Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

That is a non-sequitur response, as this person has not been arrested for violating terms of service, sharing files through torrents, alerting people to security flaws, selling Canadian pharmaceuticals, or trafficking in undersized lobsters.

They were arrested for building and selling software used to harvest Amazon logins, bank account logins, and credit card numbers from botnets.

Your logic could just as easily be used to dismiss an indictment of any crime, from undersized lobsters to murdering someone with an undersized lobster.

View on HN

As I read it, you Thomas were pointing out that the indictment contains a number of overt and recognizably 'bad' acts, and Jacques was pointing out that there are a number of actions that are arguably 'non bad' that could also get you in trouble.

What I took away from this is that Marcus probably shouldn't have come to the US if there really were trails on a computer system tying him to malware. And that Jacques believes it will eventually be a bad idea to come to the US if you have done anything the US disapproves of, even if such things are both acceptable and legal where you did them and when.

Me, I'm just trying to move my deck chair so that I can get a good look at the icebergs floating nearby away from all the screaming and panicing.

While it's a different situation, it's still not a good one. The lack of rights for foreigners, the NSAs reach, the willingness to prosecute citizens of other countries, long detentions and harsh penalties for computer crimes etc. puts people in a situation where the US government can make things very uncomfortable for them. I do think some risks with e.g. mass surveillance have been exaggerated, like being pursued on a basis of keywords. But if the US government actually has evidence against you of things they consider illegal, your legal protection against abuse will have weakened. So while it's unlikely that the FBI has a list of dissidents that they've correlated with collected evidence and are just waiting for people to cross the border, it's still not a situation people should have to, or have to, accept.

Foreigners who are legally in the us are afforded the exact same due process rights as Americans.

This is not true at all. There is no Due Process when you're under the purview of USCIS/INS, CBP and ICE. This why visa holders in good standing can get turned-away at the border or destination airport and sent back immediately, even if they have done nothing wrong or violated the terms of their visa - just on the suspicion or hunch of the immigration officer - and they can extend their reach even after you pass through immigration. There's a reason they're called "constitution-free zones": https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-b...

Even Americans aren't safe:

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-by-...

That's why the parent said "legally in the US", not "at the border".

You meant to say "within 100 miles of any US border" instead of "at the border".

If you haven't made it through CBP, you aren't legally in the US yet.

70% of Americans are under the purview of the CBP and their 100mile sphere of influence.

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

This is claimed by DHS and not backed by law or legal precedent in the manner you imply.

ICE and CBP do conduct arrests pertaining to border violations within that 100 mile zone, but they aren't shaking down random passers-by for their iCloud passwords. They do have to follow due process.

I don't have citations because I can't prove a negative.

This is false, and the ACLU should take this page down. In fact, in the 1970s, the Border Patrol tried to rely on this notional "sphere of influence", and was smacked down by the Supreme Court. Searches concomitant with the Border Search Exemption must have some nexus to an actual, recent border crossing.

They could presumably investigate you with much greater power outside of the US where you don't have the same rights. I don't know if they could later use that in court, but that was at least what someone argued regarding Silk Road.

"In any event, even if the FBI had somehow 'hacked' into the SR Server in order to identify its IP address, such an investigative measure would not have run afoul of the Fourth Amendment," Turner wrote. "Because the SR Server was located outside the United States, the Fourth Amendment would not have required a warrant to search the server, whether for its IP address or otherwise."

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/us-says-it-can-h...

> to murdering someone with an undersized lobster

Too far, man.

Except those things have happened to other people and thus anyone who has done those things (that aren't necessarily immoral or even illegal in other places) should avoid the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com