4 ms·

I think there's been quite a bit of overreaction here. Part of their job is simply to determine that you are who you say you are. They do this every day - with

by wrasee 10y ago

I think there's been quite a bit of overreaction here. Part of their job is simply to determine that you are who you say you are. They do this every day - within reason I expect they can ask you any arbitrary question related to you and your life to observe how you respond. They just want to catch those out that aren't, for whatever reason, being genuine about their story. I think there's a false assumption here that somehow @cyberomin's ability to actually _solve_ a BST was in some way tied to his likelihood of entry. That's obviously ridiculous. I imagine his response was still genuine enough that they believed him. Frankly as another commenter joked, I think they could have asked him to prove P=NP. It's when you reply confidently with an 'obvious' solution that they might raise an eyebrow. Yes it would be unreasonable if their ignorance actually lead to you being denied entry. But in not one of the experiences here, or with @cyberomin, was that actually the case. The thing is, of course, that they're aware of their ignorance and the absurdity of their questions. You see, they know that they're bluffing. That's kind of the point. It is, perhaps rather unfortunately, part of their job to make you feel uncomfortable, ask probing questions and weed out inconsistencies in your responses. Isn't that part of professional questioning? I can understand the frustration at the abruptness of the questioning, and it's hardly a friendly welcome. I've been angered leaving immigration before and I have to remind myself that ruffling my feathers is all part of the act. When first complaining to a friend she asked, "what did they insult you or something?" Actually, no. They just asked me lots of questions. Clearly I'd like to think some questions are off-limits - I know there have been justified concerns about this - especially recently. And I understand this is hot topic right now - precisely why I think we should be careful - more careful than ever - not to overreact. From what I observe: The guy arrived, he was asked questions about his profession, his answers were evidently sufficient and he was let in. It happens to thousands of people every day. Honestly? I don't think there's a story here.

briane80 10y ago
That's a far too level-headed and reasoned response for the current climate, even in HN.
joatmon-snoo 10y ago
The problem is that there are infinitely better questions to ask - like, "oh, what's your day-to-day like?" or "who do you work for? what do you work on?" - rather than terrible technical questions. ===== > I think there's a false assumption here that somehow @cyberomin's ability to actually _solve_ a BST was in some way tied to his likelihood of entry. That's obviously ridiculous. You just got off a plane. You've been in the air for the past 23 hours. The agencies in charge of border security at your arrival airport have a reputation, and a well-deserved one at that, for (1) harassing foreigners, (2) having unclear policies, and (3) more recently, having no idea what the actual law is (or actually outright disobeying it). Still think it's that ridiculous? ===== On top of that, there's a long history in our industry of people reading questions and answers off pre-prepared lists and saying "oh, your nuanced, correct answer doesn't match up with what I've got written down here - sorry, I'm trashing your application". While it would absolutely disgust me to see the TSA/CBP use something like that, I would also be completely unsurprised to see it happen - especially if it happened to a non-US citizen, since they have next to no legal standing in the U.S.
- wrasee 10y ago
  I think this gets to the heart of how so much of this discussion misses the point. The question is not about solving CS problems. It's about determining the authenticity of the passenger's story. In this example, provided that the border agent is at least sufficiently aware that a BST question is a 'hard problem', the question may have simply been posed to observe if the passenger reacts appropriately to that. Even if the answer is "look, I've just been on a plane for 23 hours! you couldn't possibly expect me to..?", You're right, the agent couldn't. Tick! The response is consistent with the passenger's story. It's a bluff. Which is to stress a more important point: it's not for us to second guess the subtleties of a border agent's questioning. That's part of their professional training. -- That is of course, unless we have cause to believe the questioning is in some way unethical. And you raise (1), (2) and (3) that are clearly examples of unethical behaviour. But with respect to this story - where is the evidence that any of this happened? [1] This is _precisely_ why we should be careful not to generalize and be accurate in our criticism - if we are to be taken seriously in an area where there is understandably much cause for concern. [1]: To be clear: A technical question about a passenger's stated profession is not unethical. Yes, it would be unethical if the quality of the _technical_ answer was somehow tied to admittance. But again there's no evidence that that happened.

by wrasee 10y ago

briane80 10y ago

That's a far too level-headed and reasoned response for the current climate, even in HN.

joatmon-snoo 10y ago

The problem is that there are infinitely better questions to ask - like, "oh, what's your day-to-day like?" or "who do you work for? what do you work on?" - rather than terrible technical questions. ===== > I think there's a false assumption here that somehow @cyberomin's ability to actually _solve_ a BST was in some way tied to his likelihood of entry. That's obviously ridiculous. You just got off a plane. You've been in the air for the past 23 hours. The agencies in charge of border security at your arrival airport have a reputation, and a well-deserved one at that, for (1) harassing foreigners, (2) having unclear policies, and (3) more recently, having no idea what the actual law is (or actually outright disobeying it). Still think it's that ridiculous? ===== On top of that, there's a long history in our industry of people reading questions and answers off pre-prepared lists and saying "oh, your nuanced, correct answer doesn't match up with what I've got written down here - sorry, I'm trashing your application". While it would absolutely disgust me to see the TSA/CBP use something like that, I would also be completely unsurprised to see it happen - especially if it happened to a non-US citizen, since they have next to no legal standing in the U.S.

wrasee 10y ago
I think this gets to the heart of how so much of this discussion misses the point. The question is not about solving CS problems. It's about determining the authenticity of the passenger's story. In this example, provided that the border agent is at least sufficiently aware that a BST question is a 'hard problem', the question may have simply been posed to observe if the passenger reacts appropriately to that. Even if the answer is "look, I've just been on a plane for 23 hours! you couldn't possibly expect me to..?", You're right, the agent couldn't. Tick! The response is consistent with the passenger's story. It's a bluff. Which is to stress a more important point: it's not for us to second guess the subtleties of a border agent's questioning. That's part of their professional training. -- That is of course, unless we have cause to believe the questioning is in some way unethical. And you raise (1), (2) and (3) that are clearly examples of unethical behaviour. But with respect to this story - where is the evidence that any of this happened? [1] This is _precisely_ why we should be careful not to generalize and be accurate in our criticism - if we are to be taken seriously in an area where there is understandably much cause for concern. [1]: To be clear: A technical question about a passenger's stated profession is not unethical. Yes, it would be unethical if the quality of the _technical_ answer was somehow tied to admittance. But again there's no evidence that that happened.