On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 03:18:49PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Then again, I think this new policy is a bit useless. Finding a visa > > applicant's social media is relatively simple given their names and > > pictures (which the consulate already demands and long has, and besides, > > they have cameras). And it's not like consular officials can easily > > find pseudonymous social media if it lacks easily identifiable contents > > like pictures that can be matched by facial recognition. Yes, it would > > So, how does one prove one does not have a social media account? You don't. You assert you don't have one and good luck. If they reject, go create one and seed it with harmless content. > And, as there are at least 7 people on facebook with the same name as me, > which one is it? That's why they want the specific identification. Yes, but it's usually easy enough to check if any of the 7 are yours. > How do I prove which one is me? By showing that you post pictures of yourself? Get vain. > > be a violation to fail to tell them about things they can't find, so the > > rule is still invasive, but from a practical point of view, those that > > State might exclude aren't going to be disclosing pseudonyms that State > > can't doxx on its own. I.e., this is just more mostly-ineffective > > security theater. > > You are right: theatre, but it has a useful chilling effect on speech. That's not really intended by anyone with half a brain (meaning it might still be intended!). You want those who are security risks to speak. I'm not sure what speech they would object to. I suspect State is probably staffed more by Democrats than by Republicans, and they're bound to have different views as to what's objectionable -- it's almost certainly a crapshoot. The UK has used political speech of the sort that has nothing to do with terrorism to exclude visitors. So has Australia. The speech chilling train has long-ago left the station -- it's affecting more people, but the trend as to speech curbs is global, and the U.S. is behind that curve. Really, considering the 38 countries on the visa waiver program, how many active IETF participants will be affected? That should inform any decision to move/cancel the SF meeting. Future meetings might not be hosted in the U.S. at all, but again, when other countries start doing this too (if they haven't already, just without any fancy PRs), then what? Nico --
