7 ms·
Ioerror's tweets after yet another detention (this time in Texas)
- hsmyers 16y agoCPB agents much to young to know what 'Jack Boots' are, who wore them and what 'Papers Please' really means.
- raganwald 16y agoYou don't need to go back to 1936 to find examples of this behaviour. Try talking to an African American who was involved in the struggle for civil liberties in the 1960s.
- jwn 16y agoCan someone give us some context here?
- psawaya 16y agohttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430090 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430090
- Construct 16y agoThe US Government Keeps Harassing a UW Researcher Who Speaks for WikiLeaks: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430090 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430090 Basically, a University of Washington researcher associated with WikiLeaks is detained for several hours without reason every time he goes through a US airport. He goes by 'ioerror' here and on Twitter, among other places.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- jdp23 16y agoHere's yesterday's thread on "The US Government Keeps Harassing a UW Researcher Who Speaks for WikiLeaks" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430090 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430090
- pixdamix 16y agoSee previous discussions: "The US Government Keeps Harassing a UW Researcher Who Speaks for WikiLeaks" this guy "Jacob Appelbaum" is ioerror. - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430090 - http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/obsessed-with-jacob/Content?oid=7560624
- RyanMcGreal 16y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum See, for example, the section titled, "Investigation and Detainment".
- dotBen 16y ago...context needs to come beyond the previous hacker news threads and what has already been said. CBP can be pretty terrible (I'm a foreigner living in the US and I've personally been on the end of their interrogation myself) but really we need FULL context of Jake's detainment before we jump to too many conclusions. We still don't know: 1) Whether he has committed/suspected of committing/claimed to have committed any further or specific acts that would give CBP reason and justification for detainment. 2) Whether during detention Jake has been particularly provocative/inflammatory to CBP officers - which is only going to cause more delay and less expectation to fair treatment. His tweets regarding him conversing with CBP officers who have personally served in Iraq seemed insensitive and inflammatory. Regardless of your position on USA in Iraq, being disrespectful to people who have served in the Iraq seems counter-productive. I'm not a US citizen, I'm not pro-war in Iraq but one could empathize they probably feel betrayed by wikileaks and concerned for the security of their colleagues still in the warzone. My point is if the task at hand is to get out of that room and into freedom, some tact and decency in such a situation wouldn't go amiss rather than making personally inflammatory remarks about their serving of their (and his) country.
- torpor 16y agoIOError for President!
- jbooth 16y agoSeriously, how is this legal? Like, can't somebody be sued here? This guy apparently lost some basic rights for saying stuff?
- _delirium 16y agoUnfortunately, courts are willing to give pretty broad authority to the government to detain/search/etc. people reentering the country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception). There are some sort of outer limits to the authority, but not much in the way of real enforcement from the courts so far. I would guess that they'd punt on this one as being national security + borders = defer to the executive.
- jbooth 16y agoWell, maybe it needs to be re-tested in court with a nice egregious example. From your wiki link: Although border-searches are exempted from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, they are still subject to the amendment's reasonableness requirement.[3] Whether a border search is reasonable depends on a judicial analysis that balances the intrusion into an individual’s legitimate privacy and dignity interests against the government’s legitimate interest in the subject of the search.[4] If Mr. Ioerror's reading and can figure out who to sue, I'm good for a few hundred bucks on the legal fund.
- tedunangst 16y agoYou would have to prove he lost his rights for saying stuff. The govt would probably respond that he lost his rights for associating with and participating in a movement with the purpose of undermining the government.
- jbooth 16y agoAll the movement in question does is publish stuff. See my Pentagon Papers supreme court cite above/below. As far as associating with a movement.. it's legal to be a Nazi if you want. There's a supreme court case for that, too.
- chwahoo 16y agoI wonder if there is some kind of official annotation that can be added to a person's record indicating that they should be inconvenienced and harassed? If so, are officials "officially trained" to perform this function? Or else, is this a case of local officials seeing that someone notorious is passing through and abusing their discretion to harass them and cause them to miss flights?
- jbooth 16y agoPresumably, there's a memo box that says wikileaks, since I doubt these guys knew him by name. I was ok with wikileaks when I first heard of them. After seeing the type and character of their opposition? I'm now a rabid supporter. What they do is legal, this has been upheld in the supreme court, and these people are being fundamentally unamerican in the 1st amendment sense by trying to extrajudicially harrass people. EDIT: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_St...
