Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops • Hacker News Board

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#351

Post by C14L » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 8:17 PM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #76

mikeash wrote: post #14

Quick reminder: US citizens have an absolute right to reenter the country. Customs can temporarily detain you, but they cannot refuse entry. Any threat, whether implied or stated, that they will hold you until you unlock your device is not real. They can hold your stuff indefinitely, so be prepared to lose it if you go this route, but never unlock your device based on the idea that it’s the only way to go free. Non-c…

> but never unlock your device based on the idea that it’s the only way to go free. Best to enter the customs zone with the phone powered off, your device's security is likely better in this state, less likely to be circumvented while you surrender it.

Also probably a good idea to delete all your 2FA entries you may have in Goog Authenticator on the phone. Or they may want to look into those accounts too.

Best to just wipe any device and restore from backup.

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#352

Post by wang_li » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 8:19 PM UTC

village-idiot wrote: post #305

wang_li wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans who have concealed carry permits on their person when entering Canada will have their vehicle searched with a fine toothed comb.

That’s actually pretty reasonable. I don’t think anyone reasonable thinks Canada doesn’t have the right to enforce their firearm laws at their border.

I agree that no one who is reasonable thinks that Americans who travel to Canada get to exercise the rights they hold as Americans in America. But is having a concealed carry permit in your wallet a reasonable indication that you have a gun on your person or in your vehicle? Statistically, in the US, CC permit holders are the most law abiding group in the country.

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#353

Post by Macross8299 » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 8:24 PM UTC

throwaway91872 wrote: post #348

Macross8299 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't plead guilty to (what sounds like) a trafficking charge and then claim to be innocent and expect to be freely admitted to other countries. Canada has no way of knowing you're innocent so your logic is that they should just let you in anyways? I think countries have very good reasons to keep people with drug convictions from entering regardless of whether or not you believe drugs should be decriminalized or…

> I think countries have very good reasons to keep people with drug convictions from entering regardless of whether or not you believe drugs should be decriminalized or legal. What you are really saying is that you think countries have very good reasons to keep people that are not well off from entering. People that are well off would/do not have the same legal outcomes, and thus your measurement of law-abiding is no…

>What you are really saying is that you think countries have very good reasons to keep people that are not well off from entering.

Well, yes. As far as immigration goes, the policy of most non-US western countries is primarily merit-based or if you have money to invest in the country. If you aren't educated and productive and you're not a legitimate refugee, why should a country let you in? How does the country benefit?

Canada has a generous welfare system and social safety net that that would likely be unsustainable if it let in sufficient number of people unable to support their own benefits. Even if you hold the view that drug use ought to be a public health matter and not a criminal matter, there's a limited amount of immigration that can be sustained without overburdening these services and why let in a drug user when you can let in a doctor or engineer?

In the case of tourism, it's just about limiting risk of someone overstaying their visa.

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#354

Post by fwip » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 8:56 PM UTC

Not_a_pizza wrote: post #152

musha68k wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quick reminder: Non US citizens only go to conferences outside the US. There is no excuse we should put up with this. Canada and EU are much better locations for this reason alone.

Quick reminder: Without a true Bill of Rights, your rights, as much you might think they are secure, are virtual at best.

The same is true with a Bill of Rights.

The government does what the government wants. If you're lucky, later a different part of the government will apologize.

A bill of rights may reduce the odds that those enumerated rights are denied to you, but it cannot prevent it.

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#355

Post by throwaway91872 » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 8:56 PM UTC

Macross8299 wrote: post #353

throwaway91872 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think countries have very good reasons to keep people with drug convictions from entering regardless of whether or not you believe drugs should be decriminalized or legal. What you are really saying is that you think countries have very good reasons to keep people that are not well off from entering. People that are well off would/do not have the same legal outcomes, and thus your measurement of law-abiding is no…

>What you are really saying is that you think countries have very good reasons to keep people that are not well off from entering. Well, yes. As far as immigration goes, the policy of most non-US western countries is primarily merit-based or if you have money to invest in the country. If you aren't educated and productive and you're not a legitimate refugee, why should a country let you in? How does the country benef…

> Well, yes. As far as immigration goes, the policy of most non-US western countries is primarily merit-based or if you have money to invest in the country. If you aren't educated and productive and you're not a legitimate refugee, why should a country let you in? How does the country benefit?

I make well into six figures as an engineer and cannot make legitimate business trips to Canada even when the company lawyer has appealed for my entry, complete with compiling a report with ample evidence of merit. It is a naive view to think that entry is merit based when I'm being denied entry based solely on the fact that I was once a teenager that was discovered to be around weed once.

