4 ms·

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

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-flight-delay-terrorism-equation-american-airlines https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/07/professor-fl...

maze-le 7y ago
>> 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.
- jaynetics 7y ago
  North Korea does it, too.
- madaxe_again 7y ago
  I’ve never had anything beyond a bag search going into China - zero interest in my phone or online accounts.
  - maze-le 7y ago
    I heard phone seizures were common when entering from the western continental route (Kazakhstan, Kyrgiztan).
    - madaxe_again 7y ago
      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.
- tastroder 7y ago
  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.
sieabahlpark 7y ago
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?
- jeena 7y ago
  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.
  - sieabahlpark 7y ago
    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
    - jeena 7y ago
      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.
ALittleLight 7y ago
I don't think you've read my comment charitably.
- tastroder 7y ago
  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.
  - ALittleLight 7y ago
    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.

maze-le 7y ago

>> 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.

jaynetics 7y ago
North Korea does it, too.
madaxe_again 7y ago
I’ve never had anything beyond a bag search going into China - zero interest in my phone or online accounts.
- maze-le 7y ago
  I heard phone seizures were common when entering from the western continental route (Kazakhstan, Kyrgiztan).
  - madaxe_again 7y ago
    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.
tastroder 7y ago
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.

sieabahlpark 7y ago

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?

jeena 7y ago
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.
- sieabahlpark 7y ago
  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
  - jeena 7y ago
    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.

ALittleLight 7y ago

I don't think you've read my comment charitably.

tastroder 7y ago
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.
- ALittleLight 7y ago
  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.