Hacker News Reader

Comment by mindstab | Hacker News Reader

I love the inherent schizophrenia in the US political system. They are so in love with anti censorship technologies when employed against countries they don't like, like in China or Arab Spring, even going so far as to help develop the tech (tor) or ask the maintainers for special considerations (the US gov asked twitter to alter its maintenance schedule for Arab spring). But when the software could be used closer to home, they target developers like they are one step away from terrorists. The hypocrisy is... challenging

View on HN

"But when the software could be used closer to home, they target developers like they are one step away from terrorists. The hypocrisy is... challenging"

So you see this border interrogation as part of a systematic policy to intimidate developers entering the United States with expertise in cryptographic dev? Gotta be honest, that seems like a wild and illogical extrapolation to me based on this anecdotal story. So the end game of the United States government is what exactly, in this effort? To keep people with cryptographic talent outside of the US?

1) Why? I presume your point is that the government is attempting in a very, very, very round-about way to stifle free speech? Please inform me if this is not your point, I don't want to put words in your mouth.

2) What would that accomplish. We live in an era of instant communication and transportation of software. Developers can work on products from anywhere in the globe. If this man was denied entry to the United States, what is stopping him from simply working for his company from abroad? The answer: nothing.

It would serve pretty much zero purpose to run a campaign of intimidation against an incredibly small subset of the developer population... Programmers with cryptographic expertise who frequently travel in and outside of the United States... I don't get it. What about all of those with crypto experience who are already in the US and don't travel. Aren't they a threat? Are they being targeted? Where are their stories?

Doesn't the government, when they are looking to either break or make these same crypto software, draw from the same talent pool as private industry here in America? Why would they run that talent out of town?

If the US government wanted to suppress cryptographic research or otherwise circumvent it in an effort to subvert Free Speech, don't you think there are more precise and non-haphazard-and-idiotic ways of doing it?

This goes against the general sentiment of comments I've seen in this article, but I just have to say it. I think the idea is ridiculous and above all, completely inefficient for the goals everyone is ascribing to the border agents and the government here.

Logic doesn't really back this up. I can't imagine the point of this. I am not naive enough to think the government doesn't do some shady stuff, but I simply don't see the point and don't see this as an effective tool in whatever their war on developers is supposed to be.

Everything you say makes sense, but alas, the government is not always observed to be strong on logic.

But okay, given your argument, what do you think happened here, and why? Do you think this report is a complete fabrication?

In my view, untog had a perfectly reasonable and simple explanation.

True, I am assuming a certain level of logic and you are right, the world doesn't always work that way. But the above poster makes a lot more sense to me than some idea of a very, very, very ineffective campaign against crypto devs. The idea that we are targeting crypto devs really doesn't hold up when you think about it, it doesn't make a single ounce of sense.

And is it really that hard to believe that this man, whose job it is to monitor the flow of people and properties in and outside of the united states, would be interested? Is it a stretch to imagine any number of scenarios, including one where this man was simply overzealous? I understand the obvious sympathies we have to this man as a fellow programmer... I just don't see anything "there" there.

Agreed. This is simply a case of border control agents going overboard. I'm not defending it for a second (as a US visa holder, I despise the process I have to go through every time I enter the country) but these agents aren't technically inclined in any way.

When you arrive at their desk, they ask "what do you do for a living and what does your company do?". If you answer "The company makes chat software", you'd walk straight through. If you say "The company makes encrypted, secure chat software" then they are going to ask further questions. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a watchlist of words to listen out for, and "encryption" is one of them. Encryption is subject to export controls:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_U...

  This is simply a case of border control agents going 
  overboard

Again, and again, and again, and ... ? It's not an accident that these are the people being harassed. Again and again people involved in computer security, certain political campaigning and other 'dangerous' occupations are harassed. Far too often to be incidental.

Suggesting it's because of something they said is ludicrous and aggravating. That's the same argument as suggesting that if someone didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have dressed skimpily. While you don't even know what she was wearing.

Is there a Godwin's Law equivalent for how long it takes someone to use a rape comparison in an online discussion?

Nothing is being compared to rape: an argument is being compared to a well known argument involving rape, to illustrate its fallacious nature.

Perhaps there is also a law for how long it takes until someone attempts to dismiss an argument by introducing a red herring.

It's an emotionally loaded comparison, even if you're referring to the argument and not the act.

