The United States Wants to Look Inside People’s Heads – Five Years of Social Media History for Entry

As we indicated several weeks ago based on our research, it is now becoming true. The US government is planning a step that will reorder the relationship between states, civil rights and travel. Anyone who in the future wants to enter the country without a visa from places like Germany, France, Britain or South Korea will have to disclose up to five years of their social media history. A plan that not only touches the privacy of millions of people but also raises the question of how free a democratic country still is when digital traces become an entry document.

See also our article: “A Country on High Alert - and Travelers Pay the Price” – available at the link: https://kaizen-blog.org/en/ein-land-auf-alarmstufe-und-reisende-zahlen-den-preis/

The initiative comes from the border protection agency CBP. It announced in the Federal Register that it will request far more data than before. In addition to social media accounts, email addresses from the past ten years and personal information about parents, siblings, children, partners and places of residence would have to be provided. The changes affect the ESTA system, which until now required only a brief online form, cost 40 dollars and was valid for two years. In the future, wait times could become longer and the hurdles higher. While visa applicants from many countries are already familiar with social media checks, this would be a massive step for the entire visa-free travel sector. Representatives of the travel industry warn of a cooling of tourism and criticize the government for not involving the sector in the development. A leading industry representative called the plans a "massive expansion of the review framework" that comes without warning.

Legal experts see a clear shift in course in the plan. Bo Cooper of the law firm Fragomen calls the plans a "paradigm shift". While social media used to be used to verify specific information, the general "online language" is now to be assessed, meaning what people say, like and share. The line between necessary security screening and political judgment becomes blurred. The process could lead to travelers suddenly being classified as a "risk" because of harmless or satirical posts.

Civil rights organizations are also sounding the alarm. The Electronic Frontier Foundation speaks of a serious intrusion into civil liberties. The measure has demonstrably never prevented dangerous individuals from entering the country, but it has changed the behavior of innocent travelers. People post less, they speak more cautiously, they change their behavior out of fear of being misunderstood. And the new rule would not only affect them but also those who communicate with them. The government has 60 days to collect public comments on the proposal. If the plan is implemented, the new rules could take effect just weeks later. For travelers, this would mean more waiting time, more uncertainty and a digital examination whose standards remain unclear. It is a decision that goes far beyond entry forms. It is about how much a state is allowed to know about us and who in the future will still visit a country that does not only want to see the passport but the digital life behind it.

We will continue to follow what consequences this step will have for international travel, the exchange between societies and the lives of millions of innocent people.