Harvard Student Says He Was Barred From U.S. Over Friends’ Social Media Posts(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Harvard Student Says He Was Barred From U.S. Over Friends’ Social Media Posts
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/us/harvard-student-ismail-ajjawi.html
182 comments
Getting access to your social media handles is now part of the application process for many different kinds of visas. To me, it's just another way for CBP agents to make arbitrary decisions. There's not even much accountability as-is. They have the ultimate say if they want to let you in or not. Now, it's even crazier since simply liking a page 5 years ago could turn into a disaster if that page evolves into something 'anti-american'. God-forbid you get hacked and someone sabotages your online persona'.
The usual speach goes like "If you don't have anything to hide...". But do you know if your friend on facebook has anything to hide that will connect you by association? The privacy debate got stuck on the "If YOU don't have..." but that is not the whole problem.
I personally don't use Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. If i applied and left all these fields blank i do wonder if they would believe me or maybe think i was withholding information and reject me on that ground....
Me too. I think the situation we are seeing now was very predictable and started with government ambitions to gain access to internet communication. But neither political side had any ambition to strike that down. Certainly worth remembering.
I would have never predicted this from a western country to act like this. But I guess the Anglo-Saxon countries were always leaning on the controlling side.
At least EU still has some sort of values.
I won't be traveling to the US soon, unless I really need to.
At least EU still has some sort of values.
I won't be traveling to the US soon, unless I really need to.
I think the EU currently has much worse ambitions for digital spaces that makes the US truly the beacon of the free world again.
I host private services withing the EU because of sensible privacy protections but for anything with public content, I would pick something far, far away.
Some member states already banned and sanctioned people for jokes. There is just one direction from here and it fits neatly into European patterns of past mistakes. There are also monetary interests in sanitizing certain spaces of the net and that is welcome honey for our current political class on any side of the political spectrum.
Nope, the probability of good digital policies from within Europe is pretty low.
I host private services withing the EU because of sensible privacy protections but for anything with public content, I would pick something far, far away.
Some member states already banned and sanctioned people for jokes. There is just one direction from here and it fits neatly into European patterns of past mistakes. There are also monetary interests in sanitizing certain spaces of the net and that is welcome honey for our current political class on any side of the political spectrum.
Nope, the probability of good digital policies from within Europe is pretty low.
> but for anything with public content, I would pick something far, far away.
Yeah, Article 13 really messed stuff up here.
But as for the privacy, I don't consider "give me your login and password" a digital policy.
Yeah, Article 13 really messed stuff up here.
But as for the privacy, I don't consider "give me your login and password" a digital policy.
The principle of data privacy and rights is really much more important than pointy policies, it's an underlying foundation and framework of thinking how data should be treated with safeguards for you, as an individual, to be more in control of it.
The EU has a lot of flaws as it's so massive and pervasive but saying that the US is the beacon of the free world makes me think you have been living under a rock for a while.
The EU has a lot of flaws as it's so massive and pervasive but saying that the US is the beacon of the free world makes me think you have been living under a rock for a while.
Yes, you can be denied a visa for misrepresentation, however it will be up to the Consular officer. Thus far, the Consulates don't seem that concerned with social media and haven't appeared to be fans of this addition, but CBP likes it clearly.
Problem is not just getting the Visa, its the border check.
Here, agents have literally unlimited decision power and you have no recourse.
It wouldn't be misrepresentation if it were true though.
Which then raises the question of where the onus lies regarding proof.
I suppose ultimately the US can deny access to whomever they please, so you have to jump through whatever hoops they please.
Which then raises the question of where the onus lies regarding proof.
I suppose ultimately the US can deny access to whomever they please, so you have to jump through whatever hoops they please.
US(and UK, and many other countries) can already ask you to provide password for an encrypted file and jail you if you refuse. The thing is, there is no way to prove that a file is indeed encrypted, or just a collection of random bits - in fact they can just say you used stenography to hide something in a completely normal .jpg file, and you need to provide them with means to decode that. You cannot prove that it doesn't exist, all it takes is their expert saying that "we can prove beyond resonable doubt that the file is encrypted" and you are screwed.
> all it takes is their expert saying that "we can prove beyond resonable doubt that the file is encrypted" and you are screwed.
I'm pretty sure this wouldn't fly in the UK, wouldn't the expert need to demonstrate to a Jury and the defence council how he "proved beyond reasonable doubt" so the proof could be refuted?
In fact it might not work in the US. I remember a pedo trial collapsing because the feds were unwilling to explain in open court how they tracked people via the dark web.
I'm pretty sure this wouldn't fly in the UK, wouldn't the expert need to demonstrate to a Jury and the defence council how he "proved beyond reasonable doubt" so the proof could be refuted?
In fact it might not work in the US. I remember a pedo trial collapsing because the feds were unwilling to explain in open court how they tracked people via the dark web.
A random agent would assume you have a different real account you didn’t reveal.
This story agains underscores that you should only enter the US carrying a clean burner phone, and either not use any social media at all, or block your own access to it until you're safe again.
This comment again underscores that it's naive to imagine technical solutions to political problems.
Clean burner phone? No social media account? Both look suspicious, and if they search and find your old account, they'll know you lied and can shut down your visa/entrance. Not to mention lying to a federal agent is a felony, and they could trivially ask "Do you have a social media account?".
Clean burner phone? No social media account? Both look suspicious, and if they search and find your old account, they'll know you lied and can shut down your visa/entrance. Not to mention lying to a federal agent is a felony, and they could trivially ask "Do you have a social media account?".
I have plenty of (pretty much inactive) social media accounts that I don't even remember the user-handle or password to -- usually created to take look at the service, user-interface and goof around a bit -- I don't think I'll ever remember any of these (also, they were usually created with throwaway-email accounts).
I don't plan to travel to the US -- pretty much because of the reasons outlined here. But if I were I'd pretty much either had to lie or tell them that I don't remember any of my logins -- since I had them at one time, but I don't have any active social media presence anymore.
And what about github, stackoverflow, hn... are they social media -- I don't think so. But not mentioning other accounts that could be classified as social media is also a lie -- at least its an omission.
I don't plan to travel to the US -- pretty much because of the reasons outlined here. But if I were I'd pretty much either had to lie or tell them that I don't remember any of my logins -- since I had them at one time, but I don't have any active social media presence anymore.
And what about github, stackoverflow, hn... are they social media -- I don't think so. But not mentioning other accounts that could be classified as social media is also a lie -- at least its an omission.
You're right. A carefully curated social media account that you only use for travel, is a much better idea. Follow a few safe people, post a few harmless things, and before any trip, log out from your usual account and switch to this one.
For all the guys having clever strategys to hide their passwords or data: if you are not a us citizen, then you have zero rights.
If anything at all looks evem a little suspicious, the agent cant deny you entry and you can do precisely nothing. Theoretically if he has a bad day, even. It says so multiple times when you apply.
This is of course mostly a problem when you come from the wrong country or religion.
So Id rather create a facebook account if I didnt have one, than delete or hide one.
And if you think youll make it through with a clean phone, you really have no idea how this works, at least for non europeans.
If anything at all looks evem a little suspicious, the agent cant deny you entry and you can do precisely nothing. Theoretically if he has a bad day, even. It says so multiple times when you apply.
This is of course mostly a problem when you come from the wrong country or religion.
So Id rather create a facebook account if I didnt have one, than delete or hide one.
And if you think youll make it through with a clean phone, you really have no idea how this works, at least for non europeans.
A clean burner phone is doubly suspicious. To really avoid detection you would need a carefully constructed burner identity, ensuring that the people who get through are the most sophisticated criminals with the greatest resources backing them.
For me what is particularly galling is that the state department had already vetted and approved this person. Remember, part of the visa application includes your social media profiles, so he's already been vetted.
Then some random CBP agent reads through Facebook posts of his friends and denies him entry.
Some of the other comments here bewilder me. The US used to stand for fairness, equality, and due process. We've allowed the worst of ourselves (fear of the other) to destroy the best of ourselves (openness, fairness, justice).
Then some random CBP agent reads through Facebook posts of his friends and denies him entry.
