
Harvard Student Says He Was Barred From U.S. Over Friends’ Social Media Posts - vincentmarle
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/us/harvard-student-ismail-ajjawi.html
======
laluser
Getting access to your social media handles is now part of the application
process for many different kinds of visas. To me, it's just another way for
CBP agents to make arbitrary decisions. There's not even much accountability
as-is. They have the ultimate say if they want to let you in or not. Now, it's
even crazier since simply liking a page 5 years ago could turn into a disaster
if that page evolves into something 'anti-american'. God-forbid you get hacked
and someone sabotages your online persona'.

~~~
swarnie_
I personally don't use Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. If i applied and left
all these fields blank i do wonder if they would believe me or maybe think i
was withholding information and reject me on that ground....

~~~
cylinder
Yes, you can be denied a visa for misrepresentation, however it will be up to
the Consular officer. Thus far, the Consulates don't seem that concerned with
social media and haven't appeared to be fans of this addition, but CBP likes
it clearly.

~~~
benj111
It wouldn't be misrepresentation if it were true though.

Which then raises the question of where the onus lies regarding proof.

I suppose ultimately the US can deny access to whomever they please, so you
have to jump through whatever hoops they please.

~~~
gambiting
US(and UK, and many other countries) can already ask you to provide password
for an encrypted file and jail you if you refuse. The thing is, there is no
way to prove that a file is indeed encrypted, or just a collection of random
bits - in fact they can just say you used stenography to hide something in a
completely normal .jpg file, and you need to provide them with means to decode
that. You cannot prove that it doesn't exist, all it takes is their expert
saying that "we can prove beyond resonable doubt that the file is encrypted"
and you are screwed.

~~~
swarnie_
> all it takes is their expert saying that "we can prove beyond resonable
> doubt that the file is encrypted" and you are screwed.

I'm pretty sure this wouldn't fly in the UK, wouldn't the expert need to
demonstrate to a Jury and the defence council how he "proved beyond reasonable
doubt" so the proof could be refuted?

In fact it might not work in the US. I remember a pedo trial collapsing
because the feds were unwilling to explain in open court how they tracked
people via the dark web.

------
mrunkel
For me what is particularly galling is that the state department had already
vetted and approved this person. Remember, part of the visa application
includes your social media profiles, so he's already been vetted.

Then some random CBP agent reads through Facebook posts of his friends and
denies him entry.

Some of the other comments here bewilder me. The US used to stand for
fairness, equality, and due process. We've allowed the worst of ourselves
(fear of the other) to destroy the best of ourselves (openness, fairness,
justice).

~~~
ianleeclark
> The US used to stand for fairness, equality, and due process. We've allowed
> the worst of ourselves (fear of the other) to destroy the best of ourselves
> (openness, fairness, justice).

Where do you get this ahistorical mythical belief? When we were deporting
millions of Hispanic people (citizens included) in the 30s, how just was that?
Was it fair to upend their lives and send them to a foreign land?

When we let the Klan sweep over the Reconstruction south, was that just? Jim-
Crow southern laws and their constituent sumptuary codes sure don't seem very
open to me.

Fear of the other is deeply ingrained into the US. See the Japanese internment
camps, see white flight post segregation, see the modern xenophobia aimed
towards Russians.

~~~
sampo
People from much worse regimes have always been escaping to the US, to get
some of that openness, fairness, justice, even if it's not perfect, it's
usually better than where they left from.

~~~
ianleeclark
> even if it's not perfect

This is such a tragic underselling of the horrors that I described.

~~~
sampo
What would have been your favorite country in the 30s to the 50s?

------
igammarays
Happened to a friend of mine way back in 2005, a Canadian citizen of Indian
descent. He had a valid TN visa and was working full time in the US, regularly
crossing the border between Canada and the US to visit family. One day he was
simply barred by a CBP agent, and furthermore, permanently banned from
entering the US, so he can’t even take a Canadian flight that goes over US
airspace. He had a house, car, and job in the US for years. Reason given?
Because he had once flown to Syria for an Arabic language education. Keep in
mind this was before any war was going on in Syria.

~~~
2_listerine_pls
That's insane. US Customs does treat foreigners like cattle, it's a military-
like process with no oversight and where bad treatment is not punished.

------
nraynaud
I’ve heard that a few days ago (probably same day as this story) CBP detained
a bunch (heard about 20-30 in the secondary room) of Chinese students at LAX
for a few tens of hours and trawled all their electronics and pressured them
in various ways. I know for sure that 7 of them got their visa revoked that
day (I don’t have information about other universities). They apparently got a
curious deal: either they paid for their return ticket or they got a five year
ban on top.

