This is not the first time I'm noticing how US is checking every passenger against some database with everything he said online. This makes me a lot less likely to ever visit the US, and if awareness about cases like these grows, I'm sure others will think the same way.
This makes me more scared living in the US. I am approaching the level of fear of the government that is close to what I remember having from the older Soviet Union (note: I never living the harsher political times there, mostly during the mid 80s when stuff was thawing out).
It is not a fear that legally I can't talk or do things. It is fear again irrationality and against bureaucratic mistakes. You pissed off one police officer or one border patrol agent and now you are on some kind of secret database or black list for life.
Someone who has lived in communist countries understands the danger of this trend a lot better than Americans do, it seems. There is Reddit in other sites that raise awareness about situations like these, but I don't think there's a critical mass yet to turn things around. The vast majority of Americans is probably still more afraid about terrorists than they are of this trend in Government, therefore the trend will continue.
"The vast majority of Americans is probably still more afraid about terrorists than they are of this trend in Government, therefore the trend will continue."
Government border checks are a bigger problem than religious terrorists?
No, intrusive government government checks combined with government databases of citizens' online activities are a bigger problem than religious terrorists.
I don't know that it's possible to make such a comparison, since the people who are fighting for these intrusive government checks and databases ARE religious terrorists.
If you don't want it known, don't put it into the public sphere. You call the checks intrusive, I don't quite mind the idea that we are attempting to figure out who exactly the people are that are coming across American borders into this country. I'm sure you disagree.
And my answer would simply be no. In no way do I see monitoring the flow of humans into our country as a bigger problem than religious terrorists whose sole intent is to murder and maim as many innocent people as they can. shrugs
Very disappointed to hear that most people view a simple border check as more dangerous than a fanatical religious terrorist. Again, I know this is not a popular view, and will surely get more downvotes. Just kind of sad to me, to be honest.
> most people view a simple border check as more dangerous than a fanatical religious terrorist.
Which terrorist?
So by your logic, because there was a fanatical religious terrorist at some point in time, it is perfectly ok for this country to start prying into everyone's (public and private) accounts, infer who knows what from what they read there ("You write on twitter you are going to have a _blast_!? in Boston" "Ok, step over here please"), and then proceed to interrogate people at the border.
It seems like the guy was added to some black database somewhere. Are you in that database too? Can you check who is in there? Do you know how one gets added or removed from it?
Are you prepared to justify all the groping, and x-raying going in airports because because of a religious terrorist. What else are you willing to sacrifice because of this religious terrorist.
I am, for one, also very disappointed to see that you and others have drunk the cool-aid that has been flowing from Washington D.C. (This is a War on Terror, Be Afraid, Be Prepared for More Attacks, We Must Invade etc. etc.)
I think you misunderstand. It's like saying I'm more afraid of twisting my ankle than getting struck by a meteorite; It's not that the latter isn't worse than the former, but rather that the latter is less of a threat when actual probability is taken into account.
"It seems like the guy was added to some black database somewhere."
Or, a much more simple explanation as was outlined in a post above, is that they asked what he does for a living, and he mentioned cryptographic technologies. Which is a controlled export in this country. Which would naturally raise the curiousity of someone whose job it is to monitor the flow of humans and properties in and out of this country.
Someone who enters and leaves this country frequently, who works in an area that is a defined controlled export of this country...
Tell me, if your job was a border agent, would you be curious? Would you interview that person? Wouldn't you be horrible at your job if you didn't?
The point of those religious fanatics is to kill the influence the US has so they can increase their influence. Every time someone says they aren't going back to the US because of their last experience at customs we lose influence. When a company avoids doing business with the US because of our laws we lose influence.
The simple border checks are symbolic in nature. It means we are intentionally excluding people from our conversations. Eventually those people will form a new dialog without us. Think about Pakistan, they are our allies in name only. The population doesn't like us, government actively works against with states who are not our friends.
Are you aware of the level of details people have to report (or have reported by the airline and weird treaties I'll never understand) to enter this fine country?
How many people are scanned (using information that's, in spite of your advice of 'not putting things in public', readily available to the US immigration and border control)? How many of those are terrorists?