Some of the other comments here bewilder me. The US used to stand for fairness, equality, and due process. We've allowed the worst of ourselves (fear of the other) to destroy the best of ourselves (openness, fairness, justice).
devoply(1)
Where is the CBP/state dept side to this story?
Yet the media tend to blame government when such social media activity goes unnoticed until a tragedy happens, like Tashfeen Malik. She, a Pakistani in the USA on a valid visa, had pledged allegiance to ISIS on social media before the San Bernardino massacre. Subsequent policies to inspect social media are the result.
Then some random CBP agent reads through Facebook posts of his friends and denies him entry.
If a social media "friend" simply posts something on his/her own wall, that is no reflection on the subject of the examination.
But if the subject himself then Likes or positively comments on such a posting, then it can have relevance.
> The US used to stand for fairness, equality, and due process. We've allowed the worst of ourselves (fear of the other) to destroy the best of ourselves (openness, fairness, justice).
Where do you get this ahistorical mythical belief? When we were deporting millions of Hispanic people (citizens included) in the 30s, how just was that? Was it fair to upend their lives and send them to a foreign land?
When we let the Klan sweep over the Reconstruction south, was that just? Jim-Crow southern laws and their constituent sumptuary codes sure don't seem very open to me.
Fear of the other is deeply ingrained into the US. See the Japanese internment camps, see white flight post segregation, see the modern xenophobia aimed towards Russians.
Where do you get this ahistorical mythical belief? When we were deporting millions of Hispanic people (citizens included) in the 30s, how just was that? Was it fair to upend their lives and send them to a foreign land?
When we let the Klan sweep over the Reconstruction south, was that just? Jim-Crow southern laws and their constituent sumptuary codes sure don't seem very open to me.
Fear of the other is deeply ingrained into the US. See the Japanese internment camps, see white flight post segregation, see the modern xenophobia aimed towards Russians.
> deporting millions of Hispanic people (citizens included) in the 30s
In case anyone is curious, this appears to be referring to the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation
In case anyone is curious, this appears to be referring to the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation
People from much worse regimes have always been escaping to the US, to get some of that openness, fairness, justice, even if it's not perfect, it's usually better than where they left from.
> even if it's not perfect
This is such a tragic underselling of the horrors that I described.
This is such a tragic underselling of the horrors that I described.
Happened to a friend of mine way back in 2005, a Canadian citizen of Indian descent. He had a valid TN visa and was working full time in the US, regularly crossing the border between Canada and the US to visit family. One day he was simply barred by a CBP agent, and furthermore, permanently banned from entering the US, so he can’t even take a Canadian flight that goes over US airspace. He had a house, car, and job in the US for years. Reason given? Because he had once flown to Syria for an Arabic language education. Keep in mind this was before any war was going on in Syria.
That's insane. US Customs does treat foreigners like cattle, it's a military-like process with no oversight and where bad treatment is not punished.
I’ve heard that a few days ago (probably same day as this story) CBP detained a bunch (heard about 20-30 in the secondary room) of Chinese students at LAX for a few tens of hours and trawled all their electronics and pressured them in various ways. I know for sure that 7 of them got their visa revoked that day (I don’t have information about other universities). They apparently got a curious deal: either they paid for their return ticket or they got a five year ban on top.
According to the people dealing with foreign student CBP has never done that before.
According to the people dealing with foreign student CBP has never done that before.
China has inserted agents who monitor students political views abroad and if they start liking democracy too much start putting pressure on.
What is the link with immigration? The CIA murders people abroad, and uses the peace corps for spying and influence, does that means that all the countries should randomly send Americans home at the border?
There are some things one knows, and a lot one could guess at, but in the case of things like Peace Corps, I know legitimate well-intentioned non-spy new grads volunteer for that, so let's not get them tortured and killed by some paranoid warlord.
The Peace Corps is most emphatically NOT a spying or any other clandestine operation.
There are legal restrictions that between the Peace Corps and both civilian and military intelligence agencies. Since it’s founding in the 1960s, this has been a founding principle that ensures the safety of the Peace Corps volunteers.
There are legal restrictions that between the Peace Corps and both civilian and military intelligence agencies. Since it’s founding in the 1960s, this has been a founding principle that ensures the safety of the Peace Corps volunteers.
Some members have been individually asked by the local CIA station to enter a military base and try to report on the names and grades of people there. Not as an order from the peace corps.
You’re going to need to put up credible citations for this, because this is an extraordinary claim.
If you knew someone was a spy maybe you would send them home.
And you’d be suspecting 20-30 spies coming on the same plane?
This is not how spying has been reported to be handled, the CBP has been known to be fishing for the FBI, but the foreigners did not spend a long time in secondary, the FBI handled them pretty quickly.
This is not how spying has been reported to be handled, the CBP has been known to be fishing for the FBI, but the foreigners did not spend a long time in secondary, the FBI handled them pretty quickly.
> They apparently got a curious deal
That seems unlikely. If you are denied entry the airline is responsible for returning you, which is why they are so stringent about checking for visas before you even check in.
My wife was working for a Middle Eastern airline a few years ago, and had a flight to Brazil (~16 hours). They only fly twice a week, so she had a layover of a few days there. On the way back she saw a few men who were on the flight there with her too. Apparently they were denied entry, so had to wait in the airport (airside) for three days until the next flight back. Even worse was after this flight they had to get another flight to go back home. So thousands of dollars and a week of travelling for nothing...
That seems unlikely. If you are denied entry the airline is responsible for returning you, which is why they are so stringent about checking for visas before you even check in.
My wife was working for a Middle Eastern airline a few years ago, and had a flight to Brazil (~16 hours). They only fly twice a week, so she had a layover of a few days there. On the way back she saw a few men who were on the flight there with her too. Apparently they were denied entry, so had to wait in the airport (airside) for three days until the next flight back. Even worse was after this flight they had to get another flight to go back home. So thousands of dollars and a week of travelling for nothing...
That’s were the word “curious” come from. This event was out of the ordinary in various ways.
>I’ve heard...
Heard from where?
>According to the people dealing with foreign student CBP has never done that before.
Again, do you have any sources?
Heard from where?
>According to the people dealing with foreign student CBP has never done that before.
Again, do you have any sources?
Looking for someone to retaliate against? You know that just revealing that much is already poking the beast?
People who have been in the emergency meeting at one of the affected universities.
People who have been in the emergency meeting at one of the affected universities.
Please don't make unfounded accusations under the guise of asking a question. Your claim is unusual and as pointed out by several other commenters, goes against prior experience and existing arrangements. In such a situation, it is perfectly reasonable to request additional evidence beyond "I've heard" or "Some people say..."
Thank you for providing the additional detail.
Thank you for providing the additional detail.
> Michael S. McCarthy, a spokesman for Customs and Border Protection, said he could not comment on the specifics of Mr. Ajjawi’s case because of privacy rules.
The irony of this statement is making my head spin
The irony of this statement is making my head spin
This is just the standard go-to excuse now for public officials refusing to comment on a controversial or embarrassing decision.
They use it even if the subject whose privacy rights they are supposedly and suddenly so interested in protecting explicitly waives it.
Every time you see that comment, just read it as "I am not prepared to offer a defence of our actions".
They use it even if the subject whose privacy rights they are supposedly and suddenly so interested in protecting explicitly waives it.
Every time you see that comment, just read it as "I am not prepared to offer a defence of our actions".
Very similar to bullshit we hear at companies as well.
"We can't talk about why we fired XYZ because we value his privacy."
Meanwhile XYZ is himself going around telling everyone who will listen about how he was screwed over.
"We can't talk about why we fired XYZ because we value his privacy."
Meanwhile XYZ is himself going around telling everyone who will listen about how he was screwed over.
Oh, you're absolutely right, I shouldn't have limited that to officialdom - it's definitely used at least as much if not more so by corporate PR. Exactly the same reading applies.
Do other countries do stuff like that too? In German media I often read about things like security researchers not allowed to go a conference in the US or people turned around for their twitter posts. Does this really happen often and do other countries for example in Europe do this too?
