Kind of in the same vain that you can get denied GE or NEXUS for not reporting an arrest even if that arrest was eventually dismissed, etc. Itís not the necessarily offense that gets you booted as much as it is youíre perceived as not being truthful.
Randyk47 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 19, 1:20 pm
  #5  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting; SSSS = haraSSSSment
Posts: 87,757
Originally Posted by Randyk47 View Post


Absolutely. Kind of in the same vain that you can get denied GE or NEXUS for not reporting an arrest even if that arrest was eventually dismissed, etc. Itís not the necessarily offense that gets you booted as much as it is youíre perceived as not being truthful.
Much different actually, at least for those who want to become permanent residents of the US or even want to eventually become citizens of the US. For a visa applicant, Itís the offense that can get the person booted even decades later.

The social media listing on the visa application is fractional, in that it doesnít have all social media listings in the menu. If an applicant is demanded to provide all social media listings and an applicant left off FT, then even that may be used against some of them down the road.

About the list, ďnoneĒ Ďmay be considered misleading even if not having any branded social media site listed to disclose. See the mention of FT in the prior paragraph. And speaking of the list, isnít Google+ dead yet?

Last edited by GUWonder; May 31, 19 at 1:29 pm
GUWonder is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 19, 2:02 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by Section 107 View Post
But that is the point. If an applicant does not answer fully and completely then that can very well be used as evidence of not being truthful or being evasive and therefore potentially used as grounds (among other things) for refusal.
I've had social media accounts that I haven't used in years and have no idea of either my username or password. What is the government going to do about that?
altabello likes this.
petaluma1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 19, 6:54 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Programs: UA 1MM, AS MVPG, Marriott Plat, Honors Dia, IHG Plat, ...
Posts: 8,175
Does the US government have special APIs from, say, Facebook to review my posts if I have implemented restrictions on the visibility (just friends)?

Not that I have anything to hide, mind you... (and I don’t need a US visa anyway)
notquiteaff is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 19, 9:34 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 183
I seem to be more disturbed by this than others here. I have a few social media accounts & have nothing to hide. Mercifully I don't need a US visa, but if I did need one, I would not provide that information. We have to draw the line on privacy. If it means getting denied a visa, so be it. I would not undertake any discretionary travel to a country that asks this kind of information. What's next? My DNA?

I get that this has to do with protecting the homeland against "radical terrorists". No doubt there are many lunatics who want to do us harm, but part of the solution is to engage in de-escalation, i.e., revisit our foreign policy, which contributes significantly to the anger targeted at us.
Spiff, GUWonder and pilot007 like this.
thebakaronis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 19, 9:54 am
  #9  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VNY | BUR | LAX
Programs: AAdvantage | MileagePlus
Posts: 11,311
Exclamation Moderator's Note

Folks,

There is a very fine line between border security discussion and political debate.

It is about to be crossed; please do not go there (arguing US foreign policy).

Political discussions belong in OMNI/PR (access to OMNI is restricted to members who have been on FlyerTalk for 180 days and have posted 180 contributive messages).

TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator
TWA884 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 19, 12:39 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,108
It is an interesting question, forgetting the privacy/political issues aspect for a second, what is a Social Media account? I asked my in-laws (who are Swiss) and neither my Mother In-law nor my Father In-law have Facebook or Twitter or any of the usual suspects, both have GMAIL accounts (and thus Google accounts in general) but none responded yes we have YouTube accounts (even though both do by virtue of having a Google account). In fact they do not comment or post on YouTube, nor do they create any sort of content, they are strictly consumers of content and in no way consider it to be Social Media. In fact my Mother In-law did even know that she had a YouTube account.

Same goes for Google + (which I think is EOL any day now), my in laws by virture of have Google Account have/had Google + yet neither even knows what it is nor use it in any way, it seems that the question is problematic strictly speaking from the sense of what is Social Media and that there could be contacts to Social Media that applicant might not even know that they had.

I get the telling the truth thing, but in my in-laws case (they are ESTA so does not apply exactly) they would be telling the truth if they said no, even though someone else might see them as lying.

It is a toughie, I get the point, I am just not sure if it accomplishes what the security folks are trying to accomplish IMHO and that is forgetting the privacy/political issue aspect of the question.
altabello likes this.

Last edited by kmersh; Jun 2, 19 at 12:47 pm
kmersh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 19, 1:23 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 852
Originally Posted by thebakaronis View Post
I seem to be more disturbed by this than others here. I have a few social media accounts & have nothing to hide. Mercifully I don't need a US visa, but if I did need one, I would not provide that information. We have to draw the line on privacy. If it means getting denied a visa, so be it. I would not undertake any discretionary travel to a country that asks this kind of information. What's next? My DNA?

I get that this has to do with protecting the homeland against "radical terrorists". No doubt there are many lunatics who want to do us harm, but part of the solution is to engage in de-escalation, i.e., revisit our foreign policy, which contributes significantly to the anger targeted at us.
I can't image "radical terrorists" would use Twitter or Facebook to share "plans". Don't they do everything on the dark net, where law enforcement admit their hands are tied as to what they can do legally?

Isn't this another layer of security theatre?
Spiff and thebakaronis like this.
DragonSoul is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 19, 7:18 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 1,624
Originally Posted by DragonSoul View Post
Isn't this another layer of security theatre?
No. It is quite surprising how many people have admitted to or lied on their immigration forms to being involved/not involved in activities that the destination government has determined preclude entry to the country and the truth has been discovered easily through the applicant's online presence.
Section 107 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 19, 7:47 am
  #13  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 41,303
The failure to be entirely candid is the easiest of all bases to deny a visa. It does not involve making a judgment about the underlying facts, simply the lack of candor.

Parsing words and phrases to play "gotcha" with the reviewer is a prescription for denial.

I would take the definition of "social media" broadly and let State be the people to decide that it doesn't care about your recipe-sharing neighborhood bulletin board.55555555555
Often1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 19, 4:59 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 16
That is extremely intrusive and should not be required
Spiff, altabello and pilot007 like this.
looker001 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 19, 9:57 pm
  #15  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 30,953
Google+ is AFIAK dead. I got a message to download all my stuff (the huge amount of one post) before it was deleted. Two others have accounts with zero posts, three more have almost empty accounts--if I were applying for a visa I can easily see them thinking I am being deceptive. I have no interest in simply sharing details of my life, 99+% of my stuff on the web is Stackoverflow and discussions such as this board.

I can see one on that list that could be problematic for some people: Reddit has a lot of support groups. The system is set up to support secondary handles for posting on such groups. People would not want to reveal such handles.

I can also see a problem with their approach. At times I have looked around the web to see if my name is unique--and if it isn't anyone else with it has no appreciable web presence. However, I have found a substantial amount of text attributed to me that I did not write. These all appear to be cases of someone scraping an existing board and using it to populate a board of their own. Whether this is about fake links to fool Google or about pretending traffic where it doesn't exist I do not know. The thing is the scrapes were poorly done--in multiple cases I figured out that the material in question was something I quoted but there was no longer any indication it was a quote, the words appear to be attributed to me.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread