My phone was searched at LAX, which apparently is the new normal(latimes.com)
latimes.com
My phone was searched at LAX, which apparently is the new normal
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-adi-fourth-amendment-airport-cellphone-search-20170407-story.html?utm_source=Today%27s+Headlines&utm_campaign=347bc3a518-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_12&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b04355194f-347bc3a518-80983953
267 comments
I always have a hard time interpreting these statistics.
I understand the numbers of terrorist-related deaths versus non-terrorist one are staggering as displayed above, but if we stopped funding these security measures at airports (scanners, staff, etc), what could the number go up to?
Are these 3000 deaths so low because of the security measures? If we were to remove/loosen security measures at airports, how could we even estimate the impact in number of terrorist-related deaths?
Are these fears of possible ramp-up of terrorist attacks (if security measures are loosened) unfounded?
I understand the numbers of terrorist-related deaths versus non-terrorist one are staggering as displayed above, but if we stopped funding these security measures at airports (scanners, staff, etc), what could the number go up to?
Are these 3000 deaths so low because of the security measures? If we were to remove/loosen security measures at airports, how could we even estimate the impact in number of terrorist-related deaths?
Are these fears of possible ramp-up of terrorist attacks (if security measures are loosened) unfounded?
These 3000 deaths approximately zero relation to security measures.
The US government was informed about the 9/11 hijackers and the Boston city Marathon bombers etc. But, they get 99.99% false positives, so such information is basically worthless unless it results in conviction. Further the 9/11 hijackers used weapons no more deadly than what people are still allowed to bring on aircraft. If there where enough terrorists to matter they could have repeated 9/11 any time in the last 10 years. The most 'useful' security measure from 9/11 is a 'secure' door that locks which directly relates do another crashed aircraft making even that if anything a net loss. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/26/europe/france-germanwings-plan...
That said, like the 'war on drugs' it has nothing to do with the actual 'threat' it's all just politics.
The US government was informed about the 9/11 hijackers and the Boston city Marathon bombers etc. But, they get 99.99% false positives, so such information is basically worthless unless it results in conviction. Further the 9/11 hijackers used weapons no more deadly than what people are still allowed to bring on aircraft. If there where enough terrorists to matter they could have repeated 9/11 any time in the last 10 years. The most 'useful' security measure from 9/11 is a 'secure' door that locks which directly relates do another crashed aircraft making even that if anything a net loss. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/26/europe/france-germanwings-plan...
That said, like the 'war on drugs' it has nothing to do with the actual 'threat' it's all just politics.
The only real improvements in security since 9/11 in my mind are that cockpit doors are now reinforced and passengers know to fight back.
Everything else is just a show of force to make people feel better.
Everything else is just a show of force to make people feel better.
If you clicked on my link that door has already cost 1 aircraft so it's not a pure win. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/26/europe/france-germanwings-plan...
Passengers fighting back only works if they know there is a problem and the attackers are in the passenger cabin. Once the attacker is past that door they can ignore them.
Passengers fighting back only works if they know there is a problem and the attackers are in the passenger cabin. Once the attacker is past that door they can ignore them.
Agreed. There is always going to be risk. Especially if the pilot has gone rouge. But the chances of passenger(s) taking over a plane like on 9/11 had drastically decreased because of awareness and those doors.
>Especially if the pilot has gone rouge
What have you got against pink pilots?
What have you got against pink pilots?
I feel every seat should have a switch to allow passengers to vote. A majority vote should either open the pilot's door, or put an emergency autopilot in charge which will try to land at the nearest airport.
I think the best option is to remove pilots in the first place. If physical access does not let you take over the aircraft then there is little meaning to attacking aircraft vs other random crouds of people.
US military drones have actual weapons and they are not hacked so that part seems to work well.
US military drones have actual weapons and they are not hacked so that part seems to work well.
That door combined with the airline allowing someone to be alone in the cockpit. I don't know if it's a regulatory requirement or just a practice but U.S. airlines don't leave a pilot alone. I think this practice predates the adoption of reinforced doors and is a sound one, whatever ability you might have to get through a non-reinforced door is going to be hard to follow if a suicidal pilot goes into a nose-dive.
And it's not exactly like they need weapons either, a determined person trained in unarmed combat will easily kill/maim someone just using their hands.
and they probably could easily buy 50% of the seats in one airplane...
To my mind, it is not about funding or not funding security at airports/borders/etc. It's about if terrorism poses enough of a threat to be worth compromising our standards of governance. We can fund and support security in these zones without suspending our civil liberties and we should.
Moreover, it's not actually about fighting terrorism. I'm sure some individual TSA agents (the ones who don't get their jollies from groping ten-year-old boys [1] believe they're doing the Lord's work, but most of this policy is just about keeping people's necks under a boot and harassing minorities. People fleeing war-torn countries with suitcases are not going to fly planes into the World Trade Center, as certain media outlets or politicians would have you believe, but we keep enacting policy like that. Not because those in power actually believe it, but because they simply hate Muslims. They hate people whose religion is different, whose skin color is different, whose gender is different, whose sexuality is different.
[1] http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/29/tsa-punishes-boy-who-left-...
[1] http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/29/tsa-punishes-boy-who-left-...
It isn't really an either/or sort of situation. The question is more that are we actually doing things to help?
It seems that having some border control is prudent. Just having it in place reduces violence, if I remember correctly. It is kind of like closing your front door and having a lock does quite a bit to reduce property theft.
Outside of taking prudent measures, I'm not sure it helps at all, especially considering most terrorism is homegrown. In fact, there is a chance it makes some relations worse and more likely to produce radicalized individuals - at least as much chance of increasing other terrorism if we stop the screenings completely. If terrorism is indeed the evil we are fighting, perhaps some of the money might better spent to take care of some of the social ills. After all, these are the things shown to help reduce homegrown terrorism.
It seems that having some border control is prudent. Just having it in place reduces violence, if I remember correctly. It is kind of like closing your front door and having a lock does quite a bit to reduce property theft.
Outside of taking prudent measures, I'm not sure it helps at all, especially considering most terrorism is homegrown. In fact, there is a chance it makes some relations worse and more likely to produce radicalized individuals - at least as much chance of increasing other terrorism if we stop the screenings completely. If terrorism is indeed the evil we are fighting, perhaps some of the money might better spent to take care of some of the social ills. After all, these are the things shown to help reduce homegrown terrorism.
Time and again, many agencies have shown enraging incompetence despite a lot of funding. No I have no links, I just read the news for 10 years now.
(Let's not even get into 9/11 because numerous reputable sources have proved beyond doubt that the intelligence agencies had a lot of actionable info months or even years before it.)
And don't pull the card "you never hear about the prevented attacks" too, because the US government is very quick to flaunt and brag about their over-funded agencies catching the occasional boogeyman.
(Let's not even get into 9/11 because numerous reputable sources have proved beyond doubt that the intelligence agencies had a lot of actionable info months or even years before it.)
And don't pull the card "you never hear about the prevented attacks" too, because the US government is very quick to flaunt and brag about their over-funded agencies catching the occasional boogeyman.
I guess look at the numbers before the security measures were introduced
The Joker explained it well. People are not afraid of violence, we habituate to it very easily and it's everywhere. They are afraid of unpredictable violence.
That homeless guy is going to die of hypothermia from being out in the rain? Makes sense. He should try to get out of the rain.
Thousands of women are killed by their ex-boyfriends every year? Makes sense, some guys are crazy. Good thing I don't date guys like that.
Someone might bring a gun into Starbucks and shoot random people? Good lord what is the world coming to! Take all the guns away! Islam! It's those creepy loners again!
That homeless guy is going to die of hypothermia from being out in the rain? Makes sense. He should try to get out of the rain.
Thousands of women are killed by their ex-boyfriends every year? Makes sense, some guys are crazy. Good thing I don't date guys like that.
Someone might bring a gun into Starbucks and shoot random people? Good lord what is the world coming to! Take all the guns away! Islam! It's those creepy loners again!
You're describing the common psychological stance very well. But are you advocating that we continue to think/feel this way?
There are plenty of legitimate complaints to be made about our current situation, but this line of argumentation isn't one of them. The whole idea that the number of deaths from a particular cause determines precisely the degree of threat from that cause is silly. Swimming pool drownings kill many times more people per year than terrorists did on 9/11 but it's perfectly appropriate that there's no war on swimming pools but a war against terrorists.
What other measurement of threat can there be? When something as statistically insignificant as terrorism is given far more resources than serious issues killing millions (as many health issues do), it is obvious that threat management isn't the real reason for the attention.
That's not true. If swimming pool drownings were a comparible threat to readhn's examples then we would of course work on fixing it, by introducing programs to help teach people about safety around pools and such.
Any parent who doesn't teach their children to swim is asking for terror, IMO. Majority of drownings are absolutely avoidable.
Even more strawman fodder: Influenza related deaths spiked to over 40k(50k?) in 2000 & 2004. I don't blame the previously worst President in modern times, although I wish I could.
Even more strawman fodder: Influenza related deaths spiked to over 40k(50k?) in 2000 & 2004. I don't blame the previously worst President in modern times, although I wish I could.
I don't disagree some of the TSA searching doesn't necessarily decrease the chance of successful attack, and that the searching methodology isn't necessarily comprehensive.
But I felt bringing death caused by other problems (homeless or even reckless driving) is a strawman. First, terrorism IS a problem, both domestic and foreign. So whether we have more people dying because of hunger or not, isn't going to affect the searching policy in airport. We have to discuss death by drunk driving and death by terrorism separately. Is government prioritizing homeless issues? That's different from is TSA search effective. They are two completely different issues.
But I felt bringing death caused by other problems (homeless or even reckless driving) is a strawman. First, terrorism IS a problem, both domestic and foreign. So whether we have more people dying because of hunger or not, isn't going to affect the searching policy in airport. We have to discuss death by drunk driving and death by terrorism separately. Is government prioritizing homeless issues? That's different from is TSA search effective. They are two completely different issues.
Absoluely, there are credible threats, LE & intelligence are tasked with mitigation & prevention for just causes. However, checks & balances of power are supposed to curtail gross violations of citizens' inalienable rights and policy makers' self-interest. Those C&Bs have been underminded and eroded by legal bribery, aka lobbying, and revolving doors between industry/guv. Profit motive seems to be more of a driving force than fear when you look into policy makers' financial statements.
At first glance, Chertoff seems to be the poster child of "confict of interest", but he is the new norm, just one of the many who abuse their stations.
At first glance, Chertoff seems to be the poster child of "confict of interest", but he is the new norm, just one of the many who abuse their stations.
many people fear death by random, terrorist acts more than they fear death by any of the causes you mention because they feel they exert some control over those causes, but not over terrorist acts. many people believe terrorist acts are hard to understand, predict and avoid.
and, aside from that, many people really really really hate the notion that a terrorist, often from a foreign country, can kill people in their own territory, a place they consider "safe". people find this particularly disturbing because of the direct human malevolence involved. people are one of the scariest things people can face.
when we simply reduce these types of deaths into counts, we lose some of that human perspective and what makes people live their lives in fear and anger.
and, aside from that, many people really really really hate the notion that a terrorist, often from a foreign country, can kill people in their own territory, a place they consider "safe". people find this particularly disturbing because of the direct human malevolence involved. people are one of the scariest things people can face.
when we simply reduce these types of deaths into counts, we lose some of that human perspective and what makes people live their lives in fear and anger.
How many Americans does ISIS want to kill? How many would they kill if they weren't prevented from doing so?
I give you problem A that kills 500,000 of your people every year and problem B that kills <100 people every year. And half a trillion to solve this.
Where and how will you spend your money?
95% on problem A and 5% on problem B?
or
95% on problem B and 5% on problem A?