In Europe, definitly not while applying for a visum (they don't want your online-handles and passwords for example). You'll probably get "background-checked" from the interior intelligence agencies (e.g. Verfassungsschutz) while completing the formal immigration process, but that is a completely different story than a mere visum.
I imagine there would have to be some kind of GDPR exception for that to happen in Europe.
GDPR can be overridden by any law that deems data access necessary for government officers to do their job. When those laws are overturned by the courts, it's not on the basis of GDPR or similar laws, it's usually because they violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which has a constitution-like status due to the Treaty of Lisbon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_...
China is actively checking people's phones at airports and land/sea entrance points for evidence that the person attended or supports the protests in Hong Kong. People have certainly been denied entry and held for a few hours, and may have been taken into longer-term detention.
The fact that the US has been doing similar for a long time has been widely used as justification for China's actions...
The fact that the US has been doing similar for a long time has been widely used as justification for China's actions...
As someone who has never had a social media account, I have wondered if US customs would believe me if I traveled there and they asked me about it?
"As someone who has never had a social media account, I have wondered if US customs would believe me if I traveled there and they asked me about it?"
In my case, I personally do not use social media, but rsync.net (a corporation in California) has, and uses, a Twitter and Github account, etc.
I am the owner of rsync.net so ... do I have social media accounts ?
In my case, I personally do not use social media, but rsync.net (a corporation in California) has, and uses, a Twitter and Github account, etc.
I am the owner of rsync.net so ... do I have social media accounts ?
Or if that's grounds for denial.
you can send your hackernews account maybe?
Yeah, I'm sure that will go over well.
"No, I don't have a Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram account, but I do have an account on this site called Hacker News."
"Oh, so are you a hacker?"
Good luck.
"No, I don't have a Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram account, but I do have an account on this site called Hacker News."
"Oh, so are you a hacker?"
Good luck.
Sure, I can tell them about my github account too, and hopefully I haven't starred anyone who writes subversive code :P
At least the last time I did the ESTA VISA for the US, they asked (optionally) for multiple social network, github too!
In all honesty, I’m not sure.
Depends on the colour of your skin, your class, your job, your sexuality, how you part your hair, your tattoos etc.
Also on from which country your passport is.
You mean, whether they would actually believe you or whether they would use the issue as a pretext for denying a visa irrespective of whether they believe you?
The immigration services (and law enforcement more generally) are widely known (the FBI even issued a report a few years back on the issue on law enforcement generally) to be extensively infiltrated by organized white supremacists, and that was true even before we had an Administration that stopped bothering with dog whistles and used openly racist appeals to justify immigration policy, setting the tone for those underneath.
Not a great time to be a non-(White European) immigrant. Or even citizen of non-(White European) descent, as the casual disregard for due process in immigration related matters has seen several of them get extended stays in immigration detention despite ready ability to demonstrate citizenship.
The immigration services (and law enforcement more generally) are widely known (the FBI even issued a report a few years back on the issue on law enforcement generally) to be extensively infiltrated by organized white supremacists, and that was true even before we had an Administration that stopped bothering with dog whistles and used openly racist appeals to justify immigration policy, setting the tone for those underneath.
Not a great time to be a non-(White European) immigrant. Or even citizen of non-(White European) descent, as the casual disregard for due process in immigration related matters has seen several of them get extended stays in immigration detention despite ready ability to demonstrate citizenship.
I imagine they would consider a HN account “social media”.
> Mr. McCarthy noted that Mr. Ajjawi could reapply for a visa.
Usually after a denial, it becomes much harder to get an acceptance. You have to put down answers to questions like "have you ever had your visa denied and why?". The next agent now has a bright red flag to look at. "Oh anti-American social media posts? Interesting. Hmm, ... well you can pay the fee and try again next time".
Usually after a denial, it becomes much harder to get an acceptance. You have to put down answers to questions like "have you ever had your visa denied and why?". The next agent now has a bright red flag to look at. "Oh anti-American social media posts? Interesting. Hmm, ... well you can pay the fee and try again next time".
Most ironic part - content is hosted and curated by US company...
There are two issues here:
The visa application process should (does?) include this sort of vetting. Why go through the whole visa application process just to have that happen when entering the country?
On the other hand, third parties' social media comments are useful and relevant. If you have friends and/or are part of groups which, for example, discuss djihad then that raises a real red flag about you even if they don't find any such comments from you. This is relevant information to take into account during the vetting process.
The visa application process should (does?) include this sort of vetting. Why go through the whole visa application process just to have that happen when entering the country?
On the other hand, third parties' social media comments are useful and relevant. If you have friends and/or are part of groups which, for example, discuss djihad then that raises a real red flag about you even if they don't find any such comments from you. This is relevant information to take into account during the vetting process.
I'm guessing people will soon start figuring out that privacy is important and that perhaps posting personal shit online is not smart. Today it's some kid who had some friends say something barred from entry in the US, tomorrow it's going to be you for some weird meme image you've posted online flagged by some algorithm.
Say it won't be so, but I can't see how that wont happen especially with the always shifting moral compass and laws around what's acceptable and not.
Say it won't be so, but I can't see how that wont happen especially with the always shifting moral compass and laws around what's acceptable and not.
Personally I would say being barred for what someone else said is worse than being barred for something that I myself did/said.
What can someone concretely do to help prevent things like this happening to other people in the U.S.?
Vote for the party that doesn't demonize immigrants, and get all your friends and family to vote. The US is still a democracy no matter how broken the Senate is, and the responsibility for state actions ultimately falls on the citizenry.
That other party is really happy with demonizing what people write online and is far more active in banning dissent. Not that the alternative isn't worse, but the inability to name bad policy decisions almost makes that difference trivial.
Just stop openly criticizing everyone and everything. Be super-compliant and everything will be sweet.
...and only make friends with others like that? We are going towards 1984 I guess.
Yup, otherwise the all seeing-eye will be upon you all. Wait a minute, it already is. And we technologists made it happen
[deleted]
Step one, set all your social media to private.
Step two, set your passwords to something horrendously complex and leave them at home when you travel.
Step three, create a list of your account names on each service and carry it in your wallet.
Step four, delete all social media apps, cookies, and sessions from all of your digital devices prior to traveling to the United States.
Step five, set up a social network email address used solely for social networks, and change your email address on all social networks to this new address. Apply the same password and logout rules as above.
Step six, when US border entry demands your account names, use the list in your wallet to provide them a complete list, including the email address linked to those social networks. When they demand the passwords, indicate that you use 64-character random passwords, and that they’re written on a piece of paper at home.
You may or may not be denied entry, and you may or may not be detained, but those are the minimum steps you must take if you wish to defend your accounts from access. By using passwords you cannot memorize, you can truthfully and under oath declare that you do not know those passwords.
If you have completed all of the above steps, you can only then proceed to delete your social network accounts. This will change nothing: you must still declare all of these accounts for many years, and adhere strictly to these rules until the reporting deadline expires. You will additionally then need to inform US agents that you deleted your accounts as they were being used by the US to violate your privacy.
Do any less than this and you will find your data used by the United States government without your consent, against you and against others. You may still find everything you posted prior to deletion used against you. Do not lie. Either tell the truth or decline to answer.
Best of luck.
EDIT: For bonus points, secure the passwords in a safe and memorize the combination. When asked for the passwords, tell them where they’re stored and what the combination to the safe is. You will openly have complied and given them everything they need to access your accounts, and volunteering the safe combination indicates that you have nothing to hide from any investigation. They may still capriciously deny you entry, but they will have a very difficult time convincing anyone that you were obstructive, since you volunteered your safe combination of your own free will, and they will have a very difficult time securing a warrant for that safe without cause.
Step two, set your passwords to something horrendously complex and leave them at home when you travel.
Step three, create a list of your account names on each service and carry it in your wallet.
Step four, delete all social media apps, cookies, and sessions from all of your digital devices prior to traveling to the United States.
Step five, set up a social network email address used solely for social networks, and change your email address on all social networks to this new address. Apply the same password and logout rules as above.
Step six, when US border entry demands your account names, use the list in your wallet to provide them a complete list, including the email address linked to those social networks. When they demand the passwords, indicate that you use 64-character random passwords, and that they’re written on a piece of paper at home.