I think untog brings up a good point, which is that we don't know what the interaction was. And we do know that what you say can cause you to be further questioned.

It's highly unlikely that so many smart people are being harassed 'because they said something unwise'. These people know very well to keep their mouth shut at the border, which is a sad thing in itself. How often is the person being harassed an accountant and how often is it a security researcher? Joe Random also complains on Reddit about being harassed and their stories are upvoted just as much. Still a few categories stick out. I can't explain that, unless they are being harassed, because of what they do or believe in when not travelling.

Of course, this harassment doesn't accomplish anything. If these people were truly a threat, the FBI would stake them out, the CIA would make them disappear or the NSA would hire them. Them being harassed at the border once more illustrates the weirdness of the TSA and border patrol. Their employees seem to suffer from the group delusion that harassing people will keep them from doing security research or being a danger to the United States. I don't understand their motivation. They give the US a bad name and they achieve nothing.

The actual security agencies know better than that. You may disagree with their practices and beliefs, but they at least give the impression of being mostly competent and efficient in achieving sensible goals. The current news around a 0-day cryptographic breakthrough being incorporated in Flame doesn't result in "I never expected that", but in "Go figure".

The introduction of rape as a metaphor serves an emotional purpose, not a logical one.

Working on encryption software : Being questioned at the border !:: Wearing a bikini : getting raped.

It's a lazy argument and he was right to point it out.

That's just contradicting me, by stating !::, where I'm obviously stating ::.

I think it's the best known example, and hence the best illustration, of 'blaming the victim'. I would have used that description, were it not for the fact that I couldn't remember the name of the fallacy at the time. I remembered it after a good night's sleep. If you wish to attribute my usage of an example to lazyness, so be it.

I wasn't going to let "You get temporarily detained at the border? Well, you must've said something that alerted them." slide and I don't see how it is logically different from "You got raped? Well, you must've worn something that aroused them."

Comments like yours are not how "karma" is acquired here, FYI.

From the Wikipedia page on Jacob Appelbaum:

> He has worked for Greenpeace and has volunteered for the Ruckus Society and the Rainforest Action Network

> Appelbaum is known for representing Wikileaks at the 2010 Hope conference.

The US government has a long and well documented history of systematically harassing political dissidents.

Edit: my bad, skimmed the article and thought it was Appelbaum who was detained.

Well, he has been, too.

See the many other similar stories of detentions on this thread.

But also, just following the question of what's "wildly implausible", assuming the event happened, what's more plausible, that this was a sanctioned action based on US policy or that low-level airport security people have the ability to detain whoever they want based on criteria they make up and that they just happened to choose a crypt expert based on their personal interests in the subject?

"So you see this border interrogation as part of a systematic policy to intimidate developers entering the United States with expertise in cryptographic dev? Gotta be honest, that seems like a wild and illogical extrapolation to me based on this anecdotal story. So the end game of the United States government is what exactly, in this effort? To keep people with cryptographic talent outside of the US?"

I could probably mount a plausible argument that the end-game is to discourage talented developers/cryptographers from contributing to the sorts of projects that could be seen as "sticking it to the man". Especially since this isn't a singular isolated anecdotal story (and I know the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data", but still…)

If making that argument (and I'm not yet sure I'm convinced of it's "rightness"), I'd probably also point out it doesn't need to be on the scale of "the United States government" to exist or to be effective - it could be emergent behaviour of law enforcement agencies without being publicly chosen or acknowledged policy. A diligent "national security" agent might very well think it's entirely within their remit to "investigate" software like CryptoCat, and the Chinese Whispers propagation of that "I wonder what algorithms CryptoCat uses?" curiosity could easily end up with the observed "The NSA needs to know about your software" interrogation/intimidation behaviour by the minimum wage airport security staff.

And as a long term play - putting even a little pressure on young up-and-coming developers when they're deciding what projects to start or contribute too would "work". "Should I contribute to this borderline subversive open source crypto project? But what if I get a startup off the ground later that requires a lot of travel? Maybe I should work on my commercial mobile app idea instead…"

If the interrogator has 22 years of 'computer experience' and is asking about specific algorithms I sincerely doubt that they're minimum wage airport security staff.

Doesn't any 22-year-old have 22 years of computer experience?

"I could probably mount a plausible argument that the end-game is to discourage talented developers/cryptographers from contributing to the sorts of projects that could be seen as "sticking it to the man". Especially since this isn't a singular isolated anecdotal story (and I know the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data", but still…)"

I addressed this in one of my earlier points: I don't quite understand what you are talking about. We are computer programmers. We can build a product from anywhere in the world. Why would physical borders stop us?

