5 ms·

Aaaand this is why I don't even want to try visiting US, despite being offered to talk at conferences about my product. I'm using a false name on Facebook and H

by tajen 10y ago

Aaaand this is why I don't even want to try visiting US, despite being offered to talk at conferences about my product. I'm using a false name on Facebook and HN, which makes me afraid of any agent asking "Have you ever impersonated someone" or "Have you ever committed a crime against US interest". I just dread the TSA. Plus I carry nudes on my laptop, which despite the male models probably being above 24, I can't prove aren't below 18, and even though I could clear my HDDs, I might as well do business with a freeer country. The only limitation is, given I'm French and we've just had our "9/11"-type terrorist attacks, I'm afraid we might progressively set up the same extreme police system. If we do so, I'd like to apologize in advance in the name of the people of my country...

tptacek 10y ago
There is no graph of speaker,conference edges that crosses an ocean in which this isn't an issue. Yes: it can be a bitch to get into the US to speak, even at serious academic conferences. I have friends who've been turned away at the border. But the same goes for US->EU, US->UK, US->JP, JP->EU, and even US->CA in one case I'm familiar with. Major international border crossings just suck a lot.
bertiewhykovich 10y ago
I think you're being paranoid. Unless your product is aligned against US interests (or you're Middle Eastern), no border guard is going to care about a French national going to a conference. You're not impersonating someone by using a pseudonym, nor are you committing a crime against US interests. The TSA is obnoxious but ineffective. No one is going to detain you over your pornography unless they want to detain you anyway, and there's no clear reason why that would be the case.
- jseliger 10y ago
  He is not: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5497556/sf-author-peter-watts-found-guilty-of-felony-resistance-against-border-guard http://io9.gizmodo.com/5497556/sf-author-peter-watts-found-g... or http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186 http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186. Anyone, anywhere can be attacked by U.S. border "guards" for any reason, including white Canadians. It is a nearly law-free zone.
  - mrgordon 10y ago
    I read the first link and it didn't seem entirely clear cut to me that Watts hadn't done anything to incite the episode. Even assuming he hadn't, he was convicted by a jury of ordinary civilians so apparently they empathized with the border guards. Obviously it goes without saying that its a real shame things could escalate that quickly and I'm not saying the border patrols shouldn't be ashamed.
    - bertiewhykovich 10y ago
      It seems extremely clear that Watts could have avoided this incident. While the details of the altercation are not unambiguous, Watts was not spontaneously assaulted by an officer: the most charitable possible interpretation is that he angered a border guard by behaving in a non-compliant fashion. Even if one was to accept that the border guards escalated the situation far beyond what was appropriate, it is apparent that, had Watts not inexplicably refused to comply with a legally-appointed officer, he could have almost certainly avoided this outcome. One can certainly come away from this story with a reasonably justified degree of suspicion towards border security. But the most obvious lesson is that belligerence towards officers is almost certain to make a situation worse.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  The TSA isn't the border patrol/customs. They're airport security.
  - b0p1x 10y ago
    How do people not get this?
    - robotresearcher 10y ago
      The commenter doesn't live in the US. God forbid he makes a minor mistake about a foreign country's federal security structure.
      - tedunangst 10y ago
        Is it so unreasonable to expect someone afraid of what "they" might do to know who "they" are?
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        manicdee 10y ago
        "They" in this case is all the people involved between the cabin door of the aircraft and the exit door of the airport. As a prospective visitor to your country it doesn't matter which official designation "they" have. It only matters what the outcome will be for me. Whether the extraordinary reduction and enhanced interrogation is done by one arm or another of your government is irrelevant. That it happens is all that matters.
mrgordon 10y ago
While I'm no fan of the TSA, this seems quite extreme. The chance they would look at your hard drives is nearly 0% and most countries have some insane policies that outsiders could harp on as a reason to not visit and to "do business with a freer country." To each their own, but avoiding a major country because their border agents hassle someone every now and then seems way too limiting to me. Keep in mind that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has condemned France over their use of torture in pursuing marijuana convictions. France will also somewhat arbitrarily define cases as "drug use" vs "trafficking" since possession for use is ill-defined. Many consumers get tried under trafficking laws because they get caught purchasing, for example, and under trafficking laws they will get much more serious penalties including being banned from the country in many cases. Don't forget you can also be detained for four days without a lawyer while they investigate. Some more info at http://www.drugtext.org/European-Drug-Laws/chapter-4-france-drug-use-and-supply-illegal-possession-undefined-situation-unsatisfactory.html http://www.drugtext.org/European-Drug-Laws/chapter-4-france-... if you're interested. France has a lot of great things going for it so I try not to let bad laws, border agents, etc. spoil my time there.
- slgeorge 10y ago
  This is a bit of a false equivalence. As he's French he broadly has no choice but to live within the laws of his state - he can campaign against them but for as long as he's there he's under them, and moving to another jurisdiction is not that easy. Whereas, he chooses to go to the USA and fall under their border controls - he's making the statement that he won't choose to do so. While he's likely to be unnoticed by his existing state, border controls have a much higher chance of capturing interest and the outcomes are uncertain (at least in part because you're not a citizen and the way of working will feel 'foreign') While it does sound a bit extreme, I can personally say I don't like visiting the USA any more because of the border controls. I'd probably try ad put business in Canada because of the extreme way in which the USA now treats foreigners. It can be very uncomfortable, difficult and aloof. Unless you've actually come under the purview of the TSA as a 'foreigner' it's hard to have a sense of how poorly they treat people and the general arbitrary nature of control [0]. [0] That is not to say that other countries are much better. As a UK citizen I'm pretty clear that we treat external people coming in completely differently to our citizens - and having been involved in visa applications for employees have found some of the ways in which "my government" treated people totally embarrassing.

