3 ms·

And of course non-Citizens presenting for entry at the border are subject to the coercion that refusal to comply will likely result in entry being refused. Nonc

And of course non-Citizens presenting for entry at the border are subject to the coercion that refusal to comply will likely result in entry being refused. Noncitizens do actually still have human rights (something Americans often seem to forget - ‘I can’t believe they used a dronestrike on a US citizen’, etc) But take the example of a person who has been issued a visa, looking to enter the US with the intent to immigrate legally, doing everything by the book. On their phone they likely have all the privileged communications with their immigration attorney - all the conversations about which visa strategy to pursue, etc. now they’re at the border, they can be pressured by an agent into handing that data over ‘voluntarily’. What protections does that person have as to how that information is used in respect of their future immigration application? Are they entitled to due process protections? Have they waived attorney client privilege? Once they later become a citizen, is that data still on file and searchable by DHS? Or a green-card holding US resident, returning home from a business trip, with corporate data on their phone - can they refuse to hand it over, and risk being refused entry and heap or fixing their US residency? If they can’t, does that mean some employers might refuse to hire green card holders to mitigate such risks? This data collection is egregious even when applied to noncitizens.

xoa 4y ago
Sorry, 5 comments in a few hours triggered HN's rate limiting, "sorry you are posting too fast", so I couldn't reply earlier. Not sure if you'll still see this but since I wrote it anyway: >And of course non-Citizens presenting for entry at the border are subject to the coercion that refusal to comply will likely result in entry being refused. Noncitizens do actually still have human rights Certainly, but this sub-thread is specifically about Americans, so that's what I was sticking to. That said yes, non-citizens do not have any right of entry. However, that is the norm worldwide not the exception. There is no universal "human right" to enter any country except as a refugee or someone seeking asylum per ratified treaties or domestic law. The basic idea of a "sovereign nation" is somewhat bound up with the capability of border control and distinguishing the nation from the world. There are lots and lots of very reasonable disagreements on what said controls should be, what exceptions, and so on. But "completely open borders" is a fairly niche position. This at least isn't merely a US thing, I would exercise some level of caution for international travel anywhere on the planet when it comes to personal property and devices, or even just my own liberty. Different countries can have radically different legal regimes. If any of us are traveling somewhere we don't have any inherent legal right to be, then naturally there is some leverage there in terms of what conditions might be set for our entry. >This data collection is egregious even when applied to noncitizens. I do agree (and I think it's generally agreed upon in civil liberties circles) that the global increase in data collection, storage, and processing capabilities is not merely "worrisome" but prone to abuse and in fact actively abused. It's a bad thing. I'd personally go farther in that I lean towards the idea that a lot of modern electronic devices should be considered almost as "exo cortexes", extensions of our minds that should have the same kind of protection as the contents of our minds (and that protection should be total). This is another area where tech has raced ahead of societal reckoning. As far as individual reactions though I'd say the same thing as for business secrets or whatever else: the best thing to do is to just not have it on you, have no ability to get it either, have other humans who know your travel plans and can check on you, know what rights you do have, where to make complaints, and most of all have fallbacks if things don't work out. That alone is very empowering. If some data is vitally important and private to the level you describe, perhaps stick it onto an encrypted image on a USB stick and mail it separately or something along those lines. Or via private online transfer of which there are many, but something completely out of band from your own physical person.
- jameshart 4y ago
  100% agreed. Stipulated, countries can do anything they like to people who ask to enter. Basic respect for the property, civil liberties, dignity and universal human rights of people petitioning to enter the country, though, is not tantamount to 'completely open borders'. I think we can all agree that even if there are not legal constraints on the indignities and rights violations which a border entry officer can subject an applicant to, there should be some ethical ones. The danger at the border is that a person might be admitted who is not who they say they are, that they might bring with them some goods that shouldn't be brought in to the country, or that they might be planning to do something that exceeds the terms of their entry visa, or is otherwise undesirable. That last case is the tricky one, because it amounts to trying to detect a thoughtcrime. Of course if you're trying to prevent thoughtcrimes, it would be useful to see into all of a person's relationships, private communications, and online activities. But we have to draw a line somewhere for what information it is acceptable for border agents to acquire to render their judgements. And even if we allow that accessing electronic devices at the border helps with that determination of 'intent' at the moment of entry, keeping all that data (not just the subset that was evaluated as relevant to the judgement) for years beyond that determination seems completely unnecessary. And it's not necessary, because we all know that if you allow a border agent to search someone's phone, they can find a reason to prevent entry. But that's unnecessary, because a border agent can already deny entry for essentially any reason they like. There's no need to have access to a phone to generate pretext. But the difference between 'Access denied' with a note on the file to the effect that they thought the answers you gave to their questions were inadequate, versus 'access denied' with a complete copy of your digital identity attached to the file and a flag pointing at a set of facebook messages you exchanged a few years ago.... is pretty vast.

