IMHO, the only practical avenue for non-catastrophic regime change is to coordinate through encrypted electronic communication, which brings us right back to the EFF - covering us while we build systems that route around these fuckers.
Yet another of these awful stories. And yet again, the same "Trump administration blablabla. Since Trump blablabla".
This shit has been going on for a long time, Trump seating in the oval office has nothing to do with how CBP is behaving. Making it about which party is currently in power is playing the game these agencies are to happy to see you play. Do people really think that voting democrat in a few years will change anything?
> Trump seating in the oval office has nothing to do with how CBP is behaving.
Highly doubtful. Practically as soon as the Trump administration came in, they fired the outsider police- and FBI veteran that the Obama administration had brought on to head up the CBP and change its insular- and overly-confrontational culture. The fired outsider was strongly opposed by the border-guards union, which, surprise, had prominently endorsed Trump's candidacy because of his emphasis on border security during the campaign. [0]
I agree that Trump has influence on CBP, but it's still true that warrantless searches of laptops and phones predate Trump (and Obama). It's not just the US either, I had my laptop searched returning to Canada once. I get that it's in the name of security, but the violation of privacy without any evidence to warrant it, is indecent and dehumanizing.
One difference though, Canadian Customs didn't say I wouldn't be allowed to enter the country (I am a Canadian citizen after all). They just said my laptop wouldn't be allowed to enter. I suspect the same is true for the author. Even if they said he wouldn't be allowed to enter, I don't believe that's consistent with US law.
While it is correct that none of the administrations since 2001 has improved anything in this regard, under Trump things are definitely not becoming better. Those who are telling us "but only illegal immigrants suffer", are wrong -- everybody is having it much worse, illegal immigrants (who are people too, and most of them are not doing anything wrong), legal immigrants (waiting times and quotas are getting nearly impassable), and American citizens, who have their rights violated.
Some of the Americans still think that most of these things are good, they think that all immigration is intrinsically bad for America, and perhaps they voted for Trump because of that. I, of course, do not agree (as an immigrant myself, from Russia to Switzerland), but as American voters, it is up to them to decide, this is a valid point to start the discussion -- as long as the truth is acknowledged, and not hidden behind statements like "it's only about illegal immigrants".
I totally agree and in a way this is exactly my point. Why blur the discussion with a spiel about Trump when we all know this has been going on for a long time. TSA, CBP, Guitmo, etc Trump didn't set up all of these.
By constantly blaming the Trump administration, all these articles are doing is 1)lure anti-Trumpist to believe that all we have to do is vote for the other guy to fix it, 2) alienate Trump-supporters who will feel attacked and basically stop reading.
That would be ignoring the very deliberate and massive shift in behaviour from both CBP and Fatherland Security ushered in deliberately and noisily by Trump.
It's sufficient to have been an international traveler before Trump and since Trump to bear witness to the night & day difference, as well.
It's worse under Trump than even the worst excesses of the Bush Jr. time.
It IS politics as this "man" has staked his entire administration upon being mean and harsh and fighting a war with the entire world at once. Spare me.
I'd say it's symptoms vs cause. America has grown increasingly xenophobic, and as a result you have a POTUS with a base that rallies around him more when he fear-mongers in direct contradiction to easily verified data. Things definitely weren't going swimmingly before Trump, but trying to separate Trump completely and pretend like Obama's border policies were just as bad is also inaccurate.
> illegal immigrants (who are people too, and most of them are not doing anything wrong)
I'm having a hard time understanding this point. Aren't illegal immigrants by definition doing/have done something wrong by virtue of proper inclusion in that set?
I think that you are confusing "being/doing wrong" and "violating some particular law". Laws can be arbitrary: in some countries, it is e.g. illegal to be gay, or profess some religions, etc.
Sure, but the choice to include them in that set is what's in question. Someone who crosses the border and makes an asylum claim may have technically made an illegal entry, but their status is under review to determine if they're a refugee or not. Most refugees can't simply make a claim from the country that they're fleeing, because the government that they're running away from isn't going to help them get their documents in order. Plus they're in danger while they're there. They're removing the imminent threat and waiting here while their status is sorted out.