You may or may not be denied entry, and you may or may not be detained, but those are the minimum steps you must take if you wish to defend your accounts from access. By using passwords you cannot memorize, you can truthfully and under oath declare that you do not know those passwords.
If you have completed all of the above steps, you can only then proceed to delete your social network accounts. This will change nothing: you must still declare all of these accounts for many years, and adhere strictly to these rules until the reporting deadline expires. You will additionally then need to inform US agents that you deleted your accounts as they were being used by the US to violate your privacy.
Do any less than this and you will find your data used by the United States government without your consent, against you and against others. You may still find everything you posted prior to deletion used against you. Do not lie. Either tell the truth or decline to answer.
Best of luck.
EDIT: For bonus points, secure the passwords in a safe and memorize the combination. When asked for the passwords, tell them where they’re stored and what the combination to the safe is. You will openly have complied and given them everything they need to access your accounts, and volunteering the safe combination indicates that you have nothing to hide from any investigation. They may still capriciously deny you entry, but they will have a very difficult time convincing anyone that you were obstructive, since you volunteered your safe combination of your own free will, and they will have a very difficult time securing a warrant for that safe without cause.
That's a lot of steps for something that might not help you at all. You can be asked to list your social media accounts during the visa application process, not at the point of entry. Step six, especially, where it becomes quite obvious you are trying to 'hack' the process is probably worse than not doing anything. The bizarre thing about this story is that the student was stopped this late - getting a US student visa, especially for someone from that part of the world involves a fair bit of scrutiny.
There is no safe way to take action to delete your accounts without risking being denied entry to the US for having done so, unless you simply do not attempt to enter the US between when you delete your accounts and when the deadline for reporting those accounts expires.
I’m assuming that people will, regardless, try to enter the US - after deleting their accounts, before the reporting period expires. If they have not taken these steps, they will be at risk of being compelled to divulge passwords and/or having their data inspected through a friend’s account.
It’s too late to take the obvious best step, which was to delete all social media accounts immediately upon the announcement.
All I can offer is steps that allow others^ to protect their privacy without having to intentionally withhold their passwords. If they truly care and consider you criminal, they will get an international warrant and retrieve the passwords.
They may or may not detain or eject you, but at least you will have told the truth and never misled them, which counts for a great deal if the law becomes involved.
^ HN visitors are frequently quite obsessed with maintaining the privacy of their data, even when they voluntarily posted it to the Internet. I offer no criticism of this choice, but instead offer steps that they can take to exercise their desire for privacy without having to lie at a border crossing.
I’m assuming that people will, regardless, try to enter the US - after deleting their accounts, before the reporting period expires. If they have not taken these steps, they will be at risk of being compelled to divulge passwords and/or having their data inspected through a friend’s account.
It’s too late to take the obvious best step, which was to delete all social media accounts immediately upon the announcement.
All I can offer is steps that allow others^ to protect their privacy without having to intentionally withhold their passwords. If they truly care and consider you criminal, they will get an international warrant and retrieve the passwords.
They may or may not detain or eject you, but at least you will have told the truth and never misled them, which counts for a great deal if the law becomes involved.
^ HN visitors are frequently quite obsessed with maintaining the privacy of their data, even when they voluntarily posted it to the Internet. I offer no criticism of this choice, but instead offer steps that they can take to exercise their desire for privacy without having to lie at a border crossing.
What makes you think that twitter, facebook, and similar don't already provide access to the US government based on just the username?
They may. If you continue using them, given that belief, then you knowingly accept that your data is already shared to the US government every time you post. These steps thus do not apply to you.
Obviously as soon as they figure out that you are being obstructive you get sent home?
They’ll do that for many varied and capricious reasons that include racism, sexism, and spite.
Deleting your accounts may well spite them. Locking yourself out may well spite them. Granting them access may well spite them.
Either you knowingly accept that your social network data may be viewed by the US government at any time, or you take steps to wind down your use of social media and hope that it somehow removes an avenue of capriciousness someday that they might wield against you.
Deleting your accounts may well spite them. Locking yourself out may well spite them. Granting them access may well spite them.
Either you knowingly accept that your social network data may be viewed by the US government at any time, or you take steps to wind down your use of social media and hope that it somehow removes an avenue of capriciousness someday that they might wield against you.
But if you wind it down too much it will seem suspicious to them too. You must be a normal drone.
I have an easier process:
1) Do not visit the United States. Do not do business with companies that might require you to travel there.
It’s worked 100% of the time, so far.
Honestly, the US is such a hostile environment, it’s a wonder to me that anybody would want to go there.
1) Do not visit the United States. Do not do business with companies that might require you to travel there.
It’s worked 100% of the time, so far.
Honestly, the US is such a hostile environment, it’s a wonder to me that anybody would want to go there.
This is certainly a valid way to protect your social network data from direct US inspection during your own border crossings, but if you leave your account visible to others or public, you may be inspected and/or used to inspect anyone you link to that crosses the US border.
Do you intend to only friend people on Facebook that will not cross the US border?
Do you intend to only friend people on Facebook that will not cross the US border?
>> When they demand the passwords, indicate that you use 64-character random passwords, and that they’re written on a piece of paper at home.
That's very clever, except that the boarder agent will just deny you entry on that fact alone. The length or complexity of the password is irrelevant to the fact that you are unwilling to provide it, for the same reason why "I forgot it" is not a valid excuse with these people. If you are not a US citizen they have no obligation to let you in.
That's very clever, except that the boarder agent will just deny you entry on that fact alone. The length or complexity of the password is irrelevant to the fact that you are unwilling to provide it, for the same reason why "I forgot it" is not a valid excuse with these people. If you are not a US citizen they have no obligation to let you in.
Wow, this is tough one for me.
On one hand, I can totally understand denying access to someone who has many online associates who post things about mass murder, bomb-making, etc. etc.
On the other hand, I have online 'friends' I haven't seen since childhood, a few of which sometimes post absolutely idiotic things. Maybe somewhat racist memes, etc. I don't feel I need to scold them, I just ignore them as much as possible and hope to see more posts about common interests, like our shared upbringing. I'd hate to judged on those posts (that aren't mine!)
On one hand, I can totally understand denying access to someone who has many online associates who post things about mass murder, bomb-making, etc. etc.
On the other hand, I have online 'friends' I haven't seen since childhood, a few of which sometimes post absolutely idiotic things. Maybe somewhat racist memes, etc. I don't feel I need to scold them, I just ignore them as much as possible and hope to see more posts about common interests, like our shared upbringing. I'd hate to judged on those posts (that aren't mine!)
Already posted and discussed here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20809435
They're cutting off the limb that they're sitting on if they're turning away smart kids. Idiots.
[deleted]
The US’s strength lies in the scores of bright immigrants who come to the universities here to study and later join the work force. Keep treating them like shit and competition will soon step into that role.
Oh, that ship has sailed. It has already happened. We don't realize it yet because we haven't lost any wars because of it yet, but it has happened.
> Keep treating them like shit and competition will soon step into that role.
Canada says hi.
Canada says hi.
Last week I was scanning through the Bay Area FM stations and came across an ad on the Bollywood station. It was a immigration consultant pointing out that that due restrictions to the H-4 visa, it was advisable to immigrate to Canada, and this company could help.
If I wasn’t an American and looking to immigrate, I’d go to Canada. It’s just as good and nicer.
If I wasn’t an American and looking to immigrate, I’d go to Canada. It’s just as good and nicer.
This is literally a growth industry in Canada right now. Toronto is building a big tech sector just taking up people who can't get into the US. The government and establishment are all on board with population growth as a source of economic strength right now.
I know someone that left the Bay Area and moved to Toronto for this very reason. Now he’s become an advocate for others to move to Canada, and even founded a company to help others immigrate to Canada.
https://movnorth.com/
(Miss you Vikram!)
https://movnorth.com/
(Miss you Vikram!)
This, exactly. Here we had a chance to impress on a foreigner that US society is great and filled with good values and all we did was kick him to the curb because of social media connections. We don't make the world think we're their friends by treating impressionable foreigners poorly.