>I don't quite mind the idea that we are attempting to figure out who exactly the people are that are coming across American borders into this country.
What exactly does the kind of software a person develops have to do with whether they should be allowed entry into the USA?
Karunamon: absolutely nothing, on the face of it. And that is my entire point: I don't doubt this is how the developer interpreted these events, but if you can scroll up to see my post, I am 100% skeptical that there is some kind of silly campaign to keep crypto devs out of the country through intimidation at the border. It simply makes no sense when you take a step back and extrapolate the larger implications. It's very easy to roll your eyes and say, "Here goes that government of ours, AGAIN". It's very easy to have that emotional reaction, but in my obviously unpopular view here, it doesn't jive with reality.
Another poster, untog, made an interesting point I agree with. He said it better than I can summarize, so let me copy/paste:
"When you arrive at their desk, they ask "what do you do for a living and what does your company do?". If you answer "The company makes chat software", you'd walk straight through. If you say "The company makes encrypted, secure chat software" then they are going to ask further questions. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a watchlist of words to listen out for, and "encryption" is one of them. Encryption is subject to export controls:
Encrpytion is subject to export controls. Obviously, if there are controls on such a product, and you are an individual coming in and out of the country frequently, working on crypto for an American company... They are going to be interested. It's their job to monitor, inspect and even restrict the flow of humans and controlled properties in and out of the country. They'd be terrible at their job if they didn't want to hear more about a controlled export.
If you were a nuclear scientist working on energy research in America, and nuclear components and intelligence properties are a controlled export... Would you be surprised if someone stopped you at the border?
My point is not to equate crypto with nuclear research, it's to equate crypto with another controlled export.
to further expand, let me copy/paste my first response to this entire situation:
"1) Why? I presume your point is that the government is attempting in a very, very, very round-about way to stifle free speech? Please inform me if this is not your point, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
2) What would that accomplish. We live in an era of instant communication and transportation of software. Developers can work on products from anywhere in the globe. If this man was denied entry to the United States, what is stopping him from simply working for his company from abroad? The answer: nothing.
It would serve pretty much zero purpose to run a campaign of intimidation against an incredibly small subset of the developer population... Programmers with cryptographic expertise who frequently travel in and outside of the United States... I don't get it. What about all of those with crypto experience who are already in the US and don't travel. Aren't they a threat? Are they being targeted? Where are their stories?
Doesn't the government, when they are looking to either break or make these same crypto software, draw from the same talent pool as private industry here in America? Why would they run that talent out of town?
If the US government wanted to suppress cryptographic research or otherwise circumvent it in an effort to subvert Free Speech, don't you think there are more precise and non-haphazard-and-idiotic ways of doing it?
This goes against the general sentiment of comments I've seen in this article, but I just have to say it. I think the idea is ridiculous and above all, completely inefficient for the goals everyone is ascribing to the border agents and the government here.
Logic doesn't really back this up. I can't imagine the point of this. I am not naive enough to think the government doesn't do some shady stuff, but I simply don't see the point and don't see this as an effective tool in whatever their war on developers is supposed to be."
Well, consider Arizona: right now, I have a grad-student housemate who simply cannot set foot there, despite being here 100% legally. Unfortunately for the purpose of visiting that state, he has noticeably brown skin, and his papers are hundreds of miles away in the home he grew up in. That's a pretty deep restriction on freedom.
Even if someone has their papers easily accessible, it's a very scary thought that if you're driving from one city to another, the government officer has the right to stop you and demand you show your papers for no reason. And that's assuming everything going on is above-board. If he came across a corrupt cop, it's pretty terrifying to think about the possibilities of what could happen.
And this is becoming the norm, simply because we as a society have decided that virtually everything is permitted to "protect our borders."
1) You simply do not understand the law as written. That is not how it works. You do not get randomly stopped because you have brown skin. I know this is a popular misinterpretation of the law, so I understand why you say this.