I am not an expert in the law, but I do not consider someone who has legitimately and properly applied for asylum to be an illegal immigrant (a term which to me [and I believe most others] describes an economic migrant who has failed to follow the established practices for legal immigration).
You wouldn't, but many do. That's exactly the problem - borders are always going to be a legal grey area, so many will focus on crossing the border illegally, even if they make an asylum claim after they arrive.
It doesn't matter now who created the problem, or who failed to fix it before. What matters now is who is failing to fix it now who could, and who (as it happens) is deliberately making it much worse now.
If the only way to fix it is to get that person out as quickly as possible, that is a legitimate thing to say -- any man-baby feelings at risk notwithstanding. If the best way to fix it would be to abolish the Agency, then the only means open is to back whoever would, and oppose whoever wouldn't.
One who seeks to abolish the Agency and also fix numerous other disastrous practices is not, therefore, less appealing. Not seeking to fix numerous abuses should be.
Each team does represent different entrenched interests, and so the results of an election will affect which agencies get worse. Given his focus on marketing "border security" (read: build a wall to keep us in), associating this specific tooth in the totalitarian ratchet to Trump is justified.
The equivalence is that it's foolish to be goaded into voting support for the blue team by this specific outrage. A change in team won't reform the long term rot of these particular thugs, but rather just direct the lucrative decay onto other aspects of society.
Yeah the visa processing times that immigrants are experiencing now are way faster than the times I experienced waiting for visa processing during Obama's second term.
no. You don't get it. You literally have no rights with these unconstitutional cops. Wait until you personally experience this sort of thing, as you seem to think that the author "deserved" it.
The more I think about it, the more disgusted I am by your comment. I find it highly deliberately ignorant, as if you are directly ignoring the entire point of this story.
If a US citizen is not allowed into the USA, where could they possibly be deported to LOL?
Constitutional rights?
All this from an agency that sounds like something from the 3rd Reich, and created under Bush Jr.
Highly unconstitutional, and vested with impunity. Wrongful
It’s not a question or whether they deserved it or not. When dealing with people, things generally go better if one does so respectfully, regardless of what kind of power they have or whether it is legitimate or not.
The converse - that it should be fine to be disrespectful to people who hold state backed power makes no sense that I can see - that seems to be a dehumanizing act with no apparent benefit.
Whatever a Government official can do to you in response to real or perceived disrespect, they can also do to you just because they don't like the way you look or dress or vote. Various forms of Constitutionally protected protest and dissent can often be perceived as disrespect by those against whom they are directed. It's a slippery slope and to me "be respectful or have your rights violated" is a poor standard.
Agreed, and everyone has the right to conduct protest or civil disobedience.
If one chooses to engage in activism, then it’s worth recognizing that this is what you are doing and that they will be likely consequences.
It seems, before engaging in a protest, to be a good idea to think about whether it’s likely to be effective or not.
For example, before deliberately being disrespectful to an individual government employee, why not consider whether it would be better to be cooperative in that moment and then make a donation to a group that supports political change in that particular area?
The only defensible standard is that abusing State authority for personal or political reasons is grounds for immediate termination, AND should be prosecuted as a criminal matter as a matter of course. That it isn't, whether at the border or at a traffic stop, is a national disgrace. They are employed by the public to enforce rules for public reasons.
Saying that such prosecution would clog up the courts with a million cases is to admit the problem.
If you hold such power, you have a responsibility to exercise it in a way that furthers the objectives of those who entrust you with it. Retaliating against people who hurt your feelings is not consistent with that responsibility.
> The converse - that it should be fine to be disrespectful to people who hold state backed power makes no sense that I can see - that seems to be a dehumanizing act with no apparent benefit.
Quite the opposite - I think they should be subject to regular testing where some kind of internal control officers behave flippantly towards them (perhaps even disrespectfully) and if they respond by abusing their power they are (at the very least) immediately relieved of their state backed powers.
This type of thing happens all of the time, and not just with border police. Ever been to the DMV? Even the slightest hint of "sass" will earn you a few extra hours of waiting and counter hopping. Bureaucrats are A: given a lot of power in arbitrary situation B: deal with an unruly public every day and are tired of it.
Fair or not, it's best to be ultra polite with any public facing government offical.
