Hacker News Reader

This comment irritates me. On one hand, I agree with it. On the other: how is it not just a version of “if you have nothing to hide”?

At some point, you should fight for what you consider basic human rights. Where you draw the line and how you fight is up to you.

It sounds like your attitude is to comply with whatever the authorities want.

It seems like a completely innocent person is the best one to push back on authoritarian overreach.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

No, you're not.

And idk how people don't understand how "politeness" gets weaponized.

This video is an example

https://youtu.be/amSIcL3V5C4?is=hmlOx2t7dHg5j-lJ

Here, the only way this guy could've had a "good attitude" is if he had let the lady do whatever she wants with his service dog. This behavior is very common in situations where people feel entitled to something, but know the counterparty has the absolute right to refuse to cooperate. No matter how politely that information is conveyed, it's "rude" because they're being denied something they want.

The police don't like my attitude when I firmly say "no, sorry, I won't be unlocking my phone. I will only do what I am legally required to do."

People have a hard time understanding this because they are under the impression that they know how to be polite because they do what they think is polite. They are unaware that politeness is subjective and slippery and that people can and do use it to manipulate others into doing things they're uncomfortable with.

[Am in agreement with being conflicted about this advice]

In a normal functioning society with law enforcement that is actually accountable to it's citizens, yes - polite pushback will likely have no horrible consequences.

In a country that is either already in the depths of fascism/authoritarianism - or rapidly heading there, fighting for rights is seen as a "red flag".

See also: "On Tyranny" (Timothy Snyder) and "Do Not Obey in Advance".

There is a time and a place.

If someone jumps out at you in a dark alley and they have a weapon and they ask for your wallet, what are you going to do? Swallow your pride and give it to them, or willingly enter into a high-risk and highly-imbalanced scenario where you are at a huge disadvantage against the other person for who this is essentially zero-risk, something they do multiple times a day, and they have nothing to lose from it either way.

Sure it is legally wrong and you can stand up for your legal rights in that situation, but it's a high-risk strategy to take.

Is that particular moment, that exact moment in time, the right time to take a stand for the rule of law? Or perhaps there are other things you can do after the fact?

Up to you.

Someone stabbing you and leaving your corpse in an alley is obviously pretty bad, but getting on a no-fly list for life/prison time/beaten senseless in a backroom in some random airport in a country where you are a foreigner and don't know the language or law/etc because you wanted to prove some point to a border guard at some airport somewhere and were generally being a jerk is no joke either.

The difference between "if you have nothing to hide" and the argument you're replying to is that "if you have nothing to hide" is used as a justification for why it's not a problem for authorities to be able to randomly search you, while the parent comment isn't attempting to justify, just acknowledge the reality of the situation.

It’s weird how few people understand that just being courteous/polite eases most encounters considerably.

Absolutely astonishing seeing people try the “I’m going to be as annoying as humanly possible” to the guy with the gun with the “my YouTube lawyer says I can” defense. You don’t want to have to defend your civil rights in court.

This goes doubly when at immigration where you basically don’t have rights.

This guidance also applies to: bank tellers, call takers, baristas, waiters, other people standing in line with you, the bus driver, your mom, the neighbors upstairs, the raccoon across the street, …

Politeness is the correct behavior on most walks of social life, but on this case it's a bit like the "turn the other cheek" approach, but in this case, it's turn the other butt-cheek because you're being effed in the A.

Also, you do have rights, but don't seem to really care a lot about them since, in the face of unlawful and oppressive demands by overreaching authorities, your suggestion is to be courteous with the oppressors for some reason.

"Land of the free, home of the brave"

It's best to do that for things they have the right to do. Trying to resist being questioned or having your stuff searched is a fool's errand. They'll make it happen one way or another.

But I'd never unlock my phone for US immigration. That's my whole life on there, and they don't have the right to compel me to unlock it. Even there, be polite. You can say "no" politely.

Where this guy went wrong was actively wiping his phone. That's no good. What you do is put your phone in its most secure state (generally powering it off) before you reach the immigration desk, and then if they seize it, you have to trust its security to keep them from getting into it.

They can just ask you to unlock it for them.

They can ask, yes. And I can refuse. They can’t detain me more than temporarily, and they can’t prevent me from entering the country.

They can still make your life very difficult. They could throw you in jail for "obstructing investigation" or something similar.

Not in US, but had my phone seized by authorities and was asked to unlock it. I'm walking free, but I think what really saved me is that I genuinely complied with investigation and the only place where I drew the line was me giving away my password.

If I used my right to remain silent AND not give away the password, I'd probably be charged with something. I'm sure its very similar in many countries, including US.

It's extremely unlikely they'd jail me for obstruction. They wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on and they know it.

From CBP themselves:

"If a traveler being admitted as a U.S. citizen does not present their device in a condition that allows for examination, the U.S. citizen traveler will not be denied entry into the United States based on CBP’s inability to complete an inspection of their device. However, as noted above, their device may be subject to exclusion, detention, or other appropriate action or disposition."

Worst case would be losing the phone, which is a tradeoff I'm willing to make.

They have verbatim told me they would deny me entry into the country merely for not answering things like random questions about what work I do in the country or whether I own guns (I am a US citizen). They involved HSI and tried to get my passport revoked, they tossed me in a jail cell and vans with my hands and feet bound. They wrote lies in a search warrant, tied the source of the lies to anonymous individuals and animals that can never be held to account, and then got a judge to sign a search warrant that turned up nothing. They got doctors to write in my medical record that they think "I am a drug packer" despite never finding anything or any evidence to support it.