> Here we had a chance to impress on a foreigner that US society is great and filled with good values
That ship has sailed long ago.
That ship has sailed long ago.
Oh nos not the race to the bottom
Not necessarily just the universities. For fun and to make a point I decided to scroll down the list of US's richest and go through their wiki pages until I found a link to an immigrant.
> Bezos was born Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen on January 12, 1964, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the son of Jacklyn Gise Jorgensen and Ted Jorgensen.[7] At the time of his birth, his mother was a 17-year-old high school student, and his father was a bike shop owner.[8] After Jacklyn divorced Ted, she married Cuban immigrant Miguel "Mike" Bezos in April 1968.
That didn't take me very long.
> Bezos was born Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen on January 12, 1964, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the son of Jacklyn Gise Jorgensen and Ted Jorgensen.[7] At the time of his birth, his mother was a 17-year-old high school student, and his father was a bike shop owner.[8] After Jacklyn divorced Ted, she married Cuban immigrant Miguel "Mike" Bezos in April 1968.
That didn't take me very long.
Technically he's not the immigrant, and neither are his birth parents, so I vote you continue your quest.
If you're outraged, great!
I ask that you remember that new powers advocated by the party you trust - such as warrantless border searches - can also be used by the party you do not trust.
Please, please think carefully when the party you like arrogates powers to the government, and punish them with your vote and advocacy, even though you like them.
Examples!
-- The border patrol powers cited in the article actually extend 100 miles from the US border. Do you live within 100 miles of the US border, or do you ever visit places that are? If so, then you may be stopped without probable cause by border patrol. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
-- The President of the United States can put even US citizens on a secret assassination list and have them executed. This was a power not authorized by Congress. Even the legal basis for this - the very law that pasted a veneer of legality on this - is secret. The media kept focusing on "drone attacks", but the method of assassination was not the controversial part of all of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
-- Secret trials, in which the defendant is not even allowed to know they are under trial, and witnesses have gag orders not to reveal this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
-- Mass, warrantless surveillance.
-- The US requires US citizens living abroad to pay taxes to the US government. By itself, this is arguably a patriotic duty of every citizen, even though the US and the dictatorship of Eritrea are the only countries that require this. Unlike Eritrea, however, the US can enforce this on foreign banks, which are required to report your personal economic activity to the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance...
There is more. A lot more.
It makes me nervous when people focus on Trump as a particularly evil anomaly that must be removed at all costs, and then everything can go back to normal. "Normal" is terrifying to me. The virtue of Trump is that people are paying attention, at least: it's difficult for the government to arrogate more powers when people are paying attention. I hope that the outrage against Trump continues when the next Democrat gets in, and all of this creeping authoritarianism will get rolled back. But, I also suspect that's a delusional fantasy.
I ask that you remember that new powers advocated by the party you trust - such as warrantless border searches - can also be used by the party you do not trust.
Please, please think carefully when the party you like arrogates powers to the government, and punish them with your vote and advocacy, even though you like them.
Examples!
-- The border patrol powers cited in the article actually extend 100 miles from the US border. Do you live within 100 miles of the US border, or do you ever visit places that are? If so, then you may be stopped without probable cause by border patrol. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
-- The President of the United States can put even US citizens on a secret assassination list and have them executed. This was a power not authorized by Congress. Even the legal basis for this - the very law that pasted a veneer of legality on this - is secret. The media kept focusing on "drone attacks", but the method of assassination was not the controversial part of all of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
-- Secret trials, in which the defendant is not even allowed to know they are under trial, and witnesses have gag orders not to reveal this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
-- Mass, warrantless surveillance.
-- The US requires US citizens living abroad to pay taxes to the US government. By itself, this is arguably a patriotic duty of every citizen, even though the US and the dictatorship of Eritrea are the only countries that require this. Unlike Eritrea, however, the US can enforce this on foreign banks, which are required to report your personal economic activity to the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance...
There is more. A lot more.
It makes me nervous when people focus on Trump as a particularly evil anomaly that must be removed at all costs, and then everything can go back to normal. "Normal" is terrifying to me. The virtue of Trump is that people are paying attention, at least: it's difficult for the government to arrogate more powers when people are paying attention. I hope that the outrage against Trump continues when the next Democrat gets in, and all of this creeping authoritarianism will get rolled back. But, I also suspect that's a delusional fantasy.
So apparently freedom of speech in the U.S. means "freedom to say whatever the U.S. thinks is right".
While I suppose this may be litigated, the issue isn't with what freedom of speech includes, but that that freedom of speech just isn't applied to immigration process.
Not a U.S. citizen but why would the constitution apply to non-American citizens?
The corresponding provision in European human rights law, article 10, applies to all humans.
Why not?
A constitution is the statement of intent for how you want your country to be (minimums anyway). If you can't even apply those minimums to foreigners what does that say about your country? Your respect for your own rule of law?
Would you question if murder laws applied to non citizens?
A constitution is the statement of intent for how you want your country to be (minimums anyway). If you can't even apply those minimums to foreigners what does that say about your country? Your respect for your own rule of law?
Would you question if murder laws applied to non citizens?
The constitution in general limits the government not individuals.
You don't exactly have freedom of speech until you're a citizen... Since he wasn't a citizen he is not under that law.
Is that true? I thought the 14th Amendment's text "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", coupled with the First Amendment, which have been upheld in court, would provide freedom of speech for non-citizens.
"within its jurisdiction", the "its" refers to "states", ie individual States within the United States. The Constitution (and the amendments) apply to all residents, except those, like diplomats, that are not "within its jurisdiction".
Granting a visa for a non-resident into the US is not subject to either the 1st or 14th amendment. There are SCOTUS cases regarding the border that explicitly have excluded customs and immigration enforcement at the border from these rights.
The US Govt in 1953 (!) expanded the "border" to mean anywhere within 100 miles of the US borders, which is what allows them to stop busses etc and do roadside checks.
Whether this is entirely legal is subject to court challenges.
So yes, anyone resident in the US has freedom of speech under the 1st amendment, including illegal aliens. However, the US govt is entitled under immigration law to hold illegal aliens in detention and deny them a route to express that speech except through legal representatives.
Granting a visa for a non-resident into the US is not subject to either the 1st or 14th amendment. There are SCOTUS cases regarding the border that explicitly have excluded customs and immigration enforcement at the border from these rights.
The US Govt in 1953 (!) expanded the "border" to mean anywhere within 100 miles of the US borders, which is what allows them to stop busses etc and do roadside checks.
Whether this is entirely legal is subject to court challenges.
So yes, anyone resident in the US has freedom of speech under the 1st amendment, including illegal aliens. However, the US govt is entitled under immigration law to hold illegal aliens in detention and deny them a route to express that speech except through legal representatives.
Thanks for your informative reply. (I meant to add a "?" on the end of my second sentence! I've never even been to the US and most of my little knowledge comes from watching The West Wing :-) )
Ah, so not all men are created equal - only U.S.A. citizens.
Yes, that goes in line with the way the U.S.A. treats the rest of the world.
Yes, that goes in line with the way the U.S.A. treats the rest of the world.
The US Constitution only applies to US citizens and those others resident in the US.
If you're not in the US (legally or illegally) then you're not resident and you're not covered.
However, the US is also a signatory to the UN Declaration of Human Rights which is also an international self-executing treaty, and therefore of equal standing to the Constitution in US law. But whether the US Government recognizes the rights under that treaty need to be determined by court cases that haven't happened yet.
If you're not in the US (legally or illegally) then you're not resident and you're not covered.
However, the US is also a signatory to the UN Declaration of Human Rights which is also an international self-executing treaty, and therefore of equal standing to the Constitution in US law. But whether the US Government recognizes the rights under that treaty need to be determined by court cases that haven't happened yet.
If you want the rights then you get to follow the laws of the country too, regardless of where you are.
Additionally pay taxes and all the great things Americans get to pay for.
You act as if preserving America is a bad thing.
Additionally pay taxes and all the great things Americans get to pay for.
You act as if preserving America is a bad thing.
Not the U.S., random workers with no oversight.
Obviously, the US of A don't want any visitors anymore.
