7 ms·
I'm a US scientist and the use of minimalist phone and a laptop is something I'm planning for all my travel. This is for the simple reason that I have determin
by pmags 2y ago
I'm a US scientist and the use of minimalist phone and a laptop is something I'm planning for all my travel.
This is for the simple reason that I have determined, based on a large body of cases that are accumulating at a disturbing rate, that the current US administration considers themselves "above the law". Furthermore, the administration has shown that they are eager to carry out actions that violate due process and freedom of speech against anyone they perceive as opposing their policies/views.
EDIT: I'm happy to document such cases for those who have not been paying attention, but I also encourage those who are doubtful to simply search the many examples that have been posted here on HN (unfortunately, many flagged in an attempt to suppress discussion).
- dataflow 2y agoDo you not feel unsafe sharing this publicly?
- whatshisface 2y agoThat is not really relevant, because you sort of have to say what's true whatever happens to you, as required at the intersection of the duties of a scientist, of a citizen of a republic, and even on the basis of the basic tenants of the country's majority religion. In some sense to live a steady life you have to be resigned to potential misfortunes, even if you do not want them to happen to you.
- roxolotl 2y agoI’ve been struggling with this. I’ve recently started using a new handle as a way to distance myself a bit. I wouldn’t expect it to hold up under scrutiny though. And then I wonder about the moral obligation to say what is right. So is it worth, or even morally right, to create a new pseudoanoynomous identity?
- lantry 2y agoIt is easier to change your behavior, but it is better to change your government.
- stevenAthompson 2y agoWe can not change the government without changing the people, and the people do not want to change.
- mfuzzey 2y agowhy? Serious question - as a European I'm really baffled by the US these days?
- stevenAthompson 2y agoI can only speculate, but I suspect it's related to our infantilization. A proper democracy requires an informed and rational electorate, and we just don't have that. As I said elsewhere in this post, most adults now read below the sixth grade level. Popular media has been getting shorter and shorter, all while relying less and less on the printed word. Meanwhile the most popular news sources are targeted to people with the comprehension and reading skills of children, and the most popular movies are literally based on children's comic books. Hell, video games outsell movies by an ever increasing margin and the majority of adults now find it impossible/unpleasant to sit through even an entire comic book film without checking their cell phones. Even music has become increasing simple and repetitive, designed not to challenge the listener. Our shared culture is almost entirely the culture of children. So then, do we really expect these adult-sized children to be capable of facing down hard choices, or making rational informed decisions? No, they accept the "obvious" (but often incorrect) answers offered by charlatans and simpletons in lieu of genuine reason and the hard work of finding actual (and often painful) solutions for the very messy real world.
- masfuerte 2y agoI find it unpleasant to sit through an entire comic book film. The problem is not my attention span.
- lukan 2y ago"So is it worth, or even morally right, to create a new pseudoanoynomous identity?" It is your life, you choose your battles. But if not enough dare to speak their mind openly, then this will be the new normal.
- stevenAthompson 2y agoFifty four percent of American adults read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level. The situation in America is not some temporary aberration, it is a permanent change in the status quo. Anti-intellectual populism is the new normal, and any thinking person who values their safety should be weighing anonymity and silence as viable options.
- whatshisface 2y agoThe Bolsheviks didn't want people who got the message and shut up. They were extremely paranoid about them. They wanted people who had been raised in the new system or who had supported it when the choice was free. I don't think that self-interest is morally right as a guiding principle or that people who have written things as clearly "aware" as your comment have the option you're suggesting.
- stevenAthompson 2y agoI understand and respect your moral position, I just feel that I have an even stronger moral requirement to take care of myself and my family first, and I think that others should do the same. As the stewardesses say, you should always put on your own oxygen mask first.
- whatshisface 2y agoSure, but nobody is going to read that comment and think, "this guy is a solid Bolshevik."
- stevenAthompson 2y agoYou're not wrong.
- kenfox 2y agoI wonder if the low literacy rate is partly an artifact of non-English speakers. The 54% stat seems to come from PIAAC which only evaluates English literacy in the US https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/faq.asp https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/faq.asp The US hasn’t historically had high literacy rates though I definitely agree we are back to McCarthy levels of anti-intellectualism. Probably worse.
- stevenAthompson 2y agoIt is incredibly relevant. Thomas Payne published "Common Sense" anonymously, and had that not happened the United States may not exist. It is a relatively obvious fact that there can be no freedom of speech without anonymous speech. Especially in the face of tyranny.
- javajosh 2y agoI agree that anonymous speech is an important right in free societies. A novel attack on such a right in the Internet Age is to allow so much speech, anonymous or otherwise, ensure that most of it of is of very low quality, that thoughtful criticisms are ignored or, more accurately, overlooked. A related attack is to "flood the zone with shit", low-quality but emotionally resonant criticisms of speech, generated by hired humans and/or software. (Anecdotally most readers will see any coherent pushback as a signal about the OP's veracity.)
- kmeisthax 2y ago"Censorship through free speech", in other words.
- lovich 2y agoIt’s just a special case of signal jamming. If you add enough random energy to any channel, it becomes impossible to filter signal from noise
- kragen 2y agoThis is what Shannon disproved in the paper that founded information theory. It never becomes impossible, even at a fixed signal power; the noise reduces the channel capacity, but never to zero. https://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shannon/entropy/entropy.pdf https://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shanno...