Why are we not addressing the issues that hurt and effect our daily lives the most?
Where and how will you spend your money?
95% on problem A and 5% on problem B?
or
95% on problem B and 5% on problem A?
Why are we not addressing the issues that hurt and effect our daily lives the most?
Depends how effective the investment in each will be.
i can tell you that your ROI (saved lives) on addressing homelessness and drug overdose will be a lot higher than chasing some boogeymen in the desert.
> addressing homelessness and drug overdose
That's been tried before with little success. Some people will choose to use drugs no matter what the government does. Some people will choose to be homeless. Some people are mentally ill and unable to take advantage of government programs. Some people just refuse help.
What program would you suggest, that isn't being done, that would reduce homelessness or drug overdose?
That's been tried before with little success. Some people will choose to use drugs no matter what the government does. Some people will choose to be homeless. Some people are mentally ill and unable to take advantage of government programs. Some people just refuse help.
What program would you suggest, that isn't being done, that would reduce homelessness or drug overdose?
What program would you suggest, that isn't being done, that would reduce homelessness or drug overdose?
Just one of the 59 cruise missiles fired on Syria yesterday would fund intervening in and saving hundreds of lives - they cost $1.41 million each. Some people may refuse help, many, many people in these situations don't get help. Soup kitchens, treatment for mental illness, shelters, training, are all worthy causes which cost very little to run.
There are so many useful programs that could be funded, which are being defunded this year in order to prioritise spending on the military (already the largest in the world by some margin) and searching social accounts/mobile phones and storing passwords for who knows what reason (it certainly isn't to prevent terrorism).
Just one of the 59 cruise missiles fired on Syria yesterday would fund intervening in and saving hundreds of lives - they cost $1.41 million each. Some people may refuse help, many, many people in these situations don't get help. Soup kitchens, treatment for mental illness, shelters, training, are all worthy causes which cost very little to run.
There are so many useful programs that could be funded, which are being defunded this year in order to prioritise spending on the military (already the largest in the world by some margin) and searching social accounts/mobile phones and storing passwords for who knows what reason (it certainly isn't to prevent terrorism).
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic...
Great success. Do some research. Spend effort expanding programs that work.
Great success. Do some research. Spend effort expanding programs that work.
> A similar approach was first tried in Los Angeles in the late 1980s and New York City in the early 1990s.
> Later, the Bush administration adopted the model, and cities and states started writing 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness.
...
> And even though many cities in the U.S. have also been doing this for a while, they still come to Utah to study why it's working so well here.
The article mentions several times that it's already being done. This isn't mutually exclusive with efforts to fight terrorism.
> Later, the Bush administration adopted the model, and cities and states started writing 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness.
...
> And even though many cities in the U.S. have also been doing this for a while, they still come to Utah to study why it's working so well here.
The article mentions several times that it's already being done. This isn't mutually exclusive with efforts to fight terrorism.
The problem with the fight against terrorism is that they use it to push other agendas... just like they do with the fight against pedophiles and such.
> chasing some boogeymen in the desert.
Whom we are chasing mostly because of the instability we caused in the region in the first place.
Whom we are chasing mostly because of the instability we caused in the region in the first place.
This is fear mongering and doesn't represent the real level of risk. Furthermore it doesn't add much to the discussion.
Between bag checks and policing at stadiums, armored cockpit doors on planes, metal detectors, and descent passport checks backed by good intelligence most opportunities for foreign born terrorists evaporate. And practically it's impossible to stop lone, home grown terrorists when a rented van can be used as a weapon. So why search my phone?
Between bag checks and policing at stadiums, armored cockpit doors on planes, metal detectors, and descent passport checks backed by good intelligence most opportunities for foreign born terrorists evaporate. And practically it's impossible to stop lone, home grown terrorists when a rented van can be used as a weapon. So why search my phone?
It's not my intention to "fear monger".
I intend only to point out that when some claim "terrorism isn't a serious problem" they're using statistics collected while we do everything we can to prevent it.
No one is ever going to give the terrorists free reign to do what they want for a year so we can collect control data.
So we can only speculate about the consequences of not doing all we can to prevent terror attacks.
I intend only to point out that when some claim "terrorism isn't a serious problem" they're using statistics collected while we do everything we can to prevent it.
No one is ever going to give the terrorists free reign to do what they want for a year so we can collect control data.
So we can only speculate about the consequences of not doing all we can to prevent terror attacks.
According to the Cato Institute [1], the probability of being involved in a terrorist attack by a foreign-born terrorist from 1975 to 2015 was 0.00003%, or 1/3,609,709. The probability of you being struck by lightning this year is 1/960,000.
Terrorism ISN'T a serious problem, compared to homelessness, obesity and other health issues, lack of access to healthcare (see: obesity and other health issues), minority rights (especially for Muslims and Mexican immigrants), labor rights, poor public transportation, etc. It just isn't. God, if people cared 1/10th as much about some of these issues as they did about "being hard on terrorism", imagine how much we could get done. Instead we're groping ten-year-old boys at airports in the name of "safety".
Edit: add source.
[1] https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa798_...
Terrorism ISN'T a serious problem, compared to homelessness, obesity and other health issues, lack of access to healthcare (see: obesity and other health issues), minority rights (especially for Muslims and Mexican immigrants), labor rights, poor public transportation, etc. It just isn't. God, if people cared 1/10th as much about some of these issues as they did about "being hard on terrorism", imagine how much we could get done. Instead we're groping ten-year-old boys at airports in the name of "safety".
Edit: add source.
[1] https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa798_...
> The probability of you being struck by lightning this year is 1/960,000.
And most people take precautions to avoid being hit by lightning.
A one in a million risk of death is easily enough to inspire action to reduce the risk.
And most people take precautions to avoid being hit by lightning.
A one in a million risk of death is easily enough to inspire action to reduce the risk.
The objective of terrorism is not to kill. The objective is to induce fear.
If you do not take a balanced approach at protection, you risk losing out the mind war. The result? The US becomes a closed country, no longer the land of the free much less the brave. The ultimate goal of terrorism is achieved.
My reference for correct behavior towards terrorism is the UK during the IRA campaign. Security was handled as a serious affair, but as silently as possible. Some fatalities were deemed innevitable, and reported as such by the media.
If you do not take a balanced approach at protection, you risk losing out the mind war. The result? The US becomes a closed country, no longer the land of the free much less the brave. The ultimate goal of terrorism is achieved.
My reference for correct behavior towards terrorism is the UK during the IRA campaign. Security was handled as a serious affair, but as silently as possible. Some fatalities were deemed innevitable, and reported as such by the media.
Yes, the security response to the Provisional IRA campaign in the 70s, 80s & 90s was often low key. IMHO the British govt didn't want the British population to be so alarmed that they'd demand NI be expelled from the UK. I've got to differ on the aim of terrorism in this case. Obviously the aim of PIRA was and is a united Ireland: a 32 county Republic. The twin watchwords of the PIRA campaign were endurance & infliction. Endure everything that your opponent can throw at you, and inflict maximum damage on them. Which tacitly recognises that the campaign couldn't be won militarily. So the bombing campaign aimed to inflict economic damage. Just the same aim as the bombing campaign organised by Nelson Mandela as leader of the ANC's MK military wing in response to the Sharpeville massacre in early 60s South Africa. A secondary goal is polarise public opinion, so that moderates are forced to take sides. Bloody Sunday, internment and the hunger strikes all drained support from non violent nationalism in NI and bolstered support for Republicans. However, there's no comparison between the ANC and the PIRA on the one hand, and ISIS, Al Shabaab, Al Qaed & Boko Haram on the other. The ANC & PIRA were rational actors pursuing limited and legitimate goals. Jihadi extremist see shedding infidel blood as an end in itself, and they're quite explicit about wanting world domination.
You assume that SIS, Al Shabaab, Al Qaeda don't have goals beyond killing, and I think that's incorrect. AQAP seems to mostly want Western interests out of Yemen and Saudi. Al Shabab are loosely Stalinists and seem to be looking to control territory in Somalia and Ethiopia with Islamic jurisprudence , and I think they have some land issues not dissimilar to the EZLN(though I'm not sure I understand that correctly). ISIS/DAESH seem to want to draw Western powers into a costly proxy war with the aim of toppling regional powers. As evidenced by their early successes they seem to aim to use this chaos to build a state and call upon adherents to their brand of violent and regressive Sunni(esque) philosophy.
While these groups are less sympathetic than the IRA, early ANC, or ETA(to an extent), it's a mistake, I think, to view them as wholly different, or less human.
*Edit to clarify, these guys are definitely assholes and we need to have strategies to counter their goals.
While these groups are less sympathetic than the IRA, early ANC, or ETA(to an extent), it's a mistake, I think, to view them as wholly different, or less human.
*Edit to clarify, these guys are definitely assholes and we need to have strategies to counter their goals.
Well no; my last sentence was quite explicit about their aim being world domination. Al-Baghdadi, the ISIS leader, has been quite open about wanting a global caliphate. That why western Jihadis travel to the middle east to join them. That's what makes them qualitatively different than ANC, IRA, ETA etc. And that's why we should take them very seriously. If they were to get hold of weapons of mass destruction, they would use them.
Does that include inappropriately frisking children because what if they're secretly lightning rods and they're going to kill us all? No. Because that's ridiculous. Just like it's ridiculous in airports.
Terrorists have been known to place bombs on children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_I...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_I...
You see where this is going, right? This is exactly why terrorism "works": because the kinds of people who will frisk children "because terrorists have been known to use children" can be goaded into doing just about anything in that fashion. That's the real threat from terrorism: not to our overall physical security, which even at their worst no terrorist group has ever threatened existentially, but to our psychological security --- which they demonstrably have threatened to that degree.
Whereas some people will object to any security measure on the grounds that "terrorists aren't a threat".
But if we actually followed their advice, terrorists would be an enormous threat because we'd take no steps to protect ourselves.
But if we actually followed their advice, terrorists would be an enormous threat because we'd take no steps to protect ourselves.
So far we seem to be objecting to the wholesale copying of phones, aggressive physical inspection of women with back braces, and the frisking of children --- each of which you've defended as vital to defending against the terrorist threat.
I feel as if you might be making my point for me.
I feel as if you might be making my point for me.
Whatever exception you make - for children, for back braces, whatever - will be the exception terrorists will exploit.
If terrorists know you don't search children, they'll place bombs on children.
It's little use locking the front door while leaving the back door wide open.
If terrorists know you don't search children, they'll place bombs on children.
It's little use locking the front door while leaving the back door wide open.
I'm not sure it's reasonable to stipulate that the surveillance we conduct actually deters ISIS. I think the answer to your question is "statistically, not many".
The Brits had special golf rules drawn up for playing through the Blitz. We need to grow up.
The Brits had special golf rules drawn up for playing through the Blitz. We need to grow up.
> I'm not sure it's reasonable to stipulate that the surveillance we conduct actually deters ISIS.
I'd say its a reasonable assumption. ISIS's goal is to actually succeed, not to get caught by surveillance before an attack.
> We need to grow up.
And stop trying to prevent terrorism? That's not growing up. While the Brits were playing golf during the Blitz, they were also investing vast amounts of money and lives into shooting down German planes.
I'd say its a reasonable assumption. ISIS's goal is to actually succeed, not to get caught by surveillance before an attack.
> We need to grow up.
And stop trying to prevent terrorism? That's not growing up. While the Brits were playing golf during the Blitz, they were also investing vast amounts of money and lives into shooting down German planes.