And yes I realize this is also about Homeland Security having overreach but this guy did himself no favors and would have suffered in many other situations acting the same way.
Sure, complying is generally prudent to not anger criminals. The point is that cops/agents who do act this way are ultimately exceeding their authority, and should be prosecuted as any other violent criminal.
If an officer does not have the restraint to avoid adding their own ego to a situation, they have no business wearing a uniform.
While this is obviously a scandalous situation, I don’t believe journalists should get a better treatment regarding their personal information and photos. You know the legislation, you take private stuff across the border, it’s fair game. So don’t do it. Journalists should know this.
But there's one thing about this story: "It happened 33,295 times last year."
So, while it happened to this journalist and he reported on it, the 32k other people did not report on it.
So, maybe turn this around a bit: maybe the CBP should understand if they do it to a journalist, he might report on it.
Also, maybe CPB is just doing their jobs and journalists shouldn't get better treatment, but remember they ARE one of the checks and balances on unchecked power/authority/corruption in any government. Other governments know this and journalists are ruthlessly hunted in other countries.
I believe the privacy risk of traveling to the USA, UK, China and other such countries is widely known. It’s foolish to assume you get special treatment for that as a journalist, that’s my point.
tl;dr for American citizens: encrypt everything and power off your phone and laptop before entering border checkpoints, you cannot be denied entry.
tl;dr for everybody else (including green cards): either carry burner devices or ship your devices to your destination. Otherwise, you must be prepared to accept an electronic search.
That is not in fact true, and was in fact litigated in front of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, 3/4 of the Internet believes it to be true because the ACLU fundraises on that claim.
You can check citizenship within that zone (possibly depending on reasonable belief of a proximate border crossing) but are not automatically subject to border search.
But, really, read the opinions. They’re quite well written.
Which part is not true? It literally says on the .gov page that I linked to that they can:
"board and search for aliens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle. 8 CFR 287 (a)(1) defines reasonable distance as 100 air miles from the border"
I returned from a vacation trip to the Brownsville TX area last year, and spent roughly an hour getting through a Border Patrol checkpoint roughly 100 miles north of our departure point on TX route 77. I can assure you that we were interrogated (politely) about our citizenship.
This is a conflict reporter in the Intercept, of all publications, that did not realize that his electronics would be subject to near-limitless search at the US border. As a result, he apparently potentially compromised sources. There is no responsible way to carry this kind of data over the border. There are no tricks to this. Encryption has nothing to say about it. Any computer or phone or tablet you bring through the border should be a burner, or at least something you can cheerfully part with if confiscated.
It astounds me that an article about government officials going on an unwarranted fishing expedition through a journalist's entire digital life would be flagged on HN.
Particularly when previous stories of CBP demanding access to tech workers' devices have been heavily upvoted in the past.
My guess is that the flaggers reacted purely to the headline, and never read the story. The headline pattern matches to "culture war", so they flagged it and moved on.
56 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 118 ms ] threadDonating money and time to them helps, but to actually fix things takes regime change, which they don't get involved in. We each have to do that.
This shit has been going on for a long time, Trump seating in the oval office has nothing to do with how CBP is behaving. Making it about which party is currently in power is playing the game these agencies are to happy to see you play. Do people really think that voting democrat in a few years will change anything?
Highly doubtful. Practically as soon as the Trump administration came in, they fired the outsider police- and FBI veteran that the Obama administration had brought on to head up the CBP and change its insular- and overly-confrontational culture. The fired outsider was strongly opposed by the border-guards union, which, surprise, had prominently endorsed Trump's candidacy because of his emphasis on border security during the campaign. [0]
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/borde... (scan down toward the end of the article)
One difference though, Canadian Customs didn't say I wouldn't be allowed to enter the country (I am a Canadian citizen after all). They just said my laptop wouldn't be allowed to enter. I suspect the same is true for the author. Even if they said he wouldn't be allowed to enter, I don't believe that's consistent with US law.
Some of the Americans still think that most of these things are good, they think that all immigration is intrinsically bad for America, and perhaps they voted for Trump because of that. I, of course, do not agree (as an immigrant myself, from Russia to Switzerland), but as American voters, it is up to them to decide, this is a valid point to start the discussion -- as long as the truth is acknowledged, and not hidden behind statements like "it's only about illegal immigrants".