You will find "temporary" can be long enough to make your life extremely unpleasant, that they can do unpleasant things to your body (another lady at my point of entry was raped, sued, and lost, -- the raping was done to "probe for drugs" and held to be justified), that they can run up debt in your name (what they did to me is just travel around to different ER and tell them an emergency, then bill it to my name, and to multiple hospitals to rack up the debt), that they can put you on a list so that you have no hope of making any airport connections for many years. I don't even bother scheduling same-day international connections anymore, and I have to plan on family members and animals being taken care of for at least 72 hours in advance before I cross the US border.

You later contact a lawyer, several lawyers in fact, only to find out they've handled many of these cases, always lost, and reluctant to bother trying again.

Respectfully, you don't realize how horribly naïve you are. You are not dealing with people that follow the law, rather genuinely evil people that will do whatever they can get away with because they can get away with it and find supreme satisfaction in sadism.

Why do I get the feeling there’s more to this story....

Anyway, there’s wide gulf between not giving up the passcode to my life and not answering basic questions.

You'll hear the same "more to the story" if it happens to you, as well. Hope you never have to experience it, but if you do, you'll find the same as me. No one believes it until it happens to them, always "more to the story" or "a lie" or some such right up until they find out reality. Then they find out that "gulf" they thought they saw was a mirage.

https://xkcd.com/325/

Except CBP harassment instead of a bobcat. Only 1-in-30 people will ever know there's a serious problem.

I think the "worst case" won't just be losing the phone. Do you think they'll get to the stage of keeping your phone but then let you walk out the airport as if nothing happened?! You will have just had a serious, high-risk, and unpleasant altercation with the border officials they're not going to let you just leave without any further action. You'll very likely have your phone taken away while you are detained for "further enquiries" because your actions have just given them totally justified reason to suspect you're worth investigating further.

You may not be convicted for obstruction in the end but wow they will make things horrible for you right up until the court case is dropped at the last minute.

From that point on, every further interaction you have with any officer or official is another high-stakes situation for you where they will be looking to build up a case against you. Every word you say, every slip of the tongue in the interrogation room, the prison van, the holding cell at the station, your complaint at the cuffs being too tight, about needing to go to the bathroom, etc it's all being recorded and used by THEM to paint a picture of THEIR CHOOSING about YOU and build a case against YOU. They are actively trying to trip you up and get you to say/admit/confess to anything and they are professionals who are highly practiced at this and I assume - with respect - that you are not trained to withstand hostile interrogation and incarceration, even for short periods of time while they "straighten things out down at the station".

If you are in that situation I highly recommend you REFUSE to saying a single thing to anyone without legal representation (assuming that is even an option in the country where you decide to be a jerk) because they're out to get you for something, even if not the original thing they took you in for. Be extremely careful about what you say without legal representation.

Good luck on your next flight. Remember that there are different counties at both ends of an international flight and the laws are different in different countries - the laws you are used to at home don't apply elsewhere.

I'm afraid to leave the country precisely because I worry about difficulties upon return. I understand that as a citizen I can't be denied reentry, but I also understand they can make the process extremely difficult or uncomfortable if they want to and I have little or no recourse.

Canadian crossings might be better but don't count on it.

Ironically, I've been grilled harder trying to get into Canada than any other country.

Not sure what it is about Canadian border guards...

They aren't living up to the stereotypes, eh

"I can refuse."

Only in theory. Yes you have "rights", but they have power.

They have the power to confiscate my device for an indeterminate amount of time. They have the power to detain me briefly. I accept those as possible consequences of refusal.

If you're referring to the power to do illegal things, do you apply this everywhere? If a cop asks to enter my home, should I let them because they can illegally shoot me? If a beggar asks for money, should I give it to them because they might become violent?

They can legally do a lot more than that.

There is also a huge space between "obeying the laws and policies in the most conservative sense" (which is what you described) and being "illegal".

> do you apply this everywhere

In fact I do.

> should I let them because they can illegally shoot me

I'm not suggesting what you should do. That's up to you. I'm just saying the government can do a lot more than you think and get away with it, including "illegally" shooting you in circumstances. It's always a balance of risks. For me personally, If a normal cop ask to enter I'll refuse. But if it's ICE? That's suddenly a much harder choice.

Actually no I'll probably die either way. Who cares.

> I genuinely don't think there is a "get out of jail free card" ...

Being rich and politically connected would probably do it.

That's not free. It simply means you can afford to buy the very expensive get-out-of-jail cards.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever"

I will ask this here again:

At what point did the German people find it morally acceptable to start killing Nazis?

At what point will the US stop accepting the boot and act to remove the tyranny stamping on our collective face?

Did they ever?

> At what point did the German people find it morally acceptable to start killing Nazis?

Late 1960s at the very earliest, and it's only been a tiny minority.

If it helps, the nazis themselves probably asked this very question before they started killing ... whatever the contemporary term for nazis was back than.

I don't think there was a label back then that was used the ways "Nazis" is used today.

Umbrella term for political opponents? Those always exist. Some variation of "jew puppet", if I had to guess.

Nazis isn't an umbrella term for political opponents

It wasn't until over a decade after the war that most Germans started to accept and internalize that the Nazis were bad guys.

There's also another war where the Germans think they're the good guys because it hasn't been a decade yet.

> At what point did the German people find it morally acceptable to start killing Nazis?

Functionally never, after the war the Allies handed "denazification" over to the West Germans to handle themselves in 1946. They then let basically everybody off and lots of former Nazis were let back into power. By 1957, 77% of the West German justice ministry was comprised of former Nazis, which was actually a higher percentage than the amount of Nazis in the ministry during Hitler's reign. The Soviets were more strict with the denazification of East Germany, but many former Nazis were still able to retain high positions in government and society.