>So you see this border interrogation as part of a systematic policy to intimidate developers entering the United States with expertise in cryptographic dev? Gotta be honest, that seems like a wild and illogical extrapolation to me based on this anecdotal story.

This is not the only inference you can make. Something that I've noticed about domestic law-enforcement, which I think successfully extrapolates and pertains to the DHS and TSA, is that outlying behavior is discouraged, especially outlying behavior associated with volatile keywords. How many times have I done something unusual, and stopped when the police come by because I just don't know if it's legal or not, and I don't want to get hassled?!

The law is so extensive and arcane that enforcement relies almost entirely on precedent and patterns rather than direct application, especially when dealing with rarer violations.

The result is systematic harassment with no end-game required. It's a policy that kind of sneaks up on institutions as big as the US Govt: discourage interesting, dissenting behavior; encourage boring, mainstream behavior. It doesn't require passing a law - it's an emergent behavior that only requires extra scrutiny of behavior that is outside the experience of the enforcer. This will tend to get worse with scale and the application of technology because a) more people are scrutinized and b) more of their life will be scrutinized, increasing the risk of finding outlying behavioral points.

I'm guessing what happened was something like the following:

- They asked him what he did for work (as they pretty much always do at a border crossing, in my experience). - He said he developed software. - They asked what kind of software. - He said CryptoCat. - The officer, knowing that there are export restrictions on cryptography, gave him a longer secondary interview.

I don't think they're targeting anyone here, though I wonder just how much knowledge the interviewer had about cryptography specifically.

Agreed. I think this incident has been blown way out of proportion. I am disappointed it has received so much attention ... the news article doesn't even give voice or opportunity to comment to anyone other than the complainer in the story. ....

Hardly even a news article - it's someone making supposition from a handful of tweets. Good fodder for the intertubess.

I'll bite.

Disclaimer: Never been to the US, don't plan to do it, limited insight into the laws over there.

How are export restrictions relevant for people entering the country? Aren't US export restrictions only affecting US citizens or corporations? According to his twitter page that guys from Montreal / Beirut? And how does the whole idea of export restrictions for decentralized internet projects work?

I do believe this might've been blown out of proportions, but your answer seems a little too naive/easy, from this armchair here.

Actually, he was leaving the country[1], but I'm pretty sure that's ultimately beside the point. I have sincere doubts that cryptography was the reason for his detainment. By his own admission he had been detained four times in the previous three weeks[2]. Tweets quite often in support of Wikileaks/Assange/Manning, hails from Lebanon[3], makes strong indications that he is an activist, and just got done speaking at a human rights conference[4] - I have a hard time believing they stopped him because he wrote an encrypted chat program.

Did they ask him about cryptography? They probably did, but I'd bet dollars to donuts he brought it up first.

[1] https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/210363454954016769 [2] https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/210367538759086083 [3] https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/210386514369191936 [4] https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/208388821346299904

Interesting, I didn't realize he had been detained so much. It does make one wonder how much detaining "activist" types actually helps anything though.

Also, do we know if he was detained by USCBP or CBSA (i.e. Canadian Customs)? You did mention he was detained as he was leaving the country, and unless they were running a special program that day (which happens every so often), usually the US side doesn't examine people leaving.

Agree. I took my mother to the airport last year(we live in Csnada drove her across border to detroit). We ended up in immigration for two hours. She has visited the states many times before but this time they decided to give a hard time. They ask EVERYTHING. So it wouldnt suprise me if it playe out just how you described.

Thank you for your comment.

It has been added to your profile and your thoughtcrime score has been updated.

We look forward to interviewing you the next time you attempt to cross the border.

This is a minor derail, but please don't use the term "schizophrenia" to be equal to dissociative identity disorder.

"Cognitive dissonance" is better and doesn't use other people's actual conditions as pejoratives.

Just a pet peeve I have, don't mean to call you out or anything. :)

And in any case, many DID systems are perfectly co-operative so that wouldn't really apply either.

"Hypocrisy" or "self contradiction" would IMO be even better.

What's even more sad is the repercussions that I see for the startup and technology scene. I believe our freedoms and our rights are what gives the US a huge edge in terms of creativity compared to countries like China and Singapore. Our intellectual freedoms are what leads to huge innovations, that tends to surprise a lot of people still. Without these freedoms I feel that we'll slowly lose one of our major advantages in the coming decades.