2) Your example of a corrupt cop: What is your point. If you come across a corrupt law enforcement officer, they can do whatever they want to you. They can plant enough drugs to put you away for a decade. Does this mean we should get rid of police officers? Of course not. Because there is a possibility of corruption in the police forces of AZ that may lead to a few edge cases where people are mistreated and improperly detained, does that mean we should not have peace officers protecting the border at all? Does this mean we should not, when someone commits a crime, be able to ask if they are legal citizens of the United States of America?
My view is that this is not unreasonable. I know many of you disagree. shrugs
3) Why do you put "protect our borders" in quotes. Do you think that the idea of a sovereign block of land with the ability to restrict the input and output of human flow in that area of land is a farce?
I think his point, which is a valid answer to your question, is that we now have laws that force law-abiding citizens to carry their documentation with them everywhere they go. While I believe this is more of an immigration issue than a terrorist issue, I do have to say that something like this would have never passed pre-911. This is fine for nice-lookin white folks, but for everyone else, a law like this can and will be selectively enforced.
The point is that we are slipping further and further into the realm of handing over control of our lives to government bodies whose purpose is neither our safety or freedom, but power.
If you plan on committing a crime, yes. Please carry your documentation with you. If you don't, feel free to carry on with life as normal.
(sorry, I know this is rather flippant and intended to be humorous/tongue-in-cheek.. I simply don't see this radical expansion of slippery-slope philosophy that many of you do.)
Yeah, if you plan on getting pulled over for speeding. Or accidentally getting your car towed, or accidentally getting into a bar fight. Or getting pulled over for driving, ahem, suspiciously. If those things, you should definitely always have your papers on you.
Or witnessing a crime. Or being a victim to a crime. Definite situations where you should plan to have your papers on you.
Most people are not violent criminals. Most people still have run-ins with the police at some point in their life.
Particularly if you have darker skin.
That's why my housemate can't go into Arizona, despite being here legally.
The Soviet Union also had perfectly valid reasons for requiring that everyone have their papers on them at all times. There were genuinely foreign spies moving around, and the government of the Soviet Union had a genuine interest in doing everything necessary to capture and neutralize them. That doesn't change the fact that it's a terrifying encroachment on your freedoms if you've always got to have your papers on you. Particularly if you're a dis-empowered minority.
This is such a ridiculous statement, your friend can't go into the entire state of Arizona out of fear for being harrassed? Hyperbole much?
By the way, I carry my documentation every single day. As do 99% of all of you. It's called a drivers license. You can't operate a vehicle without one, and it's valid proof against Arizona's immigration laws that you are not an illegal alien. So if your friend is pulled over for any reason, he's going to have his proof right there.. Please stop with this baloney that your friend can't enter the state of AZ. It's just silly. If he doesn't want to go to the state as a form of protest against the law, so be it.
re #1 -- i'm going to take a stab in the dark: you're white
Because "how it works" is indeed that people get randomly stopped because they have brown skin. For example, driving while black. You're white so you ignore this, but other people can't. If you cared to understand this, the knowledge is trivially available.
The US border agents claim the ability to set up checkpoints as far as 100 miles from the border, as I recall. And they use this power. I live in Canada, but driving through Vermont I've seen "border" checkpoints located several hours from what you or I might think of as the actual border.
Random house checks, stops on the street, curfew, mandatory information delivery from private companies (not that this isn't happening already)...just to name a few possibilities.
To be honest, my mind is blown. The activities you have described are not the country I live in. I don't know how else to say it, and this is not meant to be an attack. We simply do not view the world the same way, and I guess that happens in a country of 300,000,00 people.
There is no evidence that they checked him against some database with everything he said online. It sounds to me like a completely routine check.
This is standard procedure, and it is not a bad thing. If you are a border control agent and you want to assess if a businessman coming through is a security threat, you don't ask him, "Are you a security threat?" No, you ask about his work and get into his conversation. If he's honest and straightforward, you move on. If you catch a discrepancy in his story or he is oddly defensive (as it sounds was the case here), you ask some more questions to figure out what is going on.
Personally, I enjoy talking about my work. I cross a lot of borders and it can be a pleasure to converse with an agent who is honestly interested. Yes, 45 minutes to an hour would be annoying, but it isn't that terrible and in this case he may have brought it on himself, we can't know.
