Privacy

29869 readers

1409 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

Chat rooms

[Matrix/Element]Dead
Discord

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

102

[EFF] Federal Judge Upholds State Department Rule Requiring Visa Applicants to Disclose Social Media Information (www.eff.org)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

No I haven’t, and that’s extremely alarming. Got a link handy?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

Forget eastern Europe, that's the whole premise of Five Eyes. The UK spies on American citizens and gives it to the NSA, and vice versa.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

https://www.404media.co/revealed-the-country-that-secretly-wiretapped-the-world-for-the-fbi/

It's already behind a paywall. But it was really a sting operation, using fake "secure" phones, to catch criminals, by skirting constitutional requirements.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

I used to buy a particular Lithuanian product no longer available here. I need the rest of the story! Thanks. I’ll do some searching at some point.