by tajen 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

There is no graph of speaker,conference edges that crosses an ocean in which this isn't an issue. Yes: it can be a bitch to get into the US to speak, even at serious academic conferences. I have friends who've been turned away at the border. But the same goes for US->EU, US->UK, US->JP, JP->EU, and even US->CA in one case I'm familiar with. Major international border crossings just suck a lot.

bertiewhykovich 10y ago

I think you're being paranoid. Unless your product is aligned against US interests (or you're Middle Eastern), no border guard is going to care about a French national going to a conference. You're not impersonating someone by using a pseudonym, nor are you committing a crime against US interests. The TSA is obnoxious but ineffective. No one is going to detain you over your pornography unless they want to detain you anyway, and there's no clear reason why that would be the case.

jseliger 10y ago
He is not: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5497556/sf-author-peter-watts-found-guilty-of-felony-resistance-against-border-guard http://io9.gizmodo.com/5497556/sf-author-peter-watts-found-g... or http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186 http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186. Anyone, anywhere can be attacked by U.S. border "guards" for any reason, including white Canadians. It is a nearly law-free zone.
- mrgordon 10y ago
  I read the first link and it didn't seem entirely clear cut to me that Watts hadn't done anything to incite the episode. Even assuming he hadn't, he was convicted by a jury of ordinary civilians so apparently they empathized with the border guards. Obviously it goes without saying that its a real shame things could escalate that quickly and I'm not saying the border patrols shouldn't be ashamed.
  - bertiewhykovich 10y ago
    It seems extremely clear that Watts could have avoided this incident. While the details of the altercation are not unambiguous, Watts was not spontaneously assaulted by an officer: the most charitable possible interpretation is that he angered a border guard by behaving in a non-compliant fashion. Even if one was to accept that the border guards escalated the situation far beyond what was appropriate, it is apparent that, had Watts not inexplicably refused to comply with a legally-appointed officer, he could have almost certainly avoided this outcome. One can certainly come away from this story with a reasonably justified degree of suspicion towards border security. But the most obvious lesson is that belligerence towards officers is almost certain to make a situation worse.
GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
The TSA isn't the border patrol/customs. They're airport security.
- b0p1x 10y ago
  How do people not get this?
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    The commenter doesn't live in the US. God forbid he makes a minor mistake about a foreign country's federal security structure.
    - tedunangst 10y ago
      Is it so unreasonable to expect someone afraid of what "they" might do to know who "they" are?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - manicdee 10y ago
        "They" in this case is all the people involved between the cabin door of the aircraft and the exit door of the airport. As a prospective visitor to your country it doesn't matter which official designation "they" have. It only matters what the outcome will be for me. Whether the extraordinary reduction and enhanced interrogation is done by one arm or another of your government is irrelevant. That it happens is all that matters.

mrgordon 10y ago

While I'm no fan of the TSA, this seems quite extreme. The chance they would look at your hard drives is nearly 0% and most countries have some insane policies that outsiders could harp on as a reason to not visit and to "do business with a freer country." To each their own, but avoiding a major country because their border agents hassle someone every now and then seems way too limiting to me. Keep in mind that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has condemned France over their use of torture in pursuing marijuana convictions. France will also somewhat arbitrarily define cases as "drug use" vs "trafficking" since possession for use is ill-defined. Many consumers get tried under trafficking laws because they get caught purchasing, for example, and under trafficking laws they will get much more serious penalties including being banned from the country in many cases. Don't forget you can also be detained for four days without a lawyer while they investigate. Some more info at http://www.drugtext.org/European-Drug-Laws/chapter-4-france-drug-use-and-supply-illegal-possession-undefined-situation-unsatisfactory.html http://www.drugtext.org/European-Drug-Laws/chapter-4-france-... if you're interested. France has a lot of great things going for it so I try not to let bad laws, border agents, etc. spoil my time there.

slgeorge 10y ago
This is a bit of a false equivalence. As he's French he broadly has no choice but to live within the laws of his state - he can campaign against them but for as long as he's there he's under them, and moving to another jurisdiction is not that easy. Whereas, he chooses to go to the USA and fall under their border controls - he's making the statement that he won't choose to do so. While he's likely to be unnoticed by his existing state, border controls have a much higher chance of capturing interest and the outcomes are uncertain (at least in part because you're not a citizen and the way of working will feel 'foreign') While it does sound a bit extreme, I can personally say I don't like visiting the USA any more because of the border controls. I'd probably try ad put business in Canada because of the extreme way in which the USA now treats foreigners. It can be very uncomfortable, difficult and aloof. Unless you've actually come under the purview of the TSA as a 'foreigner' it's hard to have a sense of how poorly they treat people and the general arbitrary nature of control [0]. [0] That is not to say that other countries are much better. As a UK citizen I'm pretty clear that we treat external people coming in completely differently to our citizens - and having been involved in visa applications for employees have found some of the ways in which "my government" treated people totally embarrassing.