xoa 4y ago

Sorry, 5 comments in a few hours triggered HN's rate limiting, "sorry you are posting too fast", so I couldn't reply earlier. Not sure if you'll still see this but since I wrote it anyway: >And of course non-Citizens presenting for entry at the border are subject to the coercion that refusal to comply will likely result in entry being refused. Noncitizens do actually still have human rights Certainly, but this sub-thread is specifically about Americans, so that's what I was sticking to. That said yes, non-citizens do not have any right of entry. However, that is the norm worldwide not the exception. There is no universal "human right" to enter any country except as a refugee or someone seeking asylum per ratified treaties or domestic law. The basic idea of a "sovereign nation" is somewhat bound up with the capability of border control and distinguishing the nation from the world. There are lots and lots of very reasonable disagreements on what said controls should be, what exceptions, and so on. But "completely open borders" is a fairly niche position. This at least isn't merely a US thing, I would exercise some level of caution for international travel anywhere on the planet when it comes to personal property and devices, or even just my own liberty. Different countries can have radically different legal regimes. If any of us are traveling somewhere we don't have any inherent legal right to be, then naturally there is some leverage there in terms of what conditions might be set for our entry. >This data collection is egregious even when applied to noncitizens. I do agree (and I think it's generally agreed upon in civil liberties circles) that the global increase in data collection, storage, and processing capabilities is not merely "worrisome" but prone to abuse and in fact actively abused. It's a bad thing. I'd personally go farther in that I lean towards the idea that a lot of modern electronic devices should be considered almost as "exo cortexes", extensions of our minds that should have the same kind of protection as the contents of our minds (and that protection should be total). This is another area where tech has raced ahead of societal reckoning. As far as individual reactions though I'd say the same thing as for business secrets or whatever else: the best thing to do is to just not have it on you, have no ability to get it either, have other humans who know your travel plans and can check on you, know what rights you do have, where to make complaints, and most of all have fallbacks if things don't work out. That alone is very empowering. If some data is vitally important and private to the level you describe, perhaps stick it onto an encrypted image on a USB stick and mail it separately or something along those lines. Or via private online transfer of which there are many, but something completely out of band from your own physical person.

jameshart 4y ago
100% agreed. Stipulated, countries can do anything they like to people who ask to enter. Basic respect for the property, civil liberties, dignity and universal human rights of people petitioning to enter the country, though, is not tantamount to 'completely open borders'. I think we can all agree that even if there are not legal constraints on the indignities and rights violations which a border entry officer can subject an applicant to, there should be some ethical ones. The danger at the border is that a person might be admitted who is not who they say they are, that they might bring with them some goods that shouldn't be brought in to the country, or that they might be planning to do something that exceeds the terms of their entry visa, or is otherwise undesirable. That last case is the tricky one, because it amounts to trying to detect a thoughtcrime. Of course if you're trying to prevent thoughtcrimes, it would be useful to see into all of a person's relationships, private communications, and online activities. But we have to draw a line somewhere for what information it is acceptable for border agents to acquire to render their judgements. And even if we allow that accessing electronic devices at the border helps with that determination of 'intent' at the moment of entry, keeping all that data (not just the subset that was evaluated as relevant to the judgement) for years beyond that determination seems completely unnecessary. And it's not necessary, because we all know that if you allow a border agent to search someone's phone, they can find a reason to prevent entry. But that's unnecessary, because a border agent can already deny entry for essentially any reason they like. There's no need to have access to a phone to generate pretext. But the difference between 'Access denied' with a note on the file to the effect that they thought the answers you gave to their questions were inadequate, versus 'access denied' with a complete copy of your digital identity attached to the file and a flag pointing at a set of facebook messages you exchanged a few years ago.... is pretty vast.