The comparison you're drawing is between the RAF and the harassment of Muslims in the US. Lord only knows what the other leg of your Manhattan Project metaphor would be!
later edit
In case this actually needs to be said: in the course of prosecuting a war against terrorism (itself a spectacularly bad idea, lending itself as it does to a perpetual state of war), we've invaded and more or less conquered Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and are in what any reasonable person would call a state of war with Syria and Yemen. You can look at a map of west Asia to see what that adds up to.
later edit
In case this actually needs to be said: in the course of prosecuting a war against terrorism (itself a spectacularly bad idea, lending itself as it does to a perpetual state of war), we've invaded and more or less conquered Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and are in what any reasonable person would call a state of war with Syria and Yemen. You can look at a map of west Asia to see what that adds up to.
response to later edit
We haven't conquered Libya. In fact, the Obama administration pulled out and left the country in chaos and more vulnerable than ever to terrorism.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36013703
We haven't conquered Libya. In fact, the Obama administration pulled out and left the country in chaos and more vulnerable than ever to terrorism.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36013703
And Montgomery's Market Garden operation failed, too. What's your point?
Mine was simply that it's ridiculous to claim that the US has taken terrorism less seriously as a military objective than the UK took theirs.
Mine was simply that it's ridiculous to claim that the US has taken terrorism less seriously as a military objective than the UK took theirs.
> it's ridiculous to claim that the US has taken terrorism less seriously as a military objective than the UK took theirs
Then what was the point of saying that the Brits had rules for golf during the Blitz?
Then what was the point of saying that the Brits had rules for golf during the Blitz?
Obviously, that regardless of what our military might be doing, our societal and public policy responses to this threat have been comparatively juvenile.
I agree with you about one thing. The war on terror is a mistake (or a plan to make money). "Terror" can't be fought by the military.
Only "societal and public policy responses" can stop terrorism. What "mature" response are you suggesting?
Only "societal and public policy responses" can stop terrorism. What "mature" response are you suggesting?
Don't forget Somalia.
I'm not drawing a comparison to harassment of Muslims.
I've had similar experiences and I'm not a Muslim and CBP would have no reason to believe I was.
And I resent you trying to use claims of racism to derail a discussion about reasonable precautions.
I've had similar experiences and I'm not a Muslim and CBP would have no reason to believe I was.
And I resent you trying to use claims of racism to derail a discussion about reasonable precautions.
I think you might resent the story, which is about "claims of racism", and not so much this comment thread.
I'm used to people using incidents taken out of context to justify claims of racism.
Sometimes, they don't even check the details, as when they pushed the story of an Olympian who was detained due to Trump's travel ban without realizing it happened under Obama.
Sometimes, they don't even check the details, as when they pushed the story of an Olympian who was detained due to Trump's travel ban without realizing it happened under Obama.
Not a great analogy. The threat of terrorism isn't on par with your country surviving constant air raids, and the benefit of shooting down a raiding plane is much more clear
> we prefer to look for a boogeymen outside of the country.
Looks to me like we're looking for bogeymen inside our country. This is what countries suffering hard times with poor leaders do when the real outside enemies are hard to find or don't actually exist.
Looks to me like we're looking for bogeymen inside our country. This is what countries suffering hard times with poor leaders do when the real outside enemies are hard to find or don't actually exist.
well the way they make it look now the boogeymen can be anywhere! In your garage, in my kitchen, or in the picture gallery on that kids iPhone... Let us have a look.. this is for you own security, of course...
We forget that we hired these people to run the government, when was the last time we fired someone? I think its about time.
We forget that we hired these people to run the government, when was the last time we fired someone? I think its about time.
Because ego and thus hatred against perceived differences that assists mental seperation is so very deeply ingrained in your culture. Just look and see. It really is the root cause of all suffering, the concept of "I". It is what allows for illusions like "I have rights" or "they are attacking us" and everything that comes after it: Very, very naive and subjective perception that is regarded as absolute truth and even defended to great lengths.
Us vs them
Home team vs visitors
Republicans vs Democrats
Christians vs Muslims
Protestants vs Catholics
Hutus vs Tutsis
Walmart vs Target
It's adverserial programming 101. Is xenophobia really surprising given how many divisions our cultures cling to?
Home team vs visitors
Republicans vs Democrats
Christians vs Muslims
Protestants vs Catholics
Hutus vs Tutsis
Walmart vs Target
It's adverserial programming 101. Is xenophobia really surprising given how many divisions our cultures cling to?
>> Why do we allow the government propaganda machine to fool us?
my current working theory is that US citizens have helped their Govt hone the tactics earlier. The propaganda machine was then turned at other countries( US enemies and even allies)
And US citizens fully supported it then and even now.
my current working theory is that US citizens have helped their Govt hone the tactics earlier. The propaganda machine was then turned at other countries( US enemies and even allies)
And US citizens fully supported it then and even now.
"More recently I was made to wonder: Does the 4th Amendment apply to Muslim citizens at LAX?"
Well, no actually, it does not. Nor does it apply to non-Muslim citizens, or white citizens, or any other types of citizens.
And excuse me, but you were just "recently" made to wonder about this? Only recently?!?
We apparently decided after 9/11 that airports and any place within 100 miles of the border were going to be Constitution-free zones, where the laws around search and seizure just do not apply to anyone.
The following happened to me, for instance, in an airport in 2006:
https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/05/6767-2/
This is one of those things that kills me -- those of us whining about all this, especially under Obama, were "shrill" civil libertarians. But then Trump came to power.
Now that this crap is happening under Trump, and it's happening to ACLU lawyers and doctors and newspaper journos and so on (cue the scary music), it's suddenly a crisis, and people's hair is on fire.
It was a crisis over a decade ago, when we just abandoned the Constitution in airports and at borders. And the warning that civil libertarians gave, which was roundly ignored, was "wait until the wrong person gets hold of this power."
Well, no actually, it does not. Nor does it apply to non-Muslim citizens, or white citizens, or any other types of citizens.
And excuse me, but you were just "recently" made to wonder about this? Only recently?!?
We apparently decided after 9/11 that airports and any place within 100 miles of the border were going to be Constitution-free zones, where the laws around search and seizure just do not apply to anyone.
The following happened to me, for instance, in an airport in 2006:
https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/05/6767-2/
This is one of those things that kills me -- those of us whining about all this, especially under Obama, were "shrill" civil libertarians. But then Trump came to power.
Now that this crap is happening under Trump, and it's happening to ACLU lawyers and doctors and newspaper journos and so on (cue the scary music), it's suddenly a crisis, and people's hair is on fire.
It was a crisis over a decade ago, when we just abandoned the Constitution in airports and at borders. And the warning that civil libertarians gave, which was roundly ignored, was "wait until the wrong person gets hold of this power."
The hundred-mile border thing is a myth; it refers to a SCOTUS holding that limits searches with a nexus to a border crossing to within that distance, but does not allow CBP to search people who haven't transacted directly with the border in some way.
ACLU, which I otherwise support wholeheartedly, does us all a mild disservice by perpetuating the myth, which is very widely believed.
ACLU, which I otherwise support wholeheartedly, does us all a mild disservice by perpetuating the myth, which is very widely believed.
I live in San Diego and I can tell you that CBP most certainly does conduct searches on anyone passing through their secondary boarder checks. When I drive to LA I would say 1 in 5 times the secondary checkpoint is open in Oceanside and you have to slow down and at the very least get waived through. CBP has every right to stop and question you if they feel the need though.
Really? What about the checkpoints that are set up within this zone stopping and questioning people without reasonable suspicion or knowledge that person crossed the border at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ea_VMY0UnA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ea_VMY0UnA
The border search exemption applies only to people who have transacted directly with a border. Being 20 miles from a border gives CBP no special powers over ordinary citizens.
No, it applies to people who the CBP agent reasonably suspect transacted directly with a border. Whether they actually transacted with a border or not is immaterial.
CBP routinely stops & questions all north-bound traffic on US 54 >20 miles north-east of El Paso. Am unsure of the distance, but they did request opening my rear hatch(SUV) to facilitate the dog sniffing my parts boxes and tools.
Am pretty sure the checkpoints on I-10 in western AZ are >100 miles N of the border, the Tohono O'odham* rez lies between I-10 & the border.
* The elders have also stated no wall will be built on their lands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohono_O%27odham#Border_issues
Am pretty sure the checkpoints on I-10 in western AZ are >100 miles N of the border, the Tohono O'odham* rez lies between I-10 & the border.
* The elders have also stated no wall will be built on their lands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohono_O%27odham#Border_issues
You might have hit one of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_in...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_in...
Are there any cases of people suing the CBP for unlawful restraint? I remember seeing a video a while back where the guy wouldn't get out of the car, and they just broke the windows and took him out anyway.
You are wrong about them being limited to right at the border. There are many border patrol stops way north of the border, south of Tucson, all areas around Tucson. These are at the least dozens of miles from the border.
[deleted]
Even prior to 9/11[1], you didn't have any rights at the border. As stated in other comments, most of the bill of rights doesn't apply at national borders, even for US citizens.
But I totally agree with you. We had eight years of domestic spying, increased TSA nonsense (I no longer fly within the US. I wish more Americas would refuse to fly), predator drones, secret kill lists and the first president in history to spend every day of this tenure at war. I wish everyone who is out protesting now was protesting just as loud during the Obama years instead of falling into the false left/right divide: http://fightthefuture.org/articles/the-fallout-of-american-a...
[1] What's the difference between 9/11 and a cow. You can't milk a cow for 16 years.
But I totally agree with you. We had eight years of domestic spying, increased TSA nonsense (I no longer fly within the US. I wish more Americas would refuse to fly), predator drones, secret kill lists and the first president in history to spend every day of this tenure at war. I wish everyone who is out protesting now was protesting just as loud during the Obama years instead of falling into the false left/right divide: http://fightthefuture.org/articles/the-fallout-of-american-a...
[1] What's the difference between 9/11 and a cow. You can't milk a cow for 16 years.
There have been dozens if not hundreds of articles questioning the legality of searches at airports since 9/11.
They're not a new phenomenon that suddenly started under the Trump administration.
They're not a new phenomenon that suddenly started under the Trump administration.
Correct. They have gotten worse though. And even if you believe nothing changed, it's terrible and we need to stop it.
Most Americans are not the sort with the knee-jerk "Think of the children!" reaction. The problem is that most sane Americans do not vote. Our political landscape is such a mess that Americans don't want to think about politics, and so their opinion is drowned out by fear-driven activism.
If I understand terrorism, I will not react to it irrationally. The rational reaction is, in fact, no reaction at all. The problem is that those who do react to terrorism react in fear. They push this agenda of security over liberty.
In order to overcome this idiotic agenda, those of us who are sane enough not to react, must actually take action. We must actually vote. We must actually talk politics, instead of going on with the things we find more immediately important, we must actually take political action. It has just been too damn hard to get that to happen, so here we are.
If I understand terrorism, I will not react to it irrationally. The rational reaction is, in fact, no reaction at all. The problem is that those who do react to terrorism react in fear. They push this agenda of security over liberty.
In order to overcome this idiotic agenda, those of us who are sane enough not to react, must actually take action. We must actually vote. We must actually talk politics, instead of going on with the things we find more immediately important, we must actually take political action. It has just been too damn hard to get that to happen, so here we are.
The history of aggressive border searches goes back a little further than 9/11.
Like to ~1800.
Like to ~1800.
Wait until that guy finds out they used to get to turn you around and ship you back if they didn't like the way you looked
> The following happened to me, for instance, in an airport in 2006:
A guy carrying a weapon into an airport. An old woman with a back brace who has done nothing wrong. Yeah, it's almost exactly the same thing!
A guy carrying a weapon into an airport. An old woman with a back brace who has done nothing wrong. Yeah, it's almost exactly the same thing!
Why be obtuse? My point was obviously about suspension of 4A and Miranda rights.
If I'm not mistaken, the Supreme Court made a ruling that searching a person's belongings without probable cause is ok if that person is traveling. It was in 1973, way before 9/11.
