Foreign tourists could be required to disclose 5 years of social media histories

[yuna628 9,929]

This is the NBC article but there are plenty of others.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/foreign-tourists-five-years-social-media-history-customs-border-protec-rcna248337

 

Please note that this will apply to entry using the VWP.

 

The NYT is a lot more in-depth but behind paywall. Saw discussions about it last night. 

It would consist of downloading an App to your phone.

Uploading a photograph.

Filling out an extensive new type of ESTA form which would include as mandatory:

5 years of any social media accounts.

10 years of email accounts, address listings, and phone numbers.

Names and demographic information for wife, kids, parents, siblings regardless of if they are traveling with you.

Business phone numbers, addresses, and other information.

 

The memorandum is here https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-22461.pdf

 

 

[Lemonslice 5,370]

I expect many will simply decide to not visit, and many others will not disclose everything.  

 

 

[mam521 2,819]

Considering how much more in depth personal data protections are in the EU and UK, I can see a lot of people pumping the brakes on a visit.  It's pretty invasive and some e-mail accounts, etc are corporate owned and protected, so that information, despite being required, cannot be shared.  

[JeanneAdil 7,378]

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Enhanced Vetting/CA - FAQs on Social Media Collection - 6-4-2019 (v.2).pdf

 

been in effect on ds 160 since 2019

 

The updated forms collect social media identifiers. These changes went into effect on May 31, 2019. National security is our top priority when adjudicating visa applications, and every prospective traveler and immigrant to the United States undergoes extensive security screening. We are constantly working to find mechanisms to improve our screening processes to protect U.S. citizens, while supporting legitimate travel to the United States.

[yuna628 9,929]

1 hour ago, mam521 said:

Considering how much more in depth personal data protections are in the EU and UK, I can see a lot of people pumping the brakes on a visit.  It's pretty invasive and some e-mail accounts, etc are corporate owned and protected, so that information, despite being required, cannot be shared.  

Agreed. I could not imagine asking my family abroad to do this. Questions about what are they looking to do with this information, where is it being stored, security concerns and more...

 

18 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Enhanced Vetting/CA - FAQs on Social Media Collection - 6-4-2019 (v.2).pdf

 

been in effect on ds 160 since 2019

 

The updated forms collect social media identifiers. These changes went into effect on May 31, 2019. National security is our top priority when adjudicating visa applications, and every prospective traveler and immigrant to the United States undergoes extensive security screening. We are constantly working to find mechanisms to improve our screening processes to protect U.S. citizens, while supporting legitimate travel to the United States.

Correct. But now they are applying it to those using the VWP, where DS160 is not needed because it's visa free travel.

[SalishSea 18,655]

7 hours ago, mam521 said:

It's pretty invasive and some e-mail accounts, etc are corporate owned and protected, so that information, despite being required, cannot be shared.  

It's not like they're asking for passwords.

[appleblossom 5,508]

9 hours ago, SalishSea said:

It's not like they're asking for passwords.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. They’re already asking that people applying for visas set all their social media profiles to ‘public’. There’s no way I’d do that. 

Edited yesterday at 12:17 PM by appleblossom

[mam521 2,819]

2 hours ago, appleblossom said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. They’re already asking that people applying for visas set all their social media profiles to ‘public’. There’s no way I’d do that. 

I wouldn't either.  I don't have social media accounts set to public to protect myself as it is.  If you're dumb enough to leave them open publicly, you subject yourself to too much scrutiny.  I don't post ridiculous things anyway, but it's my business.  I don't need an HR person rooting around in my accounts, etc, let alone the government.  I'm actually annoyed that our company wants you to have a LinkedIn profile and HR do check it.  To me, it's just Facebook for adults and there is nothing in my contract that states I am required to use social media on behalf of the company.  

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but we have to do yearly training on data classification and storage so we don't violate laws internationally by collecting information and mishandling it.  Hubs and I work for the same company and when we got married, we only told HR, as it was a requirement for personnel profile updates, benefits and beneficiary information.  We kept our work relationship professional and our personal lives at home.  When my boss found out a year after we were married, she was like "why didn't you tell anybody?" and I just said it was none of anyone else's business.  She knew at that moment that based on our data security policies, she couldn't say anything more than that.  She could have been fired if she shared personal information that wasn't hers to share.

 

The US, in general, is far too lackadaisical with people's personal information.  

[SalishSea 18,655]

In my business, we would be fired if we shared passwords with anyone (HIPAA).