Duly noted.
Duly noted.
Not only do some of us don't want visitors, we'd love to completely withdraw all support for the EU and our military bases there, too :)
The amount of complaining the EU does when it's been free riding on The USA's foreign aid and military power for decades its a wee bit annoying.
The amount of complaining the EU does when it's been free riding on The USA's foreign aid and military power for decades its a wee bit annoying.
Wait....are you actually serious?
Let me get this abundantly clear. US has military bases in the EU(and elsewhere) for their own benefit. They are not protecting us, they are not here for any sort of contribution to military power - they are here to project American might across the globe. In case of actual global-scale conflict with say Russia, I have less than zero faith that US army would do anything to defend us, unless it aligned perfectly with their own goals.
I've heard this argument multiple times actually - that somehow EU states should be grateful for "protection" that US is providing the the rest of the world. No, it's the other way around - US should be grateful that those countries let US keep a solid foothold in those parts of the world, but let's not kid ourselves - protecting those countries is probably not even in top 3 of American priorities should an actual war break out.
Let me get this abundantly clear. US has military bases in the EU(and elsewhere) for their own benefit. They are not protecting us, they are not here for any sort of contribution to military power - they are here to project American might across the globe. In case of actual global-scale conflict with say Russia, I have less than zero faith that US army would do anything to defend us, unless it aligned perfectly with their own goals.
I've heard this argument multiple times actually - that somehow EU states should be grateful for "protection" that US is providing the the rest of the world. No, it's the other way around - US should be grateful that those countries let US keep a solid foothold in those parts of the world, but let's not kid ourselves - protecting those countries is probably not even in top 3 of American priorities should an actual war break out.
Honestly, he should know better. Not going to lie, I've got friends that post questionable stuff (drunken antics, random rants) and when I was in school, looking for internships and whatnot I shut down those social media accounts and scrubbed my online life.
Based on the fact he's Palestinian, I'm going to guess there were posts that were anti-US. Guilt by association is a thing and since he's not a citizen, the US doesn't have to let him in. Maybe it's a tad unfair, but he chose to continue to follow those friends online, he could have disengaged...
Based on the fact he's Palestinian, I'm going to guess there were posts that were anti-US. Guilt by association is a thing and since he's not a citizen, the US doesn't have to let him in. Maybe it's a tad unfair, but he chose to continue to follow those friends online, he could have disengaged...
Before throwing the first stone I would look through my own accounts. The Facebook algorithm doesn't even show you what your friends are posting for years, only those you engage with.
Maybe now people will stop using social media. Ah, wait, no. Everything in the name of convenience.
Immigration will likely think you're lying if you say you don't use any form of social media.
I find this to be equally as frustrating. If I don't use social media then I don't use social media.
Maybe, but if you claim just WeChat, they will probably give up since they don’t Chinese.
You think they have someone that reads Arabic on site?
They probably use some kind of translation service.
They probably use some kind of translation service.
Really?
"the US is a goat"
Could reasonably be an insult or a compliment, an automated tool wouldn't be able to say which.
Or by translation service, do you mean a person.
"the US is a goat"
Could reasonably be an insult or a compliment, an automated tool wouldn't be able to say which.
Or by translation service, do you mean a person.
In real time? Maybe. But their tools are probably all geared towards western services like Facebook.
You can create new social media accounts that only follow your mom, dad and the president. Switch back to the real accounts once you're safe.
What if your mom is a outspoken communist?
Then you need to turn her in to the authorities for disloyalty, of course.
Then sadly they probably know who you are already.
I'll rather not visit the US, thank you very much.
Shame, it is a wonderful place with wonderful people in it. So is Canada, who gave me grief last time I went there. Still worth it.
Nothing in there can be worth being treated like a criminal, possibly detained for hours, and then being told by someone on a power trip that they don't like your social media so you're going to be sent back and potentially banned forever. Yes I'd love to visit American national parks, but I think I'll manage, there's pleny of beautiful nature in other places too.
As much as I despise facebook et al surely this problem lies completely with the over-reach of customs.
If anything the solution is to boycott the US. This is ludicrous.
If anything the solution is to boycott the US. This is ludicrous.
This is just one example.
Insurance companies, banks etc. can use social media connections. Friends with risky hobbies and insurance premiums go up. Unemployed friends and it's harder to get mortgage loan.
Insurance companies, banks etc. can use social media connections. Friends with risky hobbies and insurance premiums go up. Unemployed friends and it's harder to get mortgage loan.
And that are all examples of despicable behavior that has no place in society and are all deserving of jail time.
What's wrong isn't social media enabling that (there are countless of other sources anyway), it is the act of actually doing it.
What's wrong isn't social media enabling that (there are countless of other sources anyway), it is the act of actually doing it.
Here's one problem. They don't have to do this directly. They could outsource to third party analytics firms who provide only "customer scoring" that turns out to be slightly more accurate than in-house, privacy sensitive models. Slightly more accurate turns out to be millions or billions of dollars. It becomes impossible to not use this information. And that behind the scenes information consists of analytics firms who can link not just your social media accounts, but various fingerprinting sources with varying degrees of accuracy.
Given the complexity, people get lost in the numbers. That some people are intentionally blacklisted seems inevitable. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if there is any alternative or safety from it.
Given the complexity, people get lost in the numbers. That some people are intentionally blacklisted seems inevitable. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if there is any alternative or safety from it.
Hiring someone else to do the dirty-work has never been acceptable.
GDPR is a start.
GDPR is a start.
With great power lies great responsibility. People give great power by using centralized social media from a single nation without fully understanding the implications of it.
> centralized social media from a single nation
Does this matter? Would it make any difference if the same message was spotted on a self-hosted out-of-us mastodon instance?
Does this matter? Would it make any difference if the same message was spotted on a self-hosted out-of-us mastodon instance?
Yes, it certainly does, for a variety of reasons.
First of all, it is much easier and cost-effective to gain full knowledge of the graph data in a centralized system. Instead, by working on a distributed system, we could change the protocol to increase the effort needed to mine data.
Second of all, we gain the opportunity to know who or what has requested our data. We can decide to block these requests if they are used against us.
Lastly, we can distribute the available power of information over multiple nations. When policies change, data (and information) can flow to places where these policies have no effect.
First of all, it is much easier and cost-effective to gain full knowledge of the graph data in a centralized system. Instead, by working on a distributed system, we could change the protocol to increase the effort needed to mine data.
Second of all, we gain the opportunity to know who or what has requested our data. We can decide to block these requests if they are used against us.
Lastly, we can distribute the available power of information over multiple nations. When policies change, data (and information) can flow to places where these policies have no effect.
> much easier and cost-effective to gain full knowledge of the graph data in a centralized system
At least right now, that's not true. It's harder to automatically scrape Facebook than a random decentralised system - mainly because decentralised systems need to have the data sharing built in to work. Sharing the data in a structured way is the central idea behind them.
> We can decide to block these requests if they are used against us.
You're not going to be able to block this access from gov only. If known networks become blocked, new gateways can be obtained for less money than is worth mentioning.
> When policies change, data (and information) can flow to places where these policies have no effect.
Again, if you're interested in anything resembling a social network, you'll need to share your data with a lot of people. Unless you want to keep it all private - you can do the same thing on FB currently, and border control will not have access to it.
At least right now, that's not true. It's harder to automatically scrape Facebook than a random decentralised system - mainly because decentralised systems need to have the data sharing built in to work. Sharing the data in a structured way is the central idea behind them.
> We can decide to block these requests if they are used against us.
You're not going to be able to block this access from gov only. If known networks become blocked, new gateways can be obtained for less money than is worth mentioning.
> When policies change, data (and information) can flow to places where these policies have no effect.
Again, if you're interested in anything resembling a social network, you'll need to share your data with a lot of people. Unless you want to keep it all private - you can do the same thing on FB currently, and border control will not have access to it.
> At least right now, that's not true. It's harder to automatically scrape Facebook than a random decentralised system - mainly because decentralised systems need to have the data sharing built in to work. Sharing the data in a structured way is the central idea behind them.