There seems to be a lot of outrage about searching electronic devices lately, especially among the tech crowd, but legally there's no reason why a phone or laptop should be immune to search while suitcases and briefcases aren't.
I think it's finally becoming more common because the government is slow to adapt and they're only just now developing the tools to conduct these searches.
I think it's finally becoming more common because the government is slow to adapt and they're only just now developing the tools to conduct these searches.
> there's no reason why a phone or laptop should be immune to search while suitcases and briefcases aren't.
I can fit several lethal weapons inside a [suit,brief]case. The data on my phone is not a lethal weapon.
The entire purpose of searching luggage is to prevent someone from bringing a lethal weapon into a group of people who are physically incapable of leaving.
My cell phone's data contains literally zero threats to those around me.
I can fit several lethal weapons inside a [suit,brief]case. The data on my phone is not a lethal weapon.
The entire purpose of searching luggage is to prevent someone from bringing a lethal weapon into a group of people who are physically incapable of leaving.
My cell phone's data contains literally zero threats to those around me.
[deleted]
but legally there's no reason why a phone or laptop should be immune to search
If the pretext is border security, there is a small difference, the documents stored on an electronic device won't explode or start firing bullets or be used in a stabbing (the contents of a case might).
We should absolutely fix the lack of foundational privacy laws in the US though.
If the pretext is border security, there is a small difference, the documents stored on an electronic device won't explode or start firing bullets or be used in a stabbing (the contents of a case might).
We should absolutely fix the lack of foundational privacy laws in the US though.
But the contents of a phone might be a recipe for homemade explosives or drugs, or a blueprint for a 3D printed gun, or the schedule for an attack.
If you believe this, why not dragnet everybody's devices all the time? Surely you'd generate more recipes for explosives and drugs, and be able to prevent all sorts of crimes.
For the same reason we don't frisk everyone all the time.
Privacy does matter, but long ago society decided to suspend those rights at the border.
If you want to revisit that, fine, but don't claim current policy is a change. Searching people at the border has been standard practice for a long time.
Privacy does matter, but long ago society decided to suspend those rights at the border.
If you want to revisit that, fine, but don't claim current policy is a change. Searching people at the border has been standard practice for a long time.
Can you be more specific about what "reason" you're referring to? It's not at all clear to me what it is from the logic you're employing upthread.
The second sentence mentioned the reason. Privacy does matter. It's in the Bill of Rights. And it should matter.
But like every right, it has exceptions. One exception we mostly agreed on, until recently, was being searched when crossing the border.
But like every right, it has exceptions. One exception we mostly agreed on, until recently, was being searched when crossing the border.
You think it is a good use of resources to scan devices crossing the border for such easy to obtain information?
Really?
Of course the attack schedule is not easily obtained, but just asking such a dumb terrorist if they are a terrorist should be similarly effective.
Really?
Of course the attack schedule is not easily obtained, but just asking such a dumb terrorist if they are a terrorist should be similarly effective.
> for such easy to obtain information?
Is it easy to obtain in the US without being tracked?
Is it easy to obtain in the US without being tracked?
Yes. Leave all electronics at home. Go to another location, avoid cameras, etc. Use a fresh device left there by someone else. Get the information, destroy device. Never go to the same place again.
That doesn't sound easy to me, but then, perhaps I simply don't have the right experience.
> ...legally there's no reason why a phone or laptop should be immune to search while suitcases and briefcases aren't.
Of course there is. My suitcase has my clothes, toiletries, and maybe a book to read when I get to my destination.
My electronic device has a list of everyone I correspond with, what we type to each other, all the websites I visit both at home and on the go (Firefox Sync), everywhere I've traveled with that device since I got it, every destination I've searched for since I got it, my home WiFi SSID and password, the SSID/password of any place I've been allowed to connect including work, access to every file in every cloud storage service I use, username/password to all the VPS and dedicated servers I manage for myself and for all my clients, remote access to my home network and my work network, and so on.
The scope of my suitcase is limited to what I'm wearing and what I'm reading on my trip. The scope of my mobile device is a huge chunk of my entire life. Do you get the difference now?
Of course there is. My suitcase has my clothes, toiletries, and maybe a book to read when I get to my destination.
My electronic device has a list of everyone I correspond with, what we type to each other, all the websites I visit both at home and on the go (Firefox Sync), everywhere I've traveled with that device since I got it, every destination I've searched for since I got it, my home WiFi SSID and password, the SSID/password of any place I've been allowed to connect including work, access to every file in every cloud storage service I use, username/password to all the VPS and dedicated servers I manage for myself and for all my clients, remote access to my home network and my work network, and so on.
The scope of my suitcase is limited to what I'm wearing and what I'm reading on my trip. The scope of my mobile device is a huge chunk of my entire life. Do you get the difference now?
In 1973, your suitcase might have contained a list of all your contacts, love letters from your mistress, maps, business papers, a diary.
Were any of those ever forbidden from searches?
Were any of those ever forbidden from searches?
Are you seriously arguing that we should not expect any privacy at all just because where people store their information has evolved over the past half century?
In 1973 and in 2017 your suitcase could contain a gun. searching and backing up the contents of your cellphone has nothing to do with preventing a weapon coming on board. There is a legitimate reason to search luggage, there is absolutely no reason to know the intimate contents of someone's device at the border. At most, x-ray the device to ensure it's not a bomb, otherwise stay the fuck out of my personal business.
In 1973 and in 2017 your suitcase could contain a gun. searching and backing up the contents of your cellphone has nothing to do with preventing a weapon coming on board. There is a legitimate reason to search luggage, there is absolutely no reason to know the intimate contents of someone's device at the border. At most, x-ray the device to ensure it's not a bomb, otherwise stay the fuck out of my personal business.
I'm arguing that we shouldn't expect more privacy simply because we've started storing our secrets electronically instead of on paper.
Even in 1973 people had private info they didn't want the government to see, yet the Court decided other concerns overrode the Fourth Amendment.
Even in 1973 people had private info they didn't want the government to see, yet the Court decided other concerns overrode the Fourth Amendment.
But by your own words, access to private info was granted back then only because of where we had to store it while traveling. We now store our information on encrypted supercomputers that fit in our pockets instead of in our luggage, open for all to see.
If you truly feel we don't deserve and shouldn't expect privacy, I hereby demand that you immediately post your entire medical history, SSN, full contact list, passwords for all of your social media accounts, full text of every email and sms conversation you've ever had, your full browser history (porn and all), and links to every file in your cloud storage services, all to this public thread for everyone to see. Go ahead, I'm waiting. You have nothing to hide, right?
You see, it's not about expecting more privacy, it's about expecting them to fully respect the privacy we already enjoy when sitting at home.
If you truly feel we don't deserve and shouldn't expect privacy, I hereby demand that you immediately post your entire medical history, SSN, full contact list, passwords for all of your social media accounts, full text of every email and sms conversation you've ever had, your full browser history (porn and all), and links to every file in your cloud storage services, all to this public thread for everyone to see. Go ahead, I'm waiting. You have nothing to hide, right?
You see, it's not about expecting more privacy, it's about expecting them to fully respect the privacy we already enjoy when sitting at home.
> it's about expecting them to fully respect the privacy we already enjoy when sitting at home.
That's the point. We don't, and that's not new. The courts decided long ago that we don't enjoy the same privacy when crossing borders that we enjoy when sitting at home.
Whether the information is written on paper or stored on encrypted supercomputers is, legally, irrelevant.
That's the point. We don't, and that's not new. The courts decided long ago that we don't enjoy the same privacy when crossing borders that we enjoy when sitting at home.
Whether the information is written on paper or stored on encrypted supercomputers is, legally, irrelevant.
So you're saying the law should never, ever change despite that technology changes and improves? That what was good enough for the 1970s is good enough for today? Because that's a pound of bullshit that I find hard to swallow.
I still can't understand why you desire zero privacy at the border. Why would any citizen applaud the government for invading their privacy just to entertain security theater? The contents of my phone have zero bearing on whether I'm bringing a gun on a plane. You don't foil a terror plot at the TSA checkpoint by browsing someone's phone contents.
I still can't understand why you desire zero privacy at the border. Why would any citizen applaud the government for invading their privacy just to entertain security theater? The contents of my phone have zero bearing on whether I'm bringing a gun on a plane. You don't foil a terror plot at the TSA checkpoint by browsing someone's phone contents.
No, I'm not saying the law shouldn't change.
Advocate changing the law if you want but acknowledge that you're asking for a change in the law. Then consider the reasons the law exists in the first place and why they're no longer applicable, if you think that's the case.
And please don't misstate my position. I don't desire having zero privacy. I just recognize why searches are necessary.
Advocate changing the law if you want but acknowledge that you're asking for a change in the law. Then consider the reasons the law exists in the first place and why they're no longer applicable, if you think that's the case.
And please don't misstate my position. I don't desire having zero privacy. I just recognize why searches are necessary.
> My electronic device has a list of everyone I correspond with, what we type to each other, all the websites I visit
Maybe that's a problem we should solve.
Maybe that's a problem we should solve.
Maybe, but until it is solved, we can and should encrypt all our devices against any intruder, whether it's our own government or criminals.
Every time US border security is being discusses here, I read comments about how things are bad at the Canadian or UK border too.
But does this really make an overreaction legitimate - That other countries are doing it too? Please think again before writing some knee-jerk reaction like "other countries are the same or worse"...
I was once treated unfriendly by Austrian border agents while re-entering the country. Yes, I experienced worse things when entering other countries. I still think that this particular incident was unacceptable, even though things are worse in other countries...
But does this really make an overreaction legitimate - That other countries are doing it too? Please think again before writing some knee-jerk reaction like "other countries are the same or worse"...
I was once treated unfriendly by Austrian border agents while re-entering the country. Yes, I experienced worse things when entering other countries. I still think that this particular incident was unacceptable, even though things are worse in other countries...
> I read comments about how things are bad at the Canadian or UK border too.
I've flown through Germany, Moldova, the UK, Ireland, Singapore, Australia, etc. etc.
America is the worst. Most other countries will not preform pat downs. The German head of transport security even mentioned the body scanners have over a 50% false positive rate (they're literally about the same as random chance; multi million dollar worthless pieces of security theatre shit that should be removed).
The only pat down I recall was Moldova, and even there it was just your legs. I won't fly in the US any more. If I need to leave the country, I'd rather just take a bus to Canada. At least if they violate my rights there, I'm not a citizen and it doesn't bother me.
I've flown through Germany, Moldova, the UK, Ireland, Singapore, Australia, etc. etc.
America is the worst. Most other countries will not preform pat downs. The German head of transport security even mentioned the body scanners have over a 50% false positive rate (they're literally about the same as random chance; multi million dollar worthless pieces of security theatre shit that should be removed).
The only pat down I recall was Moldova, and even there it was just your legs. I won't fly in the US any more. If I need to leave the country, I'd rather just take a bus to Canada. At least if they violate my rights there, I'm not a citizen and it doesn't bother me.
> the body scanners have over a 50% false positive rate (they're literally about the same as random chance)
That's nowhere near random chance, unless they're flagging half the people who walk through.
If they're flagging 1 in 1000, random chance would be a 99.9% false positive rate.
That's nowhere near random chance, unless they're flagging half the people who walk through.
If they're flagging 1 in 1000, random chance would be a 99.9% false positive rate.
Whataboutism is basically the currency of debate on the internet these days. For whatever reason it's the arguing style de jure.
It's not necessarily whataboutism. It could also be a reflection of the fact that there are other circumstances necessitating the border treatment that are felt beyond the USA. Other countries are going through the same changes and they didn't elect Trump.
edit: typo
edit: typo
"But does this really make an overreaction legitimate - That other countries are doing it too?"
