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

No one should have to travel in fear

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 152 posts

Re: No one should have to travel in fear

#141

Post by mikeash »

_bxg1 wrote: post #37

Every time an article like this pops up (seems like a couple times a month now), I'm validated in my decision to donate monthly to the ACLU. They're always mentioned as fighting this stuff on the front lines.

I donated to the ACLU on Trump’s first weekend in office when he made such a cock-up of his travel ban. Then the letters started coming begging for more money. I like their ostensible mission but I don’t want more junk mail. At this point I’m pretty sure they’ve spent more money mailing me shit than I donated, and destroyed all my motivation to give them anything more. It’s too bad, because we do need organizations like this, but why do they have to piss off the people who want to support them?

Re: No one should have to travel in fear

#142

Post by jacobush »

_bxg1 wrote: post #63
14 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the part I don't get. Surely they realize there are a large portion of people that will avoid that county just on principle that they may be hassled at the border. I can imagine that these policies have cost them millions of dollars. Imagine going to a county and being turned around all because you had an employers laptop you promised not to unlock for anyone. Or how about a personal laptop with naked picture…

These power-tripping thugs don't think that far ahead. They only care about exercising authority in their tiny little hundred-foot-long kingdom.

Thugs will be thugs but the problem is with those who put them there

Re: No one should have to travel in fear

#143

Post by jacobush »

u801e wrote: post #118
maximilianroos wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the dog signaled, that's probable cause to search the car. They can take detain you and search every nook and cranny of both the car and its passengers. Again - nothing distinct about being near the border for that. As you said, it's not objective whether the dog legitimately signaled. But IIUC you have limited ability to demonstrate that. (anyone know of cases around this?)

> If the dog signaled, that's probable cause to search the car. In other words: The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution clearly states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated unless a dog barks."

Unless a dog is directed by its handler to bark. FTFY

Re: No one should have to travel in fear

#144

Post by maximilianroos »

geofft wrote: post #116
biztos wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there really a difference, in principle? "Show me what you have concealed in your pockets" vs. "Show me what you have concealed in your devices" -- aren't these two commands legally equivalent?

I think the US courts see them as different because you have different expectations about whether other (non-government) people might see them. The contents of my pocket might fall out, and they get put on a conveyor belt at airport security. But files on my phone don't have this level of visibility. I think it is also legally relevant to put a passcode on your phone.

A passcode offers you even more protection - you can't be compelled to divulge the passcode even with a warrant, because it would violate your 5A rights

This is different from fingerprints, which can be compelled with a warrant

So if you have sufficiently sensitive data, protect it with something you know, not something you have

Re: No one should have to travel in fear

#145

Post by _bxg1 »

mikeash wrote: post #141
_bxg1 wrote: post #37

Every time an article like this pops up (seems like a couple times a month now), I'm validated in my decision to donate monthly to the ACLU. They're always mentioned as fighting this stuff on the front lines.

I donated to the ACLU on Trump’s first weekend in office when he made such a cock-up of his travel ban. Then the letters started coming begging for more money. I like their ostensible mission but I don’t want more junk mail. At this point I’m pretty sure they’ve spent more money mailing me shit than I donated, and destroyed all my motivation to give them anything more. It’s too bad, because we do need organizations l…

They can get annoying with the junk mail. Still, that's a small price to pay for the work they do.

Re: No one should have to travel in fear

#146

Post by mikeash »

_bxg1 wrote: post #145
mikeash wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I donated to the ACLU on Trump’s first weekend in office when he made such a cock-up of his travel ban. Then the letters started coming begging for more money. I like their ostensible mission but I don’t want more junk mail. At this point I’m pretty sure they’ve spent more money mailing me shit than I donated, and destroyed all my motivation to give them anything more. It’s too bad, because we do need organizations l…

They can get annoying with the junk mail. Still, that's a small price to pay for the work they do.

It’s not just the annoyance, but a bad use of resources.

Re: No one should have to travel in fear

#147

Post by bigzyg33k »

zachr wrote: post #32
Rafuino wrote: post #20

Going on a trip in the short term and just got a phone with facial recognition unlock. I think it's important to turn this feature off before returning to the US as it could easily be misused in this exact situation.

On an iPhone, you can tap the power button five times consecutively to disable biometric access. However, I think the only way to do this on a MacBook with TouchID is turning it off.

You could also ensure you turn off the MBP before you enter customs, as it requires a password on startup

Re: No one should have to travel in fear

#148

Post by rwz »

euphoria83 wrote: post #2

Although it is difficult to do so, maintaining your calm when faced by intimidation by government agents generally works out. Andreas did exactly the right thing - followed his gut calmly then, filed a case in the courts later.

He had a huge benefit of being a US citizen. The worst they could do, is to intimidate and introduce a lot of stress into his life. They can't deny entry into the country to the citizen at the end of the day.

As a green card holder with my whole life being here, I can be denied entry for whatever reason. This makes it pretty much impossible for me to maintain my rights and refuse to cooperate in any way.

Re: No one should have to travel in fear

#149

Post by robben1234 »

14 wrote: post #59
jacquesm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time an article like this pops up I am validated in my decision to no longer travel to the United States.

This is the part I don't get. Surely they realize there are a large portion of people that will avoid that county just on principle that they may be hassled at the border. I can imagine that these policies have cost them millions of dollars. Imagine going to a county and being turned around all because you had an employers laptop you promised not to unlock for anyone. Or how about a personal laptop with naked picture…

>you had an employers laptop you promised not to unlock for anyone

Government laws always will overturn any agreement you had with an employers or some other person or organization.

Security theater or not, if a country is being an asshole in foreign affairs, or at least is at war with someone, be sure your rights most probably will be violated if you decide to have an interaction with such government employees.

Re: No one should have to travel in fear

#150

Post by smsm42 »

pmoriarty wrote: post #121
komali2 wrote: post #23

Dunno what to do about this. I think TSA is a sham and a waste of my money. I think border control is taking my money and using it to abuse people. I don't think it's ok that I can pay to avoid the poor people line at the airport. I've written my reps and the president, I call about once a month, but it has no measurable effect. Smarter people than me have done audits on TSA and published them in famous newspapers to…

"I don't think it's ok that I can pay to avoid the poor people line at the airport." This reminds me of something Abigail Disney, an heiress to the Disney family fortune, was quoted as saying in an article recently posted to HN. She said that she wished she could pass a law against private jets, "because they enable you to get around a certain reality. You don't have to go through an airport terminal, you don't have…

> She said that she wished she could pass a law against private jets, /.../ These are the things that remind us we're human.

So, US government should pass a law - applying to all US citizens - because it will help a billionaire heiress feel more human. Riiight.

> Getting better treatment because you have more power, wealth, or connections

I have no power, no connections and no wealth, if you don't count $100 GlobalEntry registration costed me. It saved me countless hours in lines, while I am exhausted from 10+ hour flight. If you call me "rich and powerful" because of that, I'd have no choice but to laugh and marvel at how little is required, apparently, to become part of the Illuminati.

Post reply on HN