I disagree. It is harder for Joe Average, but for state actors MUCH easier to scrape one system, instead of thousands. Also, it is possible to design decentralized systems in such a way that scraping becomes almost impossible.
> You're not going to be able to block this access from gov only. If known networks become blocked, new gateways can be obtained for less money than is worth mentioning.
You can block based on more than IP address. Decentralized systems can use networks of trust to curtail unwanted information gathering.
> Again, if you're interested in anything resembling a social network, you'll need to share your data with a lot of people. Unless you want to keep it all private - you can do the same thing on FB currently, and border control will not have access to it.
Of course border control has access to it, regardless of your privacy settings. Do you really believe FB has full control over your data?
I disagree. It is harder for Joe Average, but for state actors MUCH easier to scrape one system, instead of thousands. Also, it is possible to design decentralized systems in such a way that scraping becomes almost impossible.
> You're not going to be able to block this access from gov only. If known networks become blocked, new gateways can be obtained for less money than is worth mentioning.
You can block based on more than IP address. Decentralized systems can use networks of trust to curtail unwanted information gathering.
> Again, if you're interested in anything resembling a social network, you'll need to share your data with a lot of people. Unless you want to keep it all private - you can do the same thing on FB currently, and border control will not have access to it.
Of course border control has access to it, regardless of your privacy settings. Do you really believe FB has full control over your data?
How is this the conclusion you're reaching first? Does the unbelievable invasion of privacy and infringement on freedom of speech not raise your ire first and foremost?
Can you imagine being denied the right to travel or to temporarily relocate for school or work in a theoretically democratic country only to be denied entry because you or your friends expressed a personal, private, inconsequential and most likely fleeting opinion in the past?
Can you imagine being denied the right to travel or to temporarily relocate for school or work in a theoretically democratic country only to be denied entry because you or your friends expressed a personal, private, inconsequential and most likely fleeting opinion in the past?
Your freedom is primarily based on the amount of power you decide to give to others. Due to social media, a tremendous asymmetry of power has been created in the hands of a few. This power is made visible in areas that are slightly outside of normal jurisdiction, such as at US border control.
Our normal tendency is to want to regulate, but this can only be done to a limited extend. Too much regulation can stifle innovation or place too much power in the hands of the regulators.
I'm not arguing against regulation. I am arguing that we should understand that our social media use (among others) comes at a very high cost to our freedoms. Proportional use, (proportional to our ability to regulate or our willingness to provide asymmetric information power) is warranted.
Our normal tendency is to want to regulate, but this can only be done to a limited extend. Too much regulation can stifle innovation or place too much power in the hands of the regulators.
I'm not arguing against regulation. I am arguing that we should understand that our social media use (among others) comes at a very high cost to our freedoms. Proportional use, (proportional to our ability to regulate or our willingness to provide asymmetric information power) is warranted.
Theoretically democratic? Protections against democracy are one of the only reasons that the US still allows unskilled immigrants at all. The majority of the US population would overwhelmingly support the visa denial of a brown-skinned Muslim-sounding guy whose Facebook friends had posted suspect content.
They search your private discussions. A CBP agent read my skype discussions then called my girlfriend at work to ask where she sees our relationship going. Those people have absolutely no ethics, moral limit nor legal limits, they just hate foreigners and want them out.
Did you have to give you password or your device? I am just wondering how they got access to your skype account.
Without seeing the comments it's difficult to know if this is a reasonable call or not. I can certainly imagine posts from Facebook friends that I think would be disqualifying for a visa, but I can also imagine government employees overreacting.
One imaginary scenario that occurs to me is the one where he is admitted, commits a terrorist act, and then everyone looks at his friends on Facebook who are posting the kind of content that would make you suspect terrorism, and we'd wonder - why is a person so obviously terrorist adjacent admitted to the country?
On the other hand, my immediate thought on reading this is that I wouldn't let my phone, and definitely not my accounts, get searched on visiting a foreign country. I'd also support people encrypting their phones and turning them off prior to government checkpoints. I just don't know how to square my intuitions there with my doubts about this case.
Finally, it strikes me as a bit elitist of the NYT to add "Harvard Student" to the title. If this choice is wrong, it's wrong regardless of which school he's been admitted to. If we can't judge people based on their friends, then we should apply that standard to the Harvard-bound and non Harvard-bound alike.
One imaginary scenario that occurs to me is the one where he is admitted, commits a terrorist act, and then everyone looks at his friends on Facebook who are posting the kind of content that would make you suspect terrorism, and we'd wonder - why is a person so obviously terrorist adjacent admitted to the country?
On the other hand, my immediate thought on reading this is that I wouldn't let my phone, and definitely not my accounts, get searched on visiting a foreign country. I'd also support people encrypting their phones and turning them off prior to government checkpoints. I just don't know how to square my intuitions there with my doubts about this case.
Finally, it strikes me as a bit elitist of the NYT to add "Harvard Student" to the title. If this choice is wrong, it's wrong regardless of which school he's been admitted to. If we can't judge people based on their friends, then we should apply that standard to the Harvard-bound and non Harvard-bound alike.
You go from "difficult to know if this is a reasonable call or not" to an imaginary scenario where you dream up the perfect scenario for some CBP agent to make it reasonable according to a pretty clear cut politicial narrative, not a factual one. Terrorists usually do not engage with the NYT to make headlines after being rejected entry to a country. These are people, please treat them like that. This mentality always reminds me of the mathematician that was delayed for working on their equations [0]. Stuff like this is grounded in weird and unrealistic terror fears and affects people.
> I wouldn't let my phone, and definitely not my accounts, get searched on visiting a foreign country.
So, you either don't travel or look caucasian enough for that to not be an issue for you personally so far? That's great but it's not like this is even a US-only thing, this is a quite common occurrence these days.
> Finally, it strikes me as a bit elitist of the NYT to add "Harvard Student" to the title.
With current administration actively villainizing citizens of other countries, reporting on the academic background of those affected seems perfectly reasonable.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/07/professor-fl...
> I wouldn't let my phone, and definitely not my accounts, get searched on visiting a foreign country.
So, you either don't travel or look caucasian enough for that to not be an issue for you personally so far? That's great but it's not like this is even a US-only thing, this is a quite common occurrence these days.
> Finally, it strikes me as a bit elitist of the NYT to add "Harvard Student" to the title.
With current administration actively villainizing citizens of other countries, reporting on the academic background of those affected seems perfectly reasonable.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/07/professor-fl...
>> That's great but it's not like this is even a US-only thing, this is a quite common occurrence these days.
I never heard of any of that except from the US and China.
I never heard of any of that except from the US and China.
North Korea does it, too.
I’ve never had anything beyond a bag search going into China - zero interest in my phone or online accounts.
I heard phone seizures were common when entering from the western continental route (Kazakhstan, Kyrgiztan).
Not when I drove in that way about four years ago, it wasn’t, but it’s entirely possible it has changed in the interim.
I guess that's more due to those two being in the media more often due to potential abuses. The UK, Canada, and Australia all have similar processes in place, with various degrees of restrictions. I'm sure there's others I'm not familiar with.
I don't think you've read my comment charitably.
If there's a more charitable interpretation I've missed then I really apologize but it honestly did not read that way.
The scenario you paint is fictional and seems constructed to give CBP every benefit of doubt without regarding the other side, which in a power relationship is not productive imho. It's dismissing the actually affected person and circumstances like the existing Visa approval. It's a top-level post bringing in terrorism whereas the article merely claims "an agent had yelled at him and “said she found people posting political points of view that oppose the U.S. on my friend list.”". There's a large gap between terrorism and viewpoints opposing the US, at the sole discretion of some CBP agent(s) in this case. The premise of not letting border agencies search your devices is just not supported by reality.
The scenario you paint is fictional and seems constructed to give CBP every benefit of doubt without regarding the other side, which in a power relationship is not productive imho. It's dismissing the actually affected person and circumstances like the existing Visa approval. It's a top-level post bringing in terrorism whereas the article merely claims "an agent had yelled at him and “said she found people posting political points of view that oppose the U.S. on my friend list.”". There's a large gap between terrorism and viewpoints opposing the US, at the sole discretion of some CBP agent(s) in this case. The premise of not letting border agencies search your devices is just not supported by reality.