No, but it can help calibrate whether people really are overreacting. I find it is quite common for people to decry their home country for doing something that they seem to think is egregiously bad when it is in fact something done by lots of countries and something that has been done for lots of history. This may lead you to condemn those other countries and the "lots of history", too, but it does tend to at least tamp down on the idea that we're doing something uniquely new and horrible which could lead to uniquely new and horrible outcomes.
I think there's some truth to the idea that what HN is complaining about is not effectively securing our borders, and that this is at best a waste of time and at worst a process that will generate a lot of false positives. But there is also some truth to the idea that some people seem to have picked up the impression that the standard around the world and throughout history is that border agents just wave people through every border without questions and with a smile, and that therefore any scrutiny beyond that is some sort of unprecedented betrayal of the very foundation of civilization.
Or, if you prefer, the US may be overreacting at the border, but it's probably overreacting a lot less than people think relative to what is common in the world and throughout history.
Then there's a relatively new issue (on a civilization scale, anyhow) of what to do about cell phones and computers at the border. Again, I think, once you get rid of the idea that borders examining what kinds of things you're bringing in with you being some sort of brand new imposition unprecedented in the history of the world or Western civilization, you can get a clearer picture of why this is such a confusing problem. If it isn't that abnormal to look at people's papers they're bringing in, how do you deal with the fact that people can nowadays literally slip the entire contents of a library down their sock? And, on the flip side... why exactly do you care when they could also just have SCP'ed that entire library over too? When this topic comes up, we often discuss how easy it would be to get around this by simply carrying in wiped devices and recopying everything we need over the Internet afterwards, which is a challenge to the entire reason the border agents think they have an interest in this matter.
My point here is not to defend or attack our current practices. My point is that if you consider these issues from a historically-informed perspective about how borders have historically operated in the real world, as opposed to how you think they ought to operate combined with the ever-present human cognitive temptation to conflate the is vs. the ought, that the current confusion around how our borders function in a highly-connected world at least starts to make more sense. And if you want to have an effect on how we go forward with our border policies, it is always a good idea to have a better understanding of how we got here rather than a worse one. I would imagine some people are trying to play the "but other places have it worse so who cares" game, but I think some people are also trying to do a bit of education as to how borders really work.
No, but it can help calibrate whether people really are overreacting. I find it is quite common for people to decry their home country for doing something that they seem to think is egregiously bad when it is in fact something done by lots of countries and something that has been done for lots of history. This may lead you to condemn those other countries and the "lots of history", too, but it does tend to at least tamp down on the idea that we're doing something uniquely new and horrible which could lead to uniquely new and horrible outcomes.
I think there's some truth to the idea that what HN is complaining about is not effectively securing our borders, and that this is at best a waste of time and at worst a process that will generate a lot of false positives. But there is also some truth to the idea that some people seem to have picked up the impression that the standard around the world and throughout history is that border agents just wave people through every border without questions and with a smile, and that therefore any scrutiny beyond that is some sort of unprecedented betrayal of the very foundation of civilization.
Or, if you prefer, the US may be overreacting at the border, but it's probably overreacting a lot less than people think relative to what is common in the world and throughout history.
Then there's a relatively new issue (on a civilization scale, anyhow) of what to do about cell phones and computers at the border. Again, I think, once you get rid of the idea that borders examining what kinds of things you're bringing in with you being some sort of brand new imposition unprecedented in the history of the world or Western civilization, you can get a clearer picture of why this is such a confusing problem. If it isn't that abnormal to look at people's papers they're bringing in, how do you deal with the fact that people can nowadays literally slip the entire contents of a library down their sock? And, on the flip side... why exactly do you care when they could also just have SCP'ed that entire library over too? When this topic comes up, we often discuss how easy it would be to get around this by simply carrying in wiped devices and recopying everything we need over the Internet afterwards, which is a challenge to the entire reason the border agents think they have an interest in this matter.
My point here is not to defend or attack our current practices. My point is that if you consider these issues from a historically-informed perspective about how borders have historically operated in the real world, as opposed to how you think they ought to operate combined with the ever-present human cognitive temptation to conflate the is vs. the ought, that the current confusion around how our borders function in a highly-connected world at least starts to make more sense. And if you want to have an effect on how we go forward with our border policies, it is always a good idea to have a better understanding of how we got here rather than a worse one. I would imagine some people are trying to play the "but other places have it worse so who cares" game, but I think some people are also trying to do a bit of education as to how borders really work.
I really want to travel to Florida from London with my wife and baby for holidays. Stories like this though are big deterrent. I'm an atheist with a muslim name, and Chinese wife(a devout Christian). We've never travelled to US before and honestly don't know what to expect.
Expect to be treat rudely and aggressively by the first person you meet. The next person (and most other people after that) will, in all likelihood, be the complete opposite.
Based on my experience as a white Englishman with an American kinda name. It's not all about race and/or religion - it's just the way it's always been.
Based on my experience as a white Englishman with an American kinda name. It's not all about race and/or religion - it's just the way it's always been.
As a tourist from a close US ally, your risk is limited to an invasion of your privacy and being inconvenienced.
That said, there are much nicer places to visit than Florida. I live 5 hours away and have never gone voluntarily...
That said, there are much nicer places to visit than Florida. I live 5 hours away and have never gone voluntarily...
much of florida does suck, but it also has some of the best places in the country.
almsot anywhere on the ocean side coast is gorgeous. i used to visit a place on hutchinson island, one of my favorite places to visit in the country (though a bit of a drive from any of the airports)
http://www.waterpointerealty.com/wp-content/gallery/featured...
almsot anywhere on the ocean side coast is gorgeous. i used to visit a place on hutchinson island, one of my favorite places to visit in the country (though a bit of a drive from any of the airports)
http://www.waterpointerealty.com/wp-content/gallery/featured...
Look, this is silly.
Thinking that one news story reported by the media is representative of the whole United States is like westerners thinking that if they travel to the Middle East there will be a roving bands of Muslims beheading people in the streets.
The media exaggerates EVERYTHING.
The absolute worst thing that will possibly happen to you is to get pulled aside for some extra questions and apparently somebody flipping through your phone. That sucks, but as an American who travels all the time, I have never seen or known anyone to have to go through anything like that.
The closest I can get to is one of my Indian friends being pulled aside for a pat down in Canada.
Thinking that one news story reported by the media is representative of the whole United States is like westerners thinking that if they travel to the Middle East there will be a roving bands of Muslims beheading people in the streets.
The media exaggerates EVERYTHING.
The absolute worst thing that will possibly happen to you is to get pulled aside for some extra questions and apparently somebody flipping through your phone. That sucks, but as an American who travels all the time, I have never seen or known anyone to have to go through anything like that.
The closest I can get to is one of my Indian friends being pulled aside for a pat down in Canada.
This isn't silly, it's a legitimate fear because there are no real rules to what could happen to you.
If you have an arabic sounding or looking name, it's really not a stretch to imagine that you have a name that is similar enough to someone on a watchlist and are interrogated for it, or held, or prevented from boarding a flight. If you are travelling with your family, this is not a minor inconvenience, but a real source of stress and anxiety. You just don't know the repercussions it will have on you AND your family.
The "get pulled aside for some extra questions" happens to a Maroccan colleague of mine every time he visits the US for work, and means sitting around in a crowded room for a couple of hours at best. He expects it, and just tells his colleagues to just meet him at the hotel after getting out of the plane, but this isn't something that I consider acceptable.
What has been slowly creeping in without enough people noticing is that instead of being welcoming, travellers are now foremost suspects instead of guests (not only the US). If you're funny looking, you suddenly have no rights, and there is no due process. That is scary, especially when you're far away from home.
Even for people like me, who aren't funny looking or are in any form or shape a threat, there is a chilling effect. I like to travel, and for example have been to Iran a couple of years ago as part of a longer trip. Today, I could not make that same trip as lightheartedly, and would probably "self-censor" myself out of it in fear of future repercussions when travelling to the US or other western countries with an iranian stamp in my passport. Even if it is simply FUD, and most probably would not cause real problems for me, I do not wish it to happen to anybody just because they were born in the wrong place or have the wrong name.
If you have an arabic sounding or looking name, it's really not a stretch to imagine that you have a name that is similar enough to someone on a watchlist and are interrogated for it, or held, or prevented from boarding a flight. If you are travelling with your family, this is not a minor inconvenience, but a real source of stress and anxiety. You just don't know the repercussions it will have on you AND your family.
The "get pulled aside for some extra questions" happens to a Maroccan colleague of mine every time he visits the US for work, and means sitting around in a crowded room for a couple of hours at best. He expects it, and just tells his colleagues to just meet him at the hotel after getting out of the plane, but this isn't something that I consider acceptable.
What has been slowly creeping in without enough people noticing is that instead of being welcoming, travellers are now foremost suspects instead of guests (not only the US). If you're funny looking, you suddenly have no rights, and there is no due process. That is scary, especially when you're far away from home.
Even for people like me, who aren't funny looking or are in any form or shape a threat, there is a chilling effect. I like to travel, and for example have been to Iran a couple of years ago as part of a longer trip. Today, I could not make that same trip as lightheartedly, and would probably "self-censor" myself out of it in fear of future repercussions when travelling to the US or other western countries with an iranian stamp in my passport. Even if it is simply FUD, and most probably would not cause real problems for me, I do not wish it to happen to anybody just because they were born in the wrong place or have the wrong name.
This is really an overreaction I believe. I know many many Muslims who regularly go from UK to the US without any hassles at all. Of course as a non-Muslim I'm always terrified by these stories but the odds are very very low - you'd probably have a greater likelihood of being hassled coming into the UK from a non_EU country honestly.
Sure it is not representative, but that does not mean we should not be concerned. The constitution of the United States is extremely important.
Of course it's all anecdotal but I never ever had any issue coming back to UK. We travel frequently to Europe and Asia.
Also I just can't get over the fact that you have to handover your unlocked phone.
Also I just can't get over the fact that you have to handover your unlocked phone.
[deleted]
I'm most frightened by how frequently these types of things are happening, and how normal they're starting to seem.
This most definitely doesn't seem normal. Problem is so many are looking the other way thinking "well I don't look like a terrorist, so no one will search my phone"
"First they came for..." [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
I'm ashamed to say I'm guilty of this.
Unfortunately it takes the masses being encroached upon before we take it seriously.
Unfortunately it takes the masses being encroached upon before we take it seriously.
it's because everyone fully ignored the people who have been screaming about this country falling into fascism for the last sixteen years. none of this has ever been normal, but the public is finally becoming uncomfortable with how far we've fallen.
All my electronic devices were searched by Canadian Border Services when I crossed the border into Canada four years ago.
Same.
This has nothing to do with who is leading our country. The only thing new here is that it's easy to point the finger at one person for everything you don't like; it's been in place for awhile now.
This has nothing to do with who is leading our country. The only thing new here is that it's easy to point the finger at one person for everything you don't like; it's been in place for awhile now.
Is that so? Here's the article's take!
> The so-called border search exemption means that the 4th Amendment’s requirement of probable cause does not apply to customs officials, and the practice of “detaining” cellphones began under the George W. Bush administration. But cellphone searches by the Department of Homeland Security have exploded in 2017 — DHS officials searched more phones in February of this year than in all of 2015. (Four members of Congress introduced a bill this week that would require agents to obtain a warrant before searching a U.S. citizen’s electronic device.)
> The so-called border search exemption means that the 4th Amendment’s requirement of probable cause does not apply to customs officials, and the practice of “detaining” cellphones began under the George W. Bush administration. But cellphone searches by the Department of Homeland Security have exploded in 2017 — DHS officials searched more phones in February of this year than in all of 2015. (Four members of Congress introduced a bill this week that would require agents to obtain a warrant before searching a U.S. citizen’s electronic device.)