You really think that the government even cares about behaving consistently at all any more? They just ask the PR people to whip up whatever they think will move the situation in the direction they want and they craft the message and the media plays along. The people in operations operate independently from the PR people so their actions are rarely consistent with the message the PR people are feeding to the public.

Quite right too. If somebody had managed to detect the subversive writings of that terrorist leader Benjamin Franklin in time, the whole revolution business could have been avoided.

I see your point. It's not a great analogy though. He was a revolutionary, but he was not a terrorist.

Would have been if he had lost

Who did he terrorize?

The British?

There was the 20% of the population that actively opposed the revolution many of whom were attacked had their property seized and were eventually forced to move to Canada. As well as the majority who really just wanted everything to carry on peacefully

Alternatively it could be that 100% of the population fully supported the revolution leading to a universal popular uprising of the oppressed - just like Russia in 1917!

The records show 100% of the population were on board.

Yes they always do!

If 100% of the population was on-board, then who did they rise up against? Even if it's a single leader, he/she is still part of the population of a country.

I was satiring totalitarian states that tend to produce fake nonsense statistics about how popular they are.

e.g. in 2002 Saddam Hussein was re-elected President of Iraq. He got 100% of the votes, and there was 100% turnout ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/16/iraq )

And that we have always been at war with Eastasia.

A partisan wouldn't find it hard to call what happened after the war as a sort of ethnic cleansing, though more on political lines than ethnic.

On top of that, numerous civilians, particularly those in positions of authority, were subject to a sort of low key terrorism, such as being dipped in hot tar or having their homes burned down. Even being a child of such an official was solid grounds for being attacked. And in the South, people were actually murdered for having Loyalist sympathies.

This was actively encouraged by the leadership, by the way, not some decentralized mob violence. On reports that this was happening in New York, for instance, a military official put an halt to it. On hearing this, George Washington immediately intervened to allow it and upbraided the officer for hurting the revolutionary cause.

Not actually making the case that American rebels were evil terrorists: just making the case that making such a case wouldn't be too difficult for someone with an agenda, given the standards of how we label things terrorism nowadays.

I'm going to guess that the loyalists of the day couldn't tell much difference.

The way you phrased your comment can only lead to arguing semantics of the word “terrorist”. As risk to the establishment, a “subversive” can always be framed as a terrorist with a little bit of creativity.

Can you volunteer a significant difference between Franklin and a modern-day terrorist from the establishment ruler's standpoint?

He didn't intentionally kill or maim civilian targets with the goal of inciting terror?

Yes, I just meant that he didn't orchestrate and/or carry out the murders of innocent people with the sole purpose of inciting terror.

I don't think there's much to argue about here.

Yeah Franklin is a guy who has some of the same interests and values as you. You could imagine having dinner with him. You could imagine being him.

The modern terrorist is none of these things.

It's a shame this comment got downvoted. Be it serious or tongue-in-cheek, it was very enlightening.

But Che Guevara makes a better T-shirt

Not really, he tends to screw up the stitching round the collar.

< bows down > ;-) < / bows down >

I totally agree. These bloody modern terrorists, not sharing our views and customs. Bet they don't even play cricket. Very uncouth. You'd think that half of them had grown up in a war zone or something, the way they go on. Pass the gin.

Not like the old historic terrorists, no, those lot had style. They were on our side for one thing, made us a lot of money in the long run. And they look bloody good in paintings. Oh look, the gins run out. I'll go find some rum.

Extremists on your side are revolutionaries.

Extremists not on your side are terrorists.

Extremists that win are revolutionaries

Extremists that lose are terrorists

If we aren't sure yet they are insurgents

If it ends with nobody winning and the leaders getting Nobel peace prizes (N.Ireland) then they were all just folk dancers that got out of hand.

I don't think that Betty Williams or Mairead Maguire could be described as extremists, John Hume and David Trimble were not at the extreme end of their respective sides in the conflict either. 'Folk dancers', well if you feel happy about that comment thats up to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Williams_%28Nobel_laureat... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairead_Maguire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Trimble

Yes it's odd how afterwards there were no terrorists, they had been no civil war and yet a few politicians an arms length from the Armalites all got Nobel Prizes for solving a problem that never happened.

Material supporter?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com