By constantly blaming the Trump administration, all these articles are doing is 1)lure anti-Trumpist to believe that all we have to do is vote for the other guy to fix it, 2) alienate Trump-supporters who will feel attacked and basically stop reading.
It IS politics as this "man" has staked his entire administration upon being mean and harsh and fighting a war with the entire world at once. Spare me.
I'm having a hard time understanding this point. Aren't illegal immigrants by definition doing/have done something wrong by virtue of proper inclusion in that set?
It is the Trump administration, which is responsible how CBP is behaving now.
When Obama was in power, it was the Obama administration's responsibility.
How would you name the current administration, so it isn't about party politics?
It doesn't matter now who created the problem, or who failed to fix it before. What matters now is who is failing to fix it now who could, and who (as it happens) is deliberately making it much worse now.
If the only way to fix it is to get that person out as quickly as possible, that is a legitimate thing to say -- any man-baby feelings at risk notwithstanding. If the best way to fix it would be to abolish the Agency, then the only means open is to back whoever would, and oppose whoever wouldn't.
One who seeks to abolish the Agency and also fix numerous other disastrous practices is not, therefore, less appealing. Not seeking to fix numerous abuses should be.
The equivalence is that it's foolish to be goaded into voting support for the blue team by this specific outrage. A change in team won't reform the long term rot of these particular thugs, but rather just direct the lucrative decay onto other aspects of society.
Wow, who would have thought that giving attitude to a cop would make the interaction go south??
The converse - that it should be fine to be disrespectful to people who hold state backed power makes no sense that I can see - that seems to be a dehumanizing act with no apparent benefit.
If one chooses to engage in activism, then it’s worth recognizing that this is what you are doing and that they will be likely consequences.
It seems, before engaging in a protest, to be a good idea to think about whether it’s likely to be effective or not.
For example, before deliberately being disrespectful to an individual government employee, why not consider whether it would be better to be cooperative in that moment and then make a donation to a group that supports political change in that particular area?
Saying that such prosecution would clog up the courts with a million cases is to admit the problem.
Quite the opposite - I think they should be subject to regular testing where some kind of internal control officers behave flippantly towards them (perhaps even disrespectfully) and if they respond by abusing their power they are (at the very least) immediately relieved of their state backed powers.
Randomly disrespecting government officials seems to play no part in bringing this about.
Fair or not, it's best to be ultra polite with any public facing government offical.
And yes I realize this is also about Homeland Security having overreach but this guy did himself no favors and would have suffered in many other situations acting the same way.
If an officer does not have the restraint to avoid adding their own ego to a situation, they have no business wearing a uniform.
So, while it happened to this journalist and he reported on it, the 32k other people did not report on it.
So, maybe turn this around a bit: maybe the CBP should understand if they do it to a journalist, he might report on it.
Also, maybe CPB is just doing their jobs and journalists shouldn't get better treatment, but remember they ARE one of the checks and balances on unchecked power/authority/corruption in any government. Other governments know this and journalists are ruthlessly hunted in other countries.
What makes you think they don’t understand that? It’s not the first such account by a journalist (e.g. https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/bbc-journalist-... ).
I believe the privacy risk of traveling to the USA, UK, China and other such countries is widely known. It’s foolish to assume you get special treatment for that as a journalist, that’s my point.
https://www.eff.org/wp/digital-privacy-us-border-2017
tl;dr for American citizens: encrypt everything and power off your phone and laptop before entering border checkpoints, you cannot be denied entry.
tl;dr for everybody else (including green cards): either carry burner devices or ship your devices to your destination. Otherwise, you must be prepared to accept an electronic search.
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1084/~/legal-au...
That means, at any time, they can question ~63.5% of the population:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-p...
But, really, read the opinions. They’re quite well written.
"board and search for aliens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle. 8 CFR 287 (a)(1) defines reasonable distance as 100 air miles from the border"
Particularly when previous stories of CBP demanding access to tech workers' devices have been heavily upvoted in the past.
My guess is that the flaggers reacted purely to the headline, and never read the story. The headline pattern matches to "culture war", so they flagged it and moved on.