According to the people dealing with foreign student CBP has never done that
before.

~~~
fyfy18
> They apparently got a curious deal

That seems unlikely. If you are denied entry the airline is responsible for
returning you, which is why they are so stringent about checking for visas
before you even check in.

My wife was working for a Middle Eastern airline a few years ago, and had a
flight to Brazil (~16 hours). They only fly twice a week, so she had a layover
of a few days there. On the way back she saw a few men who were on the flight
there with her too. Apparently they were denied entry, so had to wait in the
airport (airside) for three days until the next flight back. Even worse was
after this flight they had to get another flight to go back home. So thousands
of dollars and a week of travelling for nothing...

~~~
nraynaud
That’s were the word “curious” come from. This event was out of the ordinary
in various ways.

------
keerthiko
> Michael S. McCarthy, a spokesman for Customs and Border Protection, said he
> could not comment on the specifics of Mr. Ajjawi’s case because of privacy
> rules.

The irony of this statement is making my head spin

~~~
caf
This is just the standard go-to excuse now for public officials refusing to
comment on a controversial or embarrassing decision.

They use it even if the subject whose privacy rights they are supposedly and
suddenly so interested in protecting explicitly waives it.

Every time you see that comment, just read it as _" I am not prepared to offer
a defence of our actions"_.

~~~
paxys
Very similar to bullshit we hear at companies as well.

"We can't talk about why we fired XYZ because we value his privacy."

Meanwhile XYZ is himself going around telling everyone who will listen about
how he was screwed over.

~~~
caf
Oh, you're absolutely right, I shouldn't have limited that to officialdom -
it's definitely used at least as much if not more so by corporate PR. Exactly
the same reading applies.

------
Ididntdothis
Do other countries do stuff like that too? In German media I often read about
things like security researchers not allowed to go a conference in the US or
people turned around for their twitter posts. Does this really happen often
and do other countries for example in Europe do this too?

~~~
maze-le
In Europe, definitly not while applying for a visum (they don't want your
online-handles and passwords for example). You'll probably get "background-
checked" from the interior intelligence agencies (e.g. Verfassungsschutz)
while completing the formal immigration process, but that is a completely
different story than a mere visum.

~~~
jacobush
I imagine there would have to be some kind of GDPR exception for that to
happen in Europe.

~~~
majewsky
GDPR can be overridden by any law that deems data access necessary for
government officers to do their job. When those laws are overturned by the
courts, it's not on the basis of GDPR or similar laws, it's usually because
they violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which
has a constitution-like status due to the Treaty of Lisbon.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union)

------
satori99
As someone who has never had a social media account, I have wondered if US
customs would believe me if I traveled there and they asked me about it?

~~~
pvtmert
you can send your hackernews account maybe?

~~~
satori99
Sure, I can tell them about my github account too, and hopefully I haven't
starred anyone who writes subversive code :P

~~~
hackandtrip
At least the last time I did the ESTA VISA for the US, they asked (optionally)
for multiple social network, github too!

------
rdtsc
> Mr. McCarthy noted that Mr. Ajjawi could reapply for a visa.

Usually after a denial, it becomes much harder to get an acceptance. You have
to put down answers to questions like "have you ever had your visa denied and
why?". The next agent now has a bright red flag to look at. "Oh anti-American
social media posts? Interesting. Hmm, ... well you can pay the fee and try
again next time".

------
dzhiurgis
Most ironic part - content is hosted and curated by US company...

------
mytailorisrich
There are two issues here:

The visa application process should (does?) include this sort of vetting. Why
go through the whole visa application process just to have that happen when
entering the country?

On the other hand, third parties' social media comments are useful and
relevant. If you have friends and/or are part of groups which, for example,
discuss djihad then that raises a real red flag about you even if they don't
find any such comments from you. This is relevant information to take into
account during the vetting process.

------
luka-birsa
I'm guessing people will soon start figuring out that privacy is important and
that perhaps posting personal shit online is not smart. Today it's some kid
who had some friends say something barred from entry in the US, tomorrow it's
going to be you for some weird meme image you've posted online flagged by some
algorithm.

Say it won't be so, but I can't see how that wont happen especially with the
always shifting moral compass and laws around what's acceptable and not.

~~~
benj111
Personally I would say being barred for what someone else said is worse than
being barred for something that I myself did/said.

------
arikr
What can someone concretely do to help prevent things like this happening to
other people in the U.S.?

~~~
damnyou
Vote for the party that doesn't demonize immigrants, and get all your friends
and family to vote. The US is still a democracy no matter how broken the
Senate is, and the responsibility for state actions ultimately falls on the
citizenry.

~~~
raxxorrax
That other party is really happy with demonizing what people write online and
is far more active in banning dissent. Not that the alternative isn't worse,
but the inability to name bad policy decisions almost makes that difference
trivial.