It is odd that they compared to 2015 instead of 2016.
There could be a good reason, but it feels manipulative.
There could be a good reason, but it feels manipulative.
It also needs to be normalized with how many people are crossing the border. Did international travel "explode" as well? I have no idea. Absolute numbers don't really mean anything here. The rate is what matters.
If you're going to throw out all these unlikely theories why don't you look up the data and see if there is any reason to believe them? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts there were not more foreign visitors to the United States in February than there were throughout the entirety of 2015.
Rates and statistics matter. News organizations tend to pick out whatever statistic meets their narrative (just look up all the analysis of the pay gap but that's a whole nother can of worms). Are more phones entering the country? Are more phones entering from countries that should have additional screening? Just saying it's absolutely gone up doesn't reflect the true situation.
Uh huh. Maybe that's it. Everyone started carrying ten phones.
Perhaps the data was more readily available. Perhaps it made a stronger case for the comparison. Is there some drastic change between 2015 and 2016 I don't know about?
I don't know. It is possible, but it is strange that we would have this monthly number, but not have it available for the last year, but then have the previous year.
I don't think there's anything odd about this at all. It will just be the case that someone looked at the figures, said "Oh, it's interesting that there were more searches in February 2017 than in 2015 overall" and ran with that figure. It's a more interesting comparison than "There was an increase of 142% year-on-year" or whatever the actual figures are.
Full Quote:
"But cellphone searches by the Department of Homeland Security have exploded in 2017 — DHS officials searched more phones in February of this year than in all of 2015. (Four members of Congress introduced a bill this week that would require agents to obtain a warrant before searching a U.S. citizen’s electronic device.)
President Trump’s new security regime wastes yet more of our time and our taxpayer money and shows outright scorn for the spirit of the 4th Amendment."
The article is making it look like this is due to Trump, but if there was an ongoing increase for 2 years under Obama that would be manipulative.
President Trump’s new security regime wastes yet more of our time and our taxpayer money and shows outright scorn for the spirit of the 4th Amendment."
The article is making it look like this is due to Trump, but if there was an ongoing increase for 2 years under Obama that would be manipulative.
It means that while Feb 2017 had a lot of searches, it didn't have as many as 2016 as a whole. It did have more than 2015 as a whole.
Oh, well, if some other country does it it can't be bad.
To do its job the border patrol must invade the privacy of people entering the country. Terrorists, drug couriers, and fugitives lie and hide things.
It's incredibly frustrating. I hate the experience every time I go through it. But I understand why it's necessary.
It's incredibly frustrating. I hate the experience every time I go through it. But I understand why it's necessary.
Is it really necessary though? Is the reason bombs aren't blowing up all over the US because of the swell job border security is doing, or might there be another reason? Perhaps the same reason bombs haven't been blowing up for centuries.
Certainly there are people who want to blow up bombs all over the US.
What's stopping them, if not our security services?
What's stopping them, if not our security services?
> Certainly there are people who want to blow up bombs all over the US.
Is there? How do you know this?
Is there? How do you know this?
Would you say the number of such attacks has drastically fallen since 2000?
The number of people trying to attack us has drastically risen.
I think that is quite unlikely. Based on what evidence do you believe that?
Just based on my own experience having lived through the nineties. We didn't have any where near the number of attacks against the US and Europe then.
Excluding attacks on US military forces engaged in post-invasion occupations, I'm pretty sure there were more terrorist attacks (total and foreign-origin) targeting the US in the Nineties than the 2000s, or, on a year-for-year basis, the portion of the 2010s that we've seen so far.
The embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, the WTC bomb attack, and the Oklahoma City bombing were all notable terror attacks on the US in the 1990s.
The embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, the WTC bomb attack, and the Oklahoma City bombing were all notable terror attacks on the US in the 1990s.
Only two of those in that decade were attacks on US soil, compared to the Boston Marathon; Fort Hood; Garland, Texas; Chattanooga, Tenn; the Orlando nightclub; the "underwear bomber"; the failed Times Square car bombing; and many more attacks overseas.
It's not clear how interrogations by border police could possibly have helped with any of the ones you mentioned.
I lived through the 90s too. I think if you want to make this claim you need some actual evidence.
Do you find this claim hard to believe?
What terrorist organization wanted to attack us in the eighties?
What organization wanted to attack us in the nineties, other than the failed WTC bombing?
If that had succeeded, history might be very different. Success breeds success and the second WTC attacks on 9/11 inspired other terrorists.
What terrorist organization wanted to attack us in the eighties?
What organization wanted to attack us in the nineties, other than the failed WTC bombing?
If that had succeeded, history might be very different. Success breeds success and the second WTC attacks on 9/11 inspired other terrorists.
> What terrorist organization wanted to attack us in the eighties?
Hezbollah (usually as "Islamic Jihad"), the Italian Red Brigades, the Red Army Faction, the Abu Nidal Organization, and the Japanese Red Army are among the foreign groups that not merely wanted to, but actually succeeded in carrying out attacks targeting Americans in the 1980s
The Armed Resistance Unit, The Order, and the Jewish Defense League are among the domestic groups doing the same.
> What organization wanted to attack us in the nineties, other than the failed WTC bombing?
This little group called al-Qaeda that you may have heard of carried out several attacks targeting the US in the 1990s, including the WTC bombing which killed 6 and injured 1,042.
Saudi Hezbollah also conducted a major attack targeting Americans, and there were several by Islamists for which no organization took credit or has been ascribed blame. This, of course, doesn't cover everyone who wanted to attack Americans, just those who actually carried out attacks that actually did.
There were also notable domestic terrorist attacks in the 1990s.
Hezbollah (usually as "Islamic Jihad"), the Italian Red Brigades, the Red Army Faction, the Abu Nidal Organization, and the Japanese Red Army are among the foreign groups that not merely wanted to, but actually succeeded in carrying out attacks targeting Americans in the 1980s
The Armed Resistance Unit, The Order, and the Jewish Defense League are among the domestic groups doing the same.
> What organization wanted to attack us in the nineties, other than the failed WTC bombing?
This little group called al-Qaeda that you may have heard of carried out several attacks targeting the US in the 1990s, including the WTC bombing which killed 6 and injured 1,042.
Saudi Hezbollah also conducted a major attack targeting Americans, and there were several by Islamists for which no organization took credit or has been ascribed blame. This, of course, doesn't cover everyone who wanted to attack Americans, just those who actually carried out attacks that actually did.
There were also notable domestic terrorist attacks in the 1990s.
Yes, I find it hard to believe. You might have gotten that from when I described it as "quite unlikely."
The number of such people that make it through the visa approval process has not drastically risen.
I'd rather not treat this as a forgone conclusion and would like to see some data on how often these invasive measures actually yield results.
>Terrorists, drug couriers, and fugitives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias
Who is claiming any measure will reduce risk to zero?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp....
Mocking reality is not an argument, even if it can create a popular TV show.
Who is claiming any measure will reduce risk to zero?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp....
Mocking reality is not an argument, even if it can create a popular TV show.
>Who is claiming any measure will reduce risk to zero?
No one. But some claim that the current risk must decrease, while it is much smaller than almost everything else.
No one. But some claim that the current risk must decrease, while it is much smaller than almost everything else.
The current risk is measured while the border patrol and other agencies do their job.
How many terrorist attacks would there be if no one was trying to stop them?
How many terrorist attacks would there be if no one was trying to stop them?
Perhaps there would be (almost) the same number of attacks. If you disagree you have to provide evidence in order to break into privacy of others.
BTW, NSA never prevented any terrorist attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance#Purposes
Upd: Also, if the risk is already small, why we need even more privacy invasions?
BTW, NSA never prevented any terrorist attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance#Purposes
Upd: Also, if the risk is already small, why we need even more privacy invasions?
Unfortunately the tools available to terrorists continue to change and so must the measures used to fight them.
> NSA never prevented any terrorist attack:
> The director of the National Security Administration today told Congress that more than 50 potential terrorist attacks have been thwarted by two controversial programs tracking more than a billion phone calls and vast swaths of Internet data each day.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nsa-director-50-potential-ter...
> NSA never prevented any terrorist attack:
> The director of the National Security Administration today told Congress that more than 50 potential terrorist attacks have been thwarted by two controversial programs tracking more than a billion phone calls and vast swaths of Internet data each day.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nsa-director-50-potential-ter...
Thank you for the link. But I wish I could believe that after so many unpunished lies from them...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/25/nsa-re...
> Unfortunately the tools available to terrorists continue to change and so must the measures used to fight them.
From what I know, the current problem is not the lack of information, but how well it is targeted. For example, we knew about the terrorists in France in 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_2017_%C3%8Ele-de-France_...
Also, many think that the war on terror made more harm to the humanity then what we would have otherwise. At least such invasive war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_War_on_Terror
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/25/nsa-re...
> Unfortunately the tools available to terrorists continue to change and so must the measures used to fight them.
From what I know, the current problem is not the lack of information, but how well it is targeted. For example, we knew about the terrorists in France in 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_2017_%C3%8Ele-de-France_...
Also, many think that the war on terror made more harm to the humanity then what we would have otherwise. At least such invasive war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_War_on_Terror
Not exactly a disinterested party, is he?
How thoroughly? What did they do?
me too
Man that is brutal. Hurt back? TOO BAD!!!
Recently worked with explosives haha, she buys fertilizer on the wrong day.
I'm pretty ignorant, I hope our country works itself out, would be a pity to go down after winning WW2 sure 70+ years later
Oh well... Like the Romans I guess
Edit: I really am ignorant to the world, busy being poor, chasing the dream of "entrepreneurship" 30% of nothing is nothing. Too scared to use the bike rack on the public bus so instead I'll walk for 1.5 hrs (6 miles) home. Scared of bums asking me for money.
Oh well, 1 in 330+million, some people will save us hopefully. It's just hard to see the bad stuff to me because I'm in my own little peasant world. Am I losing my rights/internet privacy problems? I don't know... I don't feel free that's for sure just because of finances but that's not permanent/my own fault.
Ahhh well live or die my life was alright, I was privileged. A bag of meat on a rock.
Recently worked with explosives haha, she buys fertilizer on the wrong day.
I'm pretty ignorant, I hope our country works itself out, would be a pity to go down after winning WW2 sure 70+ years later
Oh well... Like the Romans I guess
Edit: I really am ignorant to the world, busy being poor, chasing the dream of "entrepreneurship" 30% of nothing is nothing. Too scared to use the bike rack on the public bus so instead I'll walk for 1.5 hrs (6 miles) home. Scared of bums asking me for money.
Oh well, 1 in 330+million, some people will save us hopefully. It's just hard to see the bad stuff to me because I'm in my own little peasant world. Am I losing my rights/internet privacy problems? I don't know... I don't feel free that's for sure just because of finances but that's not permanent/my own fault.
Ahhh well live or die my life was alright, I was privileged. A bag of meat on a rock.
> would be a pity to go down after winning WW2 sure 70+ years later
The USA "won" WW2?
The USA "won" WW2?
To charlseism, sorry you are wise.
I wasn't really making the point of the war itself (who did what) more on the number of people that died and what "we" overcame and then in the future we have this BS that we deal with. Still what about back then, their "ideals" with women cooking at home and that was their life. I don't know like I said I'm ignorant.
(easy way out of an argument just keep saying I'm dumb) also not take responsibility for what I say. Ahh well... I'm like a baby that was discarded and should not have survived but somehow I made it, defective unit. What is success anyway, money? Peace of mind.
I wasn't really making the point of the war itself (who did what) more on the number of people that died and what "we" overcame and then in the future we have this BS that we deal with. Still what about back then, their "ideals" with women cooking at home and that was their life. I don't know like I said I'm ignorant.
