Hacker News Reader

Comment by staticelf | Hacker News Reader

I am about to visit the US soon. I am planning not to bring my personal phone and computer. It feels like I am going to visit China, not the US.

I would probably not personally pay for a trip to the US now.. I don't want to pay a lot of money in order to be rejected at the border.

View on HN

this is worth reading then https://medium.com/@thegrugq/stop-fabricating-travel-securit...

EDIT (what to do): https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/829855684636274688

That's kind of a worthless article. What's the solution, then? Just accept that all of your private data will be copied by the government? Don't travel at all?

Edit: Also, the same guy explicitly encourages lying about your social media accounts two posts prior to that one. Which is it, chief?

I don't think it's worthless to point out that a number of strategies are bad, and likely counterproductive. It might just be the case that there are no good foolproof methods for getting through the US border without any negative effects on your privacy or convenience.

The only real solution is to change government policy.

The evidence seems at odds with this guy's suggestions. We've heard lots of stories about people being stopped and required to hand over devices. I'm not aware of any stories of people being stopped simply for not having devices.

>Carrying no devices

Is this article seriously suggesting i can't travel without a device or can't wipe before i go, because these CBP guys are so easily triggered?

yes, both could be triggers

I understand the basic scope of the author's intent, stop advertising fool-proof solutions to avoid vetting checked by the CBP, but their praxis comments require a bit more sourcing and evidence for some of the claims, and quite frankly, most just sound like scaremongering.

The CBP actions and incidents as described by first hand accounts do not seem to define an institutional directive guiding the decisions as to who warrants further investigation, and more importantly, who warrants having their entry denied. From the article earlier today on Henry Rousso's experience, the Immigration Lawyer that helped secure Dr. Rousso's release suggested that agents themselves are looking for reasons to deny entry rather than reasons to admit. [1]

This isn't to excuse their behavior - it's deplorable, but to suggest there is a rhyme or reason to what's happening isn't really sensible. The issues is emboldened agents abusing power, not an institutional directive.

Quite honestly, travelers worried about drawing the ire of the CBP don't have many reassurances right now since you're not looking for what makes you suspicious or unsuspicious to the CBP, you're trying to guess what makes you suspicious or not suspicious to the individual agent you're reaching.

The agents' attitude absolutely needs to be checked and unfortunately this likely means there will be more of these cases until something institutional is sent down to curb the behavior.

[1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/us/french-historian-de...

The agents must be looking for reasons to deny entry rather than reasons to admit, since that's what the law (e.g. [1]) has always required them to do.

If you come in with a tourist visa, the explicit legal presumption (opposite to presumption of innocence in criminal law) is that you're not fulfilling the conditions of the visa and actually intend to immigrate or work in USA, and the job given to the immigration officer is to interview you until (and if!) they become convinced that you really do meet the conditions - and if they aren't sure one way or another, then it's their duty to deny entry. It's not a new change coming in with Trump, it's that how USA immigration (sadly) works by design.

[1] from https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0... -

(b) Every alien 10/ (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15) .

I think there is a slight misunderstanding in the turn of phrase used by the lawyer and repeated by me. I understand what you're referring to, but the idea of "looking for a reason to deny" is more meant they're going beyond their stated and written duty and creating reasons to deny entry after establishing they have a valid permit for entry with no other reason. It's not that they are just doing their job, it seems some agents are inventing problems or refusing to accept some conditions as OK once properly vetted. It's the idea behind looking for a problem, trying to provoke an issue

I will be carrying devices, but not personal ones. So without any personal data. If that is enough to send me back, sure then I'll go back. I won't lie. I will simply say that I don't want my devices searched if asked about it. Honestly, I don't think I would give up my password even for devices that are not my personal ones.

Is that really a bad plan?

The officer at the border has discretionary power to send you back. If they are unhappy with what is on your device - or they dislike you - they can bounce you.

That guy again. It's like NSA got a blog.

So I should do nothing about it? I don't think so.

FYI that article has a number of errors. Most notably that anyone can any person can detect lying better than someone else. It is simply not true. I do believe that they are trained to give oddly-phased questions, which is a technique.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com