5 ms·

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

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.
- tastroder 7y ago
  > hope I've made my point. You did, thank you. Just saw this reply and since I cannot appropriately edit mine, I wanted to at least acknowledge that part. While I don't agree with your original post I certainly view it differently now.

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.

tastroder 7y ago
> hope I've made my point. You did, thank you. Just saw this reply and since I cannot appropriately edit mine, I wanted to at least acknowledge that part. While I don't agree with your original post I certainly view it differently now.