(easy way out of an argument just keep saying I'm dumb) also not take responsibility for what I say. Ahh well... I'm like a baby that was discarded and should not have survived but somehow I made it, defective unit. What is success anyway, money? Peace of mind.
ge96 didn't say "single-handedly." Let's let it go.
[deleted]
Last week, Apple insisted on me giving my account password + filevault password to replace the battery (!) of my macbook at the Apple store. So I guess it's just an American thing to do...
I had a similar experience two weeks ago. They asked for my iPhone's passcode when I went in to have my screen replaced. This was apparently going to be stored in a database — I saw the form field on his iPad.
When I refused to give it to them, on the basis of privacy, the employee said that Apple could not provide the service. He backed down a little when I asked to speak to his supervisor, but then said that not providing my passcode would void my iPhone's warranty. Eventually they performed the service without my passcode and had me perform the functional testing myself before walking out of the store.
I wonder how many thousands (millions?) of iPhone passcodes are stored in Apple's database? And of course the average owner probably doesn't think to change the passcode after the service is completed.
When I refused to give it to them, on the basis of privacy, the employee said that Apple could not provide the service. He backed down a little when I asked to speak to his supervisor, but then said that not providing my passcode would void my iPhone's warranty. Eventually they performed the service without my passcode and had me perform the functional testing myself before walking out of the store.
I wonder how many thousands (millions?) of iPhone passcodes are stored in Apple's database? And of course the average owner probably doesn't think to change the passcode after the service is completed.
The reason for asking for your passcode is so they can perform functional testing, and they don't end up giving customers a device that isn't perfect.
It is stored in a database, but the passcode is deleted immediately after the genius marks the service as completed.
It is stored in a database, but the passcode is deleted immediately after the genius marks the service as completed.
[deleted]
For computers I create an unprivileged "apple" account when it goes in to service. For iOS devices I just wipe them before service, but if you are sending to a third party repair house you might make a new throw away account, otherwise your device is in a stealable state.
I suppose if your device is beyond being able to operate then you are going to need to change your password or passcode when you get it back.
I suppose if your device is beyond being able to operate then you are going to need to change your password or passcode when you get it back.
Refuse. Tell them you have a backup and are willing to risk having to reinstall everything. That's worked every time I've had service done there.
It's probably just a standard question so Apple can migrate your data if the repair fails and you need a new machine.
My MacBook Pro battery had to be replaced too and the Apple rep asked the same thing. I just told them I rather have them wipe the machine instead and they were happy to just put that in the service notes.
My MacBook Pro battery had to be replaced too and the Apple rep asked the same thing. I just told them I rather have them wipe the machine instead and they were happy to just put that in the service notes.
That is odd indeed. I had the opposite experience a few years ago when I had a broken iPhone. I tried to give my account (iCloud) password but the clerk (Genius) stopped me and said "No, just the phone PIN so we can unlock it."
> I intend to file no lawsuit, seek no apology
I don't understand this attitude.
I don't understand this attitude.
Filing a lawsuit is a tremendous investment of time and money and it's not really clear that these kinds of searches are in any way illegal.
Ambiguity is is the bosom buddy of petty tyrany
As far as I know they're 100% legal, which is not the same as claiming they're good or moral.
Seems like a reasonable response to being treated like a criminal, where no crime has been committed, nor any legitimate reason to suspect. I'm not even talking about probable cause; this is happening to American citizens? Your comment leads me to believe you didn't actually read the article.
I balked when my kids' school system sent a poorly worded letter including the term "social worker" on account of my child being tardy only 5 times (mostly medical reasons) for a total of about 30 minutes of missed time. Legal action was not in my mind, but a strongly worded response certainly was.
I balked when my kids' school system sent a poorly worded letter including the term "social worker" on account of my child being tardy only 5 times (mostly medical reasons) for a total of about 30 minutes of missed time. Legal action was not in my mind, but a strongly worded response certainly was.
Officials will say that a muslim visiting a muslim country and leaving there some money IS a probable cause.
A lawsuit is time consuming - and no promise you'll even get heard. I can't imagine that she'd get an apology without a lawsuit or public outcry.
And public outcry seems to be the best measure at this point. It wouldn't be this story in particular, but repeating of similar stories. Naturally, it can backfire.
And public outcry seems to be the best measure at this point. It wouldn't be this story in particular, but repeating of similar stories. Naturally, it can backfire.
Plus it's not easy (nearly impossible) to sue the US government. There are very few permitted exemptions to sovereign immunity.
Just and idea for Android: If you are rooted: Make a backup with nandroid and put it somewhere encrypted on your laptop or cloud. Make Backup with root, syncthing and rsync of your sd card (it's so complicated because many cannot remove internal "SD"). Reset phone. Cross border. Restore both backups.
The question is: WHY I need to this counter measures to protect my right of privacy when entering a country like the USA.
The question is: WHY I need to this counter measures to protect my right of privacy when entering a country like the USA.
A reset phone will appear highly suspect and they'll probably ask where your real phone / data is, and detain you until you answer them (and/or send you back if you're not a citizen).
I mean, maybe, but there's no evidence yet to support this conclusion. I'd be a little surprised if the TSA/CBP clowns have any idea what they're doing, they're mostly just there for intimidation and data collection.
new phone who dis.
But really you can spend 30 minutes loading some apps and games, copying over a few dozen pictures, contacts, etc.
But really you can spend 30 minutes loading some apps and games, copying over a few dozen pictures, contacts, etc.
For the same reason you need the 2A.
National governments have never ever historical remained on the side of "the people". They eventually go bad, more quickly so when their citizenry is impotent.
So put up the good fight. Freedom has a price, and it's not paid on April 15th
National governments have never ever historical remained on the side of "the people". They eventually go bad, more quickly so when their citizenry is impotent.
So put up the good fight. Freedom has a price, and it's not paid on April 15th
Put up the good fight, and never stop. It's a fight against entropy.
I would be very cautious with that. Crossing border and going through border control (in this case TSA and they've got a reputation...) with a phone back to factory settings and no content doesn't look like something border control would just let pass. I can't believe they wouldn't find that suspicious and go to even greater length to control and search you just on that basis.
Honestly, the other resposnes to this comment suggest why such suggestions, while done in earnest, might be more harmful that helpful.
I appreciate your want, but right now the rule of law with the Border Agents seems to be "As [they] like it". Providing any sort of privacy protection is likely to garner even more suspicion from Agents, especially those that have already made up a judgement on who is and isn't a suspect.
This isn't to say people should roll over and just open up their devices, but suggestions that will impede the Border Agents or frustrate their activities should be noted as such and readers need to be aware of the potential reprecussions so they can make an informed decision. It is important to have a staunch resistance to this nonsense, but people need to be able to choose their level of participation.
I appreciate your want, but right now the rule of law with the Border Agents seems to be "As [they] like it". Providing any sort of privacy protection is likely to garner even more suspicion from Agents, especially those that have already made up a judgement on who is and isn't a suspect.
This isn't to say people should roll over and just open up their devices, but suggestions that will impede the Border Agents or frustrate their activities should be noted as such and readers need to be aware of the potential reprecussions so they can make an informed decision. It is important to have a staunch resistance to this nonsense, but people need to be able to choose their level of participation.
What would they do if you just don't carry your phone with you when you fly? One could ship their phone or put it in checked luggage.
They are not just looking for data at the border, they are imaging the phone and keeping those records for god knows how long and with what level of security. That is a level of privacy I'm not willing to give up, let alone the risk of having company confidential data end up in unintended hands.
They are not just looking for data at the border, they are imaging the phone and keeping those records for god knows how long and with what level of security. That is a level of privacy I'm not willing to give up, let alone the risk of having company confidential data end up in unintended hands.
In the US if you end up in secondary inspection, your checked luggage can be brought there too.
Then you just risk of losing your smart phone. 100 - 200 bucks is good enough for thieves.
Your unusual behaviour becomes grounds for their reasonable suspicion. They'll hold you and question you to make sure you are who you say you are and that you're not on their lists and haven't been in contact with anyone on their lists.
This is probably a fine strategy if you are a citizen and don't mind being held in secondary for a bit.
This is terrible advice to foreigners who may be denied entry, and then have that denial seen as prejudicial in trying to enter the country again.
This is terrible advice to foreigners who may be denied entry, and then have that denial seen as prejudicial in trying to enter the country again.
I'm a foreigner (German) and I would have no problem doing so. I know no other country where they copy their phone and I also don't want to give this special rights even to USA.
Unless of course having an utterly scrubbed phone (devoid of signs of normal usage) is in itself a red flag to these people.
"Please provide us with the username and password combinations for all of your social media accounts".
Your answers to this are:
1: "here you are", and hope you haven't said anything that'll get you turned away
2: "I can't remember them, because I use strong passwords", and hope that doesn't get you turned away
3: "I don't have social media accounts", but remember that lying to federal agents is a crime.
Your answers to this are:
1: "here you are", and hope you haven't said anything that'll get you turned away
2: "I can't remember them, because I use strong passwords", and hope that doesn't get you turned away
3: "I don't have social media accounts", but remember that lying to federal agents is a crime.
4: Enable 2FA but since you're a foreigner in the US you don't have cell service, so no 2FA text is ever received.
You're compliant as you can be.
You're compliant as you can be.
Certainly there's a way around it, as you wouldn't take a vacation and leave yourself locked out of social media (though it's a good idea).
I don't take my American simcard overseas, it's useless and I don't want to lose it.
Also, frame your vacation as a "getaway from technology."
Partner that with a candybar phone -- which you're going to buy a SIM card for in your destination country -- and you have a perfectly reasonable story.
At least I hope it's reasonable because it's what I've been doing for almost a decade
Also, frame your vacation as a "getaway from technology."
Partner that with a candybar phone -- which you're going to buy a SIM card for in your destination country -- and you have a perfectly reasonable story.
At least I hope it's reasonable because it's what I've been doing for almost a decade
So what? They can still hold you for hours and then deny you entry.
5: Don't visit the USA. It's not compulsory to suck America's arse, you know.
She went through standard TSA searches - scans, pat downs, and explosive chemical swabbing. (I travel twice a month and have TSA-Pre and I still have to go through that 1/3 of the time). She was then questioned about the nature of her travels. Upon return she was questioned about her travels, the contents of a CD she had, why she tried to open up a bank account abroad, and where the thousands of dollars she left with went. I don't think it was unreasonable for border patrol to be suspicious. Their job is to investigate suspicious behavior and from their perspective they don't know whether the woman was telling the truth or not, but the facts of the matter do raise suspicion. I would be a bit more worried if they didn't ask all of those questions and investigate the issue, why else are we paying them?
> I would be a bit more worried if they didn't ask all of those questions and investigate the issue, why else are we paying them?
Why are we paying them? Their "service" is, at best, inconvenient, and certainly unconstitutional.
The issue is not that this individual was inconvenienced.
The issue is that the constitution of the United States is being thoroughly disobeyed by the federal government of the United States.
Why are we paying them? Their "service" is, at best, inconvenient, and certainly unconstitutional.
The issue is not that this individual was inconvenienced.
The issue is that the constitution of the United States is being thoroughly disobeyed by the federal government of the United States.
Does anyone know whether travelers are required to facilitate these phone searches (e.g. enter encryption password at boot and disable screen lock)?
Edit: Found relevant article at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/what-could-happe...
In summary, yes. It is a misdemeanor (subject to a fine of not more than $1,000) to refuse to provide assistance (e.g. translation or decryption). Assuming you refuse, they will likely seize the device and detain you for some unknown period of time.
Edit: Found relevant article at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/what-could-happe...
In summary, yes. It is a misdemeanor (subject to a fine of not more than $1,000) to refuse to provide assistance (e.g. translation or decryption). Assuming you refuse, they will likely seize the device and detain you for some unknown period of time.