- tedunangst 16y agoThat court case may not be a slam dunk defense. For a different perspective, I found this article interesting. http://www.slate.com/id/2276592/ http://www.slate.com/id/2276592/
- jbooth 16y agoEh, I think that's just a linkbait headline. It's materially different to wiretap private individuals for the purpose of defamation than it is to publish federal documents. There's no such thing as "defaming the govt" under law, for example.
- tedunangst 16y agoThe more important facts, imo, were the six different opinions written and that while the court refused to grant a pre-publication injunction, they didn't actually grant immunity from post-publication prosecution. The summary of the Pentagon Papers case is not "publishing secrets is ok".
- patio11 16y agoMight want to FOIA / Privacy Act request them for the information in your file. It should make for interesting reading. The person who'd be authorized to say "no" to that has very, very different motivations in life than a ground-level security screener. For example, they're paid to avoid bad PR, and "The Privacy Act, which was established to prevent government abuses of power like the secret files the FBI kept on folks, does not prevent us from keeping secret files on you" is the definition of bad PR. They would also have to commit to that position in writing. Every bureaucrat learns very quickly that things which are not written down never happened. The events described by those tweets? Never happened. Get a signed logbook entry, though, and you have instant chain of evidence going back to God Almighty. This is, generally, one of those "letters on paper can be used to hack bureaucracies to one's advantage" kind of things. c.f. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/admin/fl/foia/reference_guide.xml http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/admin/fl/foia/reference_guide.xml The above is mostly motivated by an enduring interest in the inner mechanics of complex systems, not by any particular feeling with regards to Wikileaks.
- iuguy 16y agoI suspect that homeland security does not fall under FoI but I could be wrong
- patio11 16y ago1 + 1 != 3, Customs and Border Protection is indeed subject to federal law. They publish a list of requests (with details elided) on the Internet: http://foia.cbp.gov/index.asp?ps=1&search=&category=FOIA_Logs http://foia.cbp.gov/index.asp?ps=1&search=&category=... Again, you could imagine them asserting one of the exemptions to the Act, but that would require them committing to a damaging position in paper. That is a major purpose of the exercise. The existence of that piece of paper would be a news story. (Man Claims Feds Out To Get Him On The Internet is not a news story.)
- iuguy 16y agoI don't think the feds are denying that they're out to get him. He's connected to the Wikileaks cable leak, the US government position is that this man is linked to what Hillary Clinton called, "ot just an attack on America's foreign policy interests ... it is an attack on the international community"[1]. [1] - http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/29/clinton_wikileaks_disclosure_is_attack_on_the_international_community http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/29/clinton_wi...
- jrockway 16y agoIs there a legal defense fund I can donate to? If anything, it's time to start FOIA-ing the files.
- metabrew 16y agoDon't know if it's legal or not, but would be fascinating if he snagged an audio recording of the entire process next time.
- flipbrad 16y agoCan he not get a restraining order against CBP? I say this, obviously, in jest, but one wonders: how exactly does the rule of law protect against this?
- rbanffy 16y agoWell... His harassment is obviously systematic.
- Cushman 16y agoYesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430465 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430465 ioerror: I'm flying back through Texas in a few hours from Serbia. I wonder if this article or any of the others will change the way that Customs and the rest of the Federal Government treat me? I'm guessing "no" - care to take any bets? Oof.
- patrickgzill 16y agoSorry for being dense: is he being detained going into/out of the country (that is, international flight) ; or is this a domestic flight? EDIT: per another comment, seems he is flying from Serbia to USA.
- papercrane 16y agoOff topic, but I really appreciate the layout of this site. Reordering the tweets to read from top-to-bottom makes it much easier for me to parse.
- humbledrone 16y agoAs much as I appreciate the content, it feels like maybe Twitter is not the right format for a post like that.
- rbanffy 16y agohttp://twitter.com/ioerror/status/57713368735289344 http://twitter.com/ioerror/status/57713368735289344 Truth is, you can never be sure your screening wasn't random http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2001-10-25/ http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2001-10-25/
- dools 16y agoI have to wonder why one would continue to return to the U.S under these conditions. Then again I wonder the same thing about TSA screenings, health care and gun control.
- phlux 16y ago>Q:It sounds like a CBP joke in the making, right? What's do you call being stopped, harassed, insulted, delayed, unable to call a lawyer, etc? A: FREEDOM!
- thyrsus 16y agoJoseph N. Welch and Edward R. Murrow managed to shame the red-baiters into some semblance of quiescence. I fear that American authorities and those they serve are now immune to shame. Cheer me up; please adduce some evidence to the contrary.