What I wrote is obviously a fictional scenario, I described it as an "imaginary scenario". My scenario is absolutely to give CBP the benefit of the doubt. My feeling is that people should be given the benefit of the doubt, especially when there is a NYT article presenting only the case of their accuser.
How I perceived this is a national paper saying "This person was terribly mistreated!" And my observation is along the lines of "Without knowing the content, we can't tell whether this is justified or not".
I perceive you being uncharitable towards my comment because:
1. You deride my hypothetical as "imaginary scenario", "dream", "perfect scenario", and "not a factual one". Which, yes, of course, it's not factual. It's explicitly a hypothetical.
2. You write "Terrorists usually do not engage with the NYT" as if I was accusing the person denied entry of being a terrorist. Instead, I was writing that there was a possible scenario where a border agent sees Facebook content that is disqualifying for admittance to the US. Obviously, in both real life, and in my hypothetical, the fact that the person would engage with the NYT was unknown. It's also not at all clear that willingness to engage with the NYT is inversely correlated with a propensity for terrorism.
3. You liken my concerns to someone frightened by mathematical formula. Do you agree that it is possible to see something in a Facebook feed that you think should disqualify someone for admittance to the US? e.g. You could see the person was friends with people known to be threats, you could see that details of planned or thwarted attacks, etc. If you do agree with me, then it seems very strange to me that you would describe this concern as a kind of ignorant fear.
4. In the context of someone being denied admittance to the country for information on their Facebook feed, when I wrote that I wouldn't share my Facebook information, your response is to try and shame me for my race and frequency of travel? Obviously, there are many ways to refuse to let one's phone or accounts fall into hands of the CBP. You could use disk encryption, you could sign out of your accounts and clear the cookies and history, you could have a fake account, etc. Again though, you aren't reading me charitably and conclude that I would instead rely on my white privilege or my lack of travel to protect me.
5. You write that my comment is "without regard for the other side". In fact, I wrote explicitly that I could imagine government agents overreacting, that I supported people keeping their data private with encryption, and that my intuition was to keep my data private. It seems to me that I considered both sides, and you ignored all points where I considered the aggrieved party's side, and focused on the parts of my comment where I pointed out that it is possible that CBP behaved appropriately.
There are a few more instances, but I'm running out of time and hope I've made my point.
How I perceived this is a national paper saying "This person was terribly mistreated!" And my observation is along the lines of "Without knowing the content, we can't tell whether this is justified or not".
I perceive you being uncharitable towards my comment because:
1. You deride my hypothetical as "imaginary scenario", "dream", "perfect scenario", and "not a factual one". Which, yes, of course, it's not factual. It's explicitly a hypothetical.
2. You write "Terrorists usually do not engage with the NYT" as if I was accusing the person denied entry of being a terrorist. Instead, I was writing that there was a possible scenario where a border agent sees Facebook content that is disqualifying for admittance to the US. Obviously, in both real life, and in my hypothetical, the fact that the person would engage with the NYT was unknown. It's also not at all clear that willingness to engage with the NYT is inversely correlated with a propensity for terrorism.
3. You liken my concerns to someone frightened by mathematical formula. Do you agree that it is possible to see something in a Facebook feed that you think should disqualify someone for admittance to the US? e.g. You could see the person was friends with people known to be threats, you could see that details of planned or thwarted attacks, etc. If you do agree with me, then it seems very strange to me that you would describe this concern as a kind of ignorant fear.
4. In the context of someone being denied admittance to the country for information on their Facebook feed, when I wrote that I wouldn't share my Facebook information, your response is to try and shame me for my race and frequency of travel? Obviously, there are many ways to refuse to let one's phone or accounts fall into hands of the CBP. You could use disk encryption, you could sign out of your accounts and clear the cookies and history, you could have a fake account, etc. Again though, you aren't reading me charitably and conclude that I would instead rely on my white privilege or my lack of travel to protect me.
5. You write that my comment is "without regard for the other side". In fact, I wrote explicitly that I could imagine government agents overreacting, that I supported people keeping their data private with encryption, and that my intuition was to keep my data private. It seems to me that I considered both sides, and you ignored all points where I considered the aggrieved party's side, and focused on the parts of my comment where I pointed out that it is possible that CBP behaved appropriately.
There are a few more instances, but I'm running out of time and hope I've made my point.
> hope I've made my point.
You did, thank you. Just saw this reply and since I cannot appropriately edit mine, I wanted to at least acknowledge that part. While I don't agree with your original post I certainly view it differently now.
You did, thank you. Just saw this reply and since I cannot appropriately edit mine, I wanted to at least acknowledge that part. While I don't agree with your original post I certainly view it differently now.
Or... Delete your social media before you apply so there is nothing to follow?
What do you want more, your 30 followers who you can get back or entry into the US?
What do you want more, your 30 followers who you can get back or entry into the US?
That would look utterly suspicious. If I was a border patrol agent I would not let anyone in who deleted their social media accounts just to get in into the country, who knows what they are trying to hide.
How can you prove you had one if you never tell them? Delete it and wait a month, or even up to a year.
The agent wouldn't know the profile existed if you don't tell them about it. It might also just be wise to not use any social media if you want to enter.
It all comes down to preference and how smoothly you want the process to be
The agent wouldn't know the profile existed if you don't tell them about it. It might also just be wise to not use any social media if you want to enter.
It all comes down to preference and how smoothly you want the process to be
It's easy to check for deleted ones on archive.org or in google cache and I would guess they have access to much more powerful tools to cross check if you're lying about this. For example access to Faceboocks back-end where your account is marked as hidden. And then they would obviously ask you why you were lying.
Turn off your encrypted phone before border control works out like this:
Detained the maximum time waiting for you to give up. If you don't give up, deported.
Just don't bring your normal phone on trips. Get a burner phone with just Mum/Dad contacts and leave the real one home.
Detained the maximum time waiting for you to give up. If you don't give up, deported.
Just don't bring your normal phone on trips. Get a burner phone with just Mum/Dad contacts and leave the real one home.
Or you know - Just not go to places that demand to look through your phone.
> On the other hand, my immediate thought on reading this is that I wouldn't let my phone, and definitely not my accounts, get searched on visiting a foreign country.
You frequently don't have a choice.
You frequently don't have a choice.
> Without seeing the comments it's difficult to know if this is a reasonable call or not. I can certainly imagine posts from Facebook friends that I think would be disqualifying for a visa, but I can also imagine government employees overreacting.
He already received a visa. That was already approved. This was the CBP agent at the border.
> On the other hand, my immediate thought on reading this is that I wouldn't let my phone, and definitely not my accounts, get searched on visiting a foreign country. I'd also support people encrypting their phones and turning them off prior to government checkpoints. I just don't know how to square my intuitions there with my doubts about this case.
Then you will enjoy a prompt flight home. Do you really believe that the customs agent will say "oh darn, he said no. I guess I have to let him in then."
> ...it strikes me as a bit elitist of the NYT to add "Harvard Student" to the title...
This is called adding context. It shows how anyone can be affected by the capricious rules. A harvard student with an approved student visa was denied entry. This means he was vetted by the US State Department and Harvard University. This isn't just some tourist coming to see the sights.
Should the NY Times have simply said "university student?" What would that have helped?
He already received a visa. That was already approved. This was the CBP agent at the border.
> On the other hand, my immediate thought on reading this is that I wouldn't let my phone, and definitely not my accounts, get searched on visiting a foreign country. I'd also support people encrypting their phones and turning them off prior to government checkpoints. I just don't know how to square my intuitions there with my doubts about this case.
Then you will enjoy a prompt flight home. Do you really believe that the customs agent will say "oh darn, he said no. I guess I have to let him in then."
> ...it strikes me as a bit elitist of the NYT to add "Harvard Student" to the title...
This is called adding context. It shows how anyone can be affected by the capricious rules. A harvard student with an approved student visa was denied entry. This means he was vetted by the US State Department and Harvard University. This isn't just some tourist coming to see the sights.
Should the NY Times have simply said "university student?" What would that have helped?