- lovich 2y ago
- godelski 2y agoFirst they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller At some point you have to be brave and face your fears. If you do not, then the light slowly dies and the darkness grows. By putting your head down and hiding you protect yourself but empower the very thing you are hiding from. It is a classic fallacy as you are taking short term rewards at a much higher cost in the long run. What you gain you borrow from the future, interest applies. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light. - Stanley Kubrick
- dataflow 2y agoThe question wasn't about "speaking out", it was about publicly disclosing your own strategy. You can do one without the other.
- godelski 2y agoWhat risk do they have sharing that strategy? It is an extremely basic and common strategy >>> the use of minimalist phone and a laptop is something I'm planning for all my travel This is a strategy recommended to literally every employee that works at a national lab. Similarly to anyone who works with a security clearance, SBU (secure but unclassified) materials, or even ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) (which includes anyone that works in aerospace. A rocket or a jet is "missile technology") I don't think their comment has any PII or even signals to adversaries how to fight back. It's just common for people to have lots of information. Sure, adversaries can press you about this but at that point they're probably going to press you for another reason anyways.
- dataflow 2y ago> What risk do they have sharing that strategy? It is an extremely basic and common strategy Do you also reveal your hand when playing card games? On the basis that the other players already know all the cards anyway?
- whatshisface 2y agoIt is probably better to start keeping public lists of surprising incidents, analogously to the way lawyers would summarize case precedent, but applied to the extralegal system. It can be difficult to find old news articles sometimes.
- bilbo0s 2y agoUm. I don’t know that I would do that if I was a scientist right now.
- gopher_space 2y agoWe have reached the point where it’s either something like this or leave the country.
- collingreen 2y agoBeing someone who makes a list like this might be the reason you get kicked out of the country (or worse?) if there is an authoritarian regime hurting people in order to silence critics.
- gopher_space 2y agoRight. So you're either going to make a stand and risk getting arrested (Just like Thoreau!) or you're going to move somewhere this isn't happening. Keep in mind we're talking about people with a moral framework that reduces the situation to these two choices. They'd need to abandon their sense of morality to maintain the status quo.
- antifa 2y agoA lot of people live in countries that won't deport someone to the US for documenting a list of crimes against humanity performed by the US government.
- andix 2y agoI know this from the European perspective. A lot of companies have policies for US travels for a few years now. Even some government employees on official business in the US, need to drop of their business phone and laptop with IT, before traveling to the US. And pick up a freshly wiped one with limited access, and no data on it. For some countries like Russia it can be even more strict. They only get laptops not connected to the company network at all, and are only allowed to put a few files onto it via a flash drive. The smartphone is replaced by a feature phone without internet.
- leereeves 2y ago> A lot of companies have policies for US travels for a few years now. I traveled a lot around 2010, long before Trump. Phone searches at the border were common even then. I had to give my passcode to Canada and European countries. I can attest that this kind of frightening incident did not start with Trump. As a traveler, I heard horror stories back then, but not many people talked about them. I feel like most of the sudden interest in these stories has an obvious motive.
- prometheon1 2y agoI wonder whether those companies also have a policy not to use Outlook/Microsoft365 for emails
- andix 2y agoNo. It’s just about searches during border checks.
- ta8645 2y ago[flagged]
- WillPostForFood 2y agoPlease document one or two cases. Everything I have seen has turned out to be a little more complicated than initially presented. E.g. This story of the French researcher which started as, "A French scientist has been denied entry into the United States, apparently because the scientist had expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy" In fact turned out to be, "The French researcher in question was in possession of confidential information on his electronic device from Los Alamos National Laboratory — in violation of a non-disclosure agreement— something he admitted to taking without permission and attempted to conceal,” https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/21/world/europe/us-france-scientist-entry-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/21/world/europe/us-france-sc...
- lovich 2y agoThey found confidential information on his phone as he was attempting to enter the US, and their response was to turn him back instead of detaining him for violating those agreements or espionage? Does that sound plausible to you? Or even a better argument? If I was fully onboard with America is the only country that matters I would be apoplectic to find out they let a known spy just leave
- mmcdermott 2y agoNone of the articles I found went into more detail than the NY Times one. What they all say in common is that the French researcher was denied entrance. If the US version is true (and I can't be sure either way), then the presupposition would be that individual was already on a DHS list, not that customs necessarily found it. As for whether they knowingly let a spy leave, that would depend on a full timeline.
- lovich 2y ago> As for whether they knowingly let a spy leave, that would depend on a full timeline. No it does not if the defense for denying him entry was knowing that he was a spy? Stop arguing out of both sides of your mouth. So far both proffered explanations are unacceptable. To be clear the two answers so far have been, 1: we found personal comments of him on his phone critical of the administration and denied him entry based on that, which is unacceptable on free speech grounds Or 2: he was known or found to have secrets from one of our nuclear labs and was denied entry based on the fact that we knew he had these forbidden files, and we let him go. This is unacceptable on national security grounds. You can’t mix and match from the two scenarios
- drcongo 2y agoHave you considered defecting to a county that's proud of scientific progress and claiming asylum?