Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Customs wants to collect social media account names at the border

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 174 posts

Re: US Customs wants to collect social media account names at the border

#161

Post by malka »

droithomme wrote: post #148
curryst wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classifying the US military forces like that just cheapens the word "terrorist". I'm not arguing that everything the US did in Iraq was morally right or justifiable, but it's generally implied that terrorists are almost always non-state actors. If you use that definition almost every nation in the world is full of terrorists. China, North Korea, and large swaths of the Middle East enforce their power using fear, so t…

Torture and attacks on civilian populations are both terrorist actions. If you define terrorism as necessarily non-state, then you have to discard the state sponsored terrorism of Libya, ISIS (which is in fact now a state), Afghanistan, Nazi Germany, etc. I do not believe that discarding state sponsored terrorism as "not terrorist" by defining terrorism as not possible by states to be a useful definition, do you?

> ISIS (which is in fact now a state)

No. Absolutely no state in the world recognizes ISIS as a state. State is a circular definition by nature btw.

Re: US Customs wants to collect social media account names at the border

#162

Post by throwawaysocks »

lovich wrote: post #122
throwawaysocks wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "terrorist" doesn't have a single fixed meaning. It's context-dependent. Pretending it's not context-dependent willfully misinterprets the speaker. A lot of words function like this. E.g., "believer". When a christian asks me if I'm a believer I might say yes. But then I'd probably say no if a wiccan asked me the same question. Obviously, that doesn't mean that everyone (or no one) is a believer once you fix…

Being a context dependent term is what makes questions like these from the government a big problem. Its like Nineteen Eighty-Four where "we have always been at war with EastAsia", only now the changing term is what constitutes a terrorist, or some other group the government has decided to not like

Meh.

Terms of art will always borrow and re-define colloquial language. Do programmers aspire to 1984 because they re-appropriate the word functional?

Defining an explicit list of "terrorist organization"s may or may not seek to redefine the term terrorist, but it is not tantamount to willful restatement of established historical fact (a la "always been at war").

No one would seriously would assert that the term-of-art definition of terrorist == the dictionary denotation of terrorist. That is the meaningful line in the sand between mere rhetorical ploy and outright democratic totalitarianism.

Re: US Customs wants to collect social media account names at the border

#164

Post by nojvek »

andreasklinger wrote: post #2

I was always very confused/amused by the questions at the border: "Are you a terrorist or affiliate with a terrorist organization?" "Are you a secret spy" Why would anyone say yes? What's the purpose of this. Do they just need it to avoid arguments like "we dont even ask?" A friend of mine explained it to me: - let's say that they have the suspicion or evidence that you are affiliated w/ a terrorist organization. by…

This is one of the reasons why I'm really liking snapchat. Every message goes poof after reading and the network is very private.

Unless of course snapchat is storing every message. In which case they'd have gigs of my silly selfies.

Re: US Customs wants to collect social media account names at the border

#165

Post by lovich »

throwawaysocks wrote: post #162
lovich wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a context dependent term is what makes questions like these from the government a big problem. Its like Nineteen Eighty-Four where "we have always been at war with EastAsia", only now the changing term is what constitutes a terrorist, or some other group the government has decided to not like

Meh. Terms of art will always borrow and re-define colloquial language. Do programmers aspire to 1984 because they re-appropriate the word functional? Defining an explicit list of "terrorist organization"s may or may not seek to redefine the term terrorist, but it is not tantamount to willful restatement of established historical fact (a la "always been at war"). No one would seriously would assert that the term-of-a…

I was referring to the fact that the word terrorist seems to have expanded to mean "whoever I have decided to fight currently" whenever the government uses it

Re: US Customs wants to collect social media account names at the border

#166

Post by dTal »

dang wrote: post #140
droithomme wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with you that his comment cheapens the discussion. I do think that your comment cheapens it. His point that the US military, with its illegitimate wars, torture practices, and widespread murder of civilians, is reasonably considered to be a terrorist organization is a reasonable and good comment which advances the discussion intelligently and productively. The fact is that US military are in fact terrorist…

> The fact is that US military are in fact terrorists, as is the citizenry that supports this terrorist regime with tax money. Please don't post shrill ideological denunciations to HN. It's not what this site is for, there's no substantive argument that requires it, and one needn't be a militarist to know that.

Oh come on. That was the substantive argument, expanding on what was said before in good faith and providing a reason why it matters to the discussion. Several other users here seem to think it has at least something to contribute, and it has already provoked a somewhat more nuanced discussion below. Calling it a "shrill ideological denunciation" is, itself, a shrill ideological denunciation. ("Shrill" in particular is a very unbecoming word for a supposedly apolitical moderator whose main enemy is supposed to be incivility.)

I am trying to be charitable in my interpretation here, but twice now you have zeroed in specifically on the charge that US military activities constitute 'terrorism'. It really looks like your objection is to that postulate, and not to its relevance to the discussion or the politeness with which it's advanced. If that's really the case, then you have taken an unequivocally political position which you are willing to enforce through moderation.

I don't want to believe this is the case, as it would mean the end of my participation on HN. So I would like to know what moderating principle is being used here. So far all I have are the following pejorative terms: "deeply uncool", "political flamebait", "shrill ideological denunciations", and "ideological rants".

Re: US Customs wants to collect social media account names at the border

#167

Post by couchand »

balls187 wrote: post #146
jacquesm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure that there are lines somewhere between 'taking things seriously', 'overreacting' and 'making examples of people'. Ask a stupid question, expect a stupid answer. It's a stupid question because nobody in their right mind would answer 'yes' to the question which just leaves people with a language barrier (which have a high incidence rate at borders), people that are nervous and/or tired (ditto, probably includi…

I don't think it's necessarily a stupid question, because of the psychology involved with lying. This question would likely weed out any wanna-be small time people intent on causing harm to the US. Something similar to how many criminals in the US are arrested due to routine traffic stops. If asking this "stupid" question prevents 1 single undesirable person from entering the US, then it's served it's purpose.

At what cost?

Re: US Customs wants to collect social media account names at the border

#168

Post by fletom »

ythl wrote: post #135
droithomme wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with you that his comment cheapens the discussion. I do think that your comment cheapens it. His point that the US military, with its illegitimate wars, torture practices, and widespread murder of civilians, is reasonably considered to be a terrorist organization is a reasonable and good comment which advances the discussion intelligently and productively. The fact is that US military are in fact terrorist…

The US does not use terror as a weapon in the same way terrorists do. The US Military does not purposely target the innocent.

I think that's a good point, but to make a counterpoint, there are many documented cases of their soldiers independently doing just that.

Re: US Customs wants to collect social media account names at the border

#169

Post by jacquesm »

marssaxman wrote: post #155
mikestew wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if more of us opted out more of the time, the system would become unworkable, and it would have to change. You're saying it's workable now? While you and I are standing over there waiting for our groping, feeling smug about how we're sticking it to the man with our civil disobedience, the lines continue to back further and further out because they cut the number of agents. We're not sticking it to the man when the ma…

Well, what else have we got? "Make it expensive" seems to be the only tool that works in this case, since they don't seem to actually care what we think about any of this.

If enough people do it they will simply remove the option to opt out.

Re: US Customs wants to collect social media account names at the border

#170

Post by marssaxman »

jacquesm wrote: post #169
marssaxman wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, what else have we got? "Make it expensive" seems to be the only tool that works in this case, since they don't seem to actually care what we think about any of this.

If enough people do it they will simply remove the option to opt out.

At least that would be honest.
Post reply on HN