If by "required to" you mean "legally and constitutionally required to", then that's still at least somewhat ambiguous and hasn't been fully tested in court.
If by "required" you mean "to get on my flight and avoid getting arrested", then probably yes, it's required.
If by "required" you mean "to get on my flight and avoid getting arrested", then probably yes, it's required.
What if you and your wife enter on different flights? Wouldn't it makes sense to carry each other's devices and not share the passwords with each other? You aren't refusing; you have a plausible defense to not knowing the passwords.
It's less compelling, but i guess you could have a trusted friend change your passwords for you and require them to later unlock them. (after you get out of detainment 5 days later and fight in court -- instead of the gov't winning, you both lose)
It's less compelling, but i guess you could have a trusted friend change your passwords for you and require them to later unlock them. (after you get out of detainment 5 days later and fight in court -- instead of the gov't winning, you both lose)
Do you seriously think a TSA agent would just say "Oh this phone isn't yours and you can't unlock it? I better just let you take it on the plane!"
If they cannot perform the search no matter what your excuse is, I seriously doubt they will let that phone, or even you, enter.
If they cannot perform the search no matter what your excuse is, I seriously doubt they will let that phone, or even you, enter.
> If they cannot perform the search no matter what your excuse is, I seriously doubt they will let that phone, or even you, enter.
If you are a US citizen, they can't really keep you out of the country for this. They can make it hell, but not keep you out. If you are not a citizen, then yes, they can send you right back.
If you are a US citizen, they can't really keep you out of the country for this. They can make it hell, but not keep you out. If you are not a citizen, then yes, they can send you right back.
EFF has posted guidance on this issue: https://www.eff.org/files/2017/03/09/digital-privacy-border-...
Eff.org m8
This title has little to do with the content of the post, phone copying was the least of this lady's problems.
This is to protect your Freedom[tm].
I know that there is racial profiling going on, and travel to certain countries will have higher numbers of individuals with certain ethnic backgrounds, but how often is this happening to middle-class white Americans? I used to travel a great deal but haven't done much over the past 5 years.
I remember being questioned for about 15 minutes on my flight from the UK to Paris back around 2008. My trip from the US to Turkey from 2013 was pretty timid, maybe 2 minutes of questions and a mandatory body scan (stopover in Amsterdam). From the US to South Africa completely painless. I did get my hands swabbed for explosive residue on a trip from Detroit to Las Vegas a couple years ago.
I'm just curious if anyone here has personal experience as a middle class white individual getting treatment as harsh as I read in some of these articles.
I remember being questioned for about 15 minutes on my flight from the UK to Paris back around 2008. My trip from the US to Turkey from 2013 was pretty timid, maybe 2 minutes of questions and a mandatory body scan (stopover in Amsterdam). From the US to South Africa completely painless. I did get my hands swabbed for explosive residue on a trip from Detroit to Las Vegas a couple years ago.
I'm just curious if anyone here has personal experience as a middle class white individual getting treatment as harsh as I read in some of these articles.
Maybe 5 or 6 years ago I got a very unpleasant grilling traveling to the US when they noticed that I had multiple passport stamps from Turkey and Egypt.
I had to explain repeatedly why I liked Turkey in particular and kept getting asked over and over "Why Turkey?".
[NB Turkey used to be an extremely popular holiday destination for people from the UK and I've been traveling there regularly for 20+ years].
I had to explain repeatedly why I liked Turkey in particular and kept getting asked over and over "Why Turkey?".
[NB Turkey used to be an extremely popular holiday destination for people from the UK and I've been traveling there regularly for 20+ years].
White middle class non-dissident man with a wife and kids here. I have had my hands swabbed for explosive residue on multiple occasions for domestic flights. We were also pulled aside for additional screening once (the whole family), but it went fairly quickly. One time I forgot a pocketknife in my carry-on and the TSA agent found it. We laughed about it and she confiscated it, no further action was taken.
There have been a few such stories but the people involved were prominent political dissidents like Jacob Applebaum.
https://www.aclu.org/government-data-about-searches-internat...
>Between October 2008 and June 2010, over 6,500 people traveling to and from the United States had their electronic devices searched at the border. Nearly half of these people were U.S. citizens.
... and none of them were non-belligerent white individuals traveling to/from non-suspicious countries.
Okay, I made that last part up, but c'mon.
>Between October 2008 and June 2010, over 6,500 people traveling to and from the United States had their electronic devices searched at the border. Nearly half of these people were U.S. citizens.
... and none of them were non-belligerent white individuals traveling to/from non-suspicious countries.
Okay, I made that last part up, but c'mon.
>I intend to file no lawsuit, seek no apology.
WHY???? Of all people, the ones who get targeted have standing! Of all people, she might have a shot of pulling in the 4th AND the 14th amendments!
I know people want to live their lives rather than get embroiled in legal fights but the ones whose lives are interrupted by this sort of injustice are the only ones who CAN put a stop to this.
WHY???? Of all people, the ones who get targeted have standing! Of all people, she might have a shot of pulling in the 4th AND the 14th amendments!
I know people want to live their lives rather than get embroiled in legal fights but the ones whose lives are interrupted by this sort of injustice are the only ones who CAN put a stop to this.
Is a reasonable work around to ship your phone to your future destination?
A friend of mine was questioned at an international airport because he traveled from Europe with only hand luggage (he was only staying for 2 days).
So, i guess, not having something with (electronics, luggage, ...) you can also cause problems.
But yeah, this is only one anectote, so travelling without a phone / a laptop might be fine...
So, i guess, not having something with (electronics, luggage, ...) you can also cause problems.
But yeah, this is only one anectote, so travelling without a phone / a laptop might be fine...
My plan is to just not travel with electronics. If I need it, I might pick up a cheapo Android tablet at my destination and just leave it there, but probably I'll just go old-school.
Besides the tremendous inconvenience that would entail, how do you know it's not going to get inspected?
You absolutely have no guarantees it won't be inspected. Especially since the US Post office appears to be logging all mail for federal authorities: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mai...
- make a cloud-backup
- purge your phone
- enter the US, let them search your plain vanilla phone
- restore backup
- purge your phone
- enter the US, let them search your plain vanilla phone
- restore backup
Trying to defeat this with technical trickery won't work. "Gee golly gosh you're smart, on through you go" is not a standard CBP response.
They will search your devices. They have a process flow to follow and 'empty contact list' will likely branch to 'second-tier inspection' and laptops will be searched.
Much better to keep an old previous-generation smartphone with a minimal but genuine contact list ( immediate family, emergency contact, work & insurance numbers ) and a couple of useful non-social apps and use that when travelling. And only for travelling. No trickery, just hand it over.
I don't agree with the policy, but it's policy. I can't change it as one foreign national standing in line, I can only minimise the damage it causes me.
They will search your devices. They have a process flow to follow and 'empty contact list' will likely branch to 'second-tier inspection' and laptops will be searched.
Much better to keep an old previous-generation smartphone with a minimal but genuine contact list ( immediate family, emergency contact, work & insurance numbers ) and a couple of useful non-social apps and use that when travelling. And only for travelling. No trickery, just hand it over.
I don't agree with the policy, but it's policy. I can't change it as one foreign national standing in line, I can only minimise the damage it causes me.
some people got denied entry with that tactic, too suspicious.
The US intelligence agencies are hell bent on creating a social graph of the world, and they will get to do it.
The US intelligence agencies are hell bent on creating a social graph of the world, and they will get to do it.
If you got a full tutorial on this, I would love to read it ;)
Do you really need a tutorial specifically on this? Backup, restore, and wiping your phone are all well-documented procedures.
because they dont search your cloud ?
How could they "search your cloud"? They're able to bypass the 4th Amendment protections because you are entering the country.
There was a recent article about a Canadian crossing into America being suspected of being a sex worker and forced to give their online user names and passwords.
Which was stored and allowed them to not ask for the credentials the next time they crossed.
Here's the link: http://www.dailyxtra.com/canada/news-and-ideas/news/us-custo...
Here's the link: http://www.dailyxtra.com/canada/news-and-ideas/news/us-custo...
Man. Being treated this way would make me want to explode.
I haven't taken my smarterthanyou phone traveling in years.
Get a $70 candybar, assume it will be lost, stolen, broken, pawned while overseas.
Problem solved -- at least the phone part.
Get a $70 candybar, assume it will be lost, stolen, broken, pawned while overseas.
Problem solved -- at least the phone part.
What would happen if one traveled without any electronics today? Say you left your phone, laptop etc at home? Genuinely curious
Not to be incendiary but when she said "the ongoing erosion of our rights", I cringed.
Nobody has the "right" not to be searched or interrogated at borders (except for some politicians that have diplomatic immunity).
Is she a politician? if not, no right was infringed.
Nobody has the "right" not to be searched or interrogated at borders (except for some politicians that have diplomatic immunity).
Is she a politician? if not, no right was infringed.
You have the right to enter your own country.
Of course, but they have the right to know what you are bringing in, this can involve searching people, it's a practical necessity.
Try entering your country with a piece of nuclear grade uranium.
Try entering your country with a piece of nuclear grade uranium.
I know some people's online comments are pretty toxic, but I'm struggling to think of a scenario whereby a Twitter stream or Facebook timeline could be used to make a 'dirty bomb' --and I'm not having much luck.
Could you help me out here?
Could you help me out here?
I'm sure you are aware that their justification is to help determine if people are linked to dangerous groups or not.
Personally I wouldn't go that far but still, my point is that: not being searched at the border is a priviledge, not a right.
Personally I wouldn't go that far but still, my point is that: not being searched at the border is a priviledge, not a right.
I know this won't be popular but I will ask it anyway.
How is searching a phone any different than customs searching all luggage inbound to the US. How are the contents of digital devices considered to be sufficiently different that they don't warrant a cursory scan, if not automatic scan?
Then it comes down to, what exactly could you scan for anyway? Could they do short term scan/records and delete upon leaving the country or short duration? Where is the justification for doing this to citizens of this country or countries not considered to an active threat?
How is searching a phone any different than customs searching all luggage inbound to the US. How are the contents of digital devices considered to be sufficiently different that they don't warrant a cursory scan, if not automatic scan?
Then it comes down to, what exactly could you scan for anyway? Could they do short term scan/records and delete upon leaving the country or short duration? Where is the justification for doing this to citizens of this country or countries not considered to an active threat?
The difference is that information is easy to store and copy. When they search your luggage, they don't take anything from you. When your cell phone data gets scanned and copied to their servers, it's there forever. You have no control over who reads it, sells it, steals it - to use against you or anyone you contacted afterwards.
because they are copied and stored indefinitely without any promise of not spilling the content. And also that's the kind of thing that leads to an entire village in Yemen to be killed, women and children included, in the middle of the night by the Navy Seals.
There's also a delicious irony in the fact the border agents would no doubt claim not to be stealing your data, but merely making a copy of it --while at the same time the US is extraditing people from around the world, to charge them with piracy, for copying music and movie files. In which case, it seems, copying data is theft.
Instead of fixing the real issues this country has: poverty, homelessness, joblessness, hunger, drug abuse, health care accessibility, affordable housing accessibility - we prefer to look for a boogeymen outside of the country.
Around 500-1000 Homeless Americans die from hypothermia per year, 2000-4000 Americans die per year from hunger, 35000 people on average die from drug over dose, over 500,000 people die from heart desease so in the last 15 years we lost just to these causes - around 8million people!
According to a September 2016 study by Alex Nowrasteh at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, some 3,024 Americans died from 1975 through 2015 due to foreign-born terrorism. That number includes the 9/11 terrorist attacks (2,983 people) and averages nearly 74 Americans per year.
8million+ people dead vs. 3000? So where are the real issues?
Why do we allow the government propaganda machine to fool us?