------
i_feel_great
Just stop openly criticizing everyone and everything. Be super-compliant and
everything will be sweet.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
...and only make friends with others like that? We are going towards 1984 I
guess.

~~~
i_feel_great
Yup, otherwise the all seeing-eye will be upon you all. Wait a minute, it
already is. And we technologists made it happen

------
floatingatoll
Step one, set all your social media to private.

Step two, set your passwords to something horrendously complex and leave them
at home when you travel.

Step three, create a list of your account names on each service and carry it
in your wallet.

Step four, delete all social media apps, cookies, and sessions from all of
your digital devices prior to traveling to the United States.

Step five, set up a social network email address used solely for social
networks, and change your email address on all social networks to this new
address. Apply the same password and logout rules as above.

Step six, when US border entry demands your account names, use the list in
your wallet to provide them a complete list, including the email address
linked to those social networks. When they demand the passwords, indicate that
you use 64-character random passwords, and that they’re written on a piece of
paper at home.

You may or may not be denied entry, and you may or may not be detained, but
those are the minimum steps you must take if you wish to defend your accounts
from access. By using passwords you cannot memorize, you can truthfully and
under oath declare that you do not know those passwords.

If you have completed all of the above steps, you can only then proceed to
delete your social network accounts. This will change nothing: you must still
declare all of these accounts for many years, and adhere strictly to these
rules until the reporting deadline expires. You will additionally then need to
inform US agents that you deleted your accounts as they were being used by the
US to violate your privacy.

Do any less than this and you will find your data used by the United States
government without your consent, against you and against others. You may still
find everything you posted prior to deletion used against you. Do not lie.
Either tell the truth or decline to answer.

Best of luck.

EDIT: For bonus points, secure the passwords in a safe and memorize the
combination. When asked for the passwords, tell them where they’re stored and
what the combination to the safe is. You will openly have complied and given
them everything they need to access your accounts, and volunteering the safe
combination indicates that you have nothing to hide from any investigation.
They may still capriciously deny you entry, but they will have a very
difficult time convincing anyone that you were obstructive, since you
volunteered your safe combination of your own free will, and they will have a
very difficult time securing a warrant for that safe without cause.

~~~
madaxe_again
I have an easier process:

1) Do not visit the United States. Do not do business with companies that
might require you to travel there.

It’s worked 100% of the time, so far.

Honestly, the US is such a hostile environment, it’s a wonder to me that
anybody would want to go there.

~~~
floatingatoll
This is certainly a valid way to protect your social network data from direct
US inspection during your own border crossings, but if you leave your account
visible to others or public, you may be inspected and/or used to inspect
anyone you link to that crosses the US border.

Do you intend to only friend people on Facebook that will not cross the US
border?

------
RickJWagner
Wow, this is tough one for me.

On one hand, I can totally understand denying access to someone who has many
online associates who post things about mass murder, bomb-making, etc. etc.

On the other hand, I have online 'friends' I haven't seen since childhood, a
few of which sometimes post absolutely idiotic things. Maybe somewhat racist
memes, etc. I don't feel I need to scold them, I just ignore them as much as
possible and hope to see more posts about common interests, like our shared
upbringing. I'd hate to judged on those posts (that aren't mine!)

------
surge
Already posted and discussed here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20809435](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20809435)

------
gumby
They're cutting off the limb that they're sitting on if they're turning away
smart kids. Idiots.

------
curiousDog
The US’s strength lies in the scores of bright immigrants who come to the
universities here to study and later join the work force. Keep treating them
like shit and competition will soon step into that role.

~~~
vel0city
This, exactly. Here we had a chance to impress on a foreigner that US society
is great and filled with good values and all we did was kick him to the curb
because of social media connections. We don't make the world think we're their
friends by treating impressionable foreigners poorly.

~~~
hans_castorp
> Here we had a chance to impress on a foreigner that US society is great and
> filled with good values

That ship has sailed long ago.

------
rendall
If you're outraged, great!

I ask that you remember that new powers advocated by the party you trust -
such as warrantless border searches - can also be used by the party you do not
trust.

Please, please think carefully when the party you like arrogates powers to the
government, and punish them with your vote and advocacy, even though you like
them.

Examples!

\-- The border patrol powers cited in the article actually extend 100 miles
from the US border. Do you live within 100 miles of the US border, or do you
ever visit places that are? If so, then you may be stopped without probable
cause by border patrol. [https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-
border-zone](https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone)

\-- The President of the United States can put even US citizens on a secret
assassination list and have them executed. This was a power not authorized by
Congress. Even the legal basis for this - the very law that pasted a veneer of
legality on this - is secret. The media kept focusing on "drone attacks", but
the method of assassination was not the controversial part of all of that.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix)

\-- Secret trials, in which the defendant is not even allowed to know they are
under trial, and witnesses have gag orders not to reveal this.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court)

\-- Mass, warrantless surveillance.

\-- The US requires US citizens living abroad to pay taxes to the US
government. By itself, this is arguably a patriotic duty of every citizen,
even though the US and the dictatorship of Eritrea are the only countries that
require this. Unlike Eritrea, however, the US can enforce this on foreign
banks, which are required to report your personal economic activity to the US.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act)

There is more. A lot more.

It makes me nervous when