> In the case of tourism, it's just about limiting risk of someone overstaying their visa.

Then why do so many performance artists have to cancel Canadian stops when they are not allowed entry? Are they really scared a platinum artist is going to become a drain on their society? That quite obviously has nothing to do with it.

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#356

Post by jillesvangurp » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

whoCaresAnymore wrote: post #166

jillesvangurp wrote: post #102

Traveling internationally with encrypted data you don't want to disclose to border officials is not a good plan these days. Much safer to transfer securely via network connection. It's easy to single out the US but the reality is that most countries have pretty far reaching rules these days. E.g. the UK and Australia are hardly any safer. And forget about China, Russia, or indeed most countries with even less democra…

Transfering via network is only secure, if you believe that forward security exists for network traffic, which is very likely untrue. The point being: if your encrypted network traffic is captured and retained, maybe it can still be brute forced at liesure, and deduplicated for deltas only. Thus, volume is only a temporary issue, and everyone still gets to see everything eventually, and full retrospective records are…

This is true regardless of whether you travel internationally. The converse is true as well: traveling internationally does not make it less secure to exchange information. Either way, we are well into tin foil hat territory here but if you do believe this, stop using (networked) computers.

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#357

Post by zanny » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

philsnow wrote: post #282

mikepurvis wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a cost to doing that. I guess it depends just how badly you need to travel to the US, but as a Canadian citizen, I see no reason to endanger myself or my family by traveling there at the current time. Walt Disney World will still be there in 2021.

> Walt Disney World will still be there in 2021 Border policy won't change by 2021 either, at least not for the better.

Hey we could still see a sea change at the US federal level of either progressive or adherent libertarian representatives that curtail the fear / police / surveillance state in the 2020 election.

Its about as likely as bitcoin taking over the world economy, but hey we all have to cling to false hope sometimes.

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#358

Post by mrmuagi » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

whoCaresAnymore wrote: post #166

jillesvangurp wrote: post #102

Traveling internationally with encrypted data you don't want to disclose to border officials is not a good plan these days. Much safer to transfer securely via network connection. It's easy to single out the US but the reality is that most countries have pretty far reaching rules these days. E.g. the UK and Australia are hardly any safer. And forget about China, Russia, or indeed most countries with even less democra…

Transfering via network is only secure, if you believe that forward security exists for network traffic, which is very likely untrue. The point being: if your encrypted network traffic is captured and retained, maybe it can still be brute forced at liesure, and deduplicated for deltas only. Thus, volume is only a temporary issue, and everyone still gets to see everything eventually, and full retrospective records are…

Couldn't you just generate new keys each session and keep forward security?

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#359

Post by sneak » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 10:22 PM UTC

justadudeama wrote: post #308

sneak wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a US citizen. For many years I tried exercising this right while remaining silent. I’ve been kicked out of a border control point in northern Vermont in February in a snowstorm after a four hour interrogation. (They sent the bus without me.) I’ve been arrested and locked in a room for twelve hours with no food or water or medication. I’ve been endlessly harassed and interrogated on other entries even when not ex…

What line of work are you in that makes this such a issue for you when you travel?

Makes what such an issue?

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#360

Post by justin66 » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 10:43 PM UTC

cyphar wrote: post #326

tdfx wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not even sure how someone could support or oppose the second amendment. It really doesn't say much (anything?) about personal gun ownership. What people are arguing over is the interpretations through caselaw trying to figure out what this rather ambiguous segment of text was trying to say.

The Supreme Court first ruled in 2008[1] that the right to personal ownership of guns is a valid reading of the 2nd Amendment (devoid of any military/militia purpose -- a departure from previous Supreme Court decisions). While it is correct to argue that Supreme Court decisions are "case law", the Supreme Court is the final appellate court in the US -- so the only way to change their decision would be through a const…

It would be more accurate to say advocating for a different interpretation of the second amendment. At times, some do advocate for the repeal of an amendment as well, and in that case the "opposed to x amendment" verbiage seems a bit more appropriate. There have been a few groups calling for constitutional conventions in the past few years and I think there are some examples of this there. I don't think actually repealing the second amendment has ever been a remotely mainstream idea in the United States.

> While it is correct to argue that Supreme Court decisions are "case law", the Supreme Court is the final appellate court in the US -- so the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment.

The supreme court does change their mind about things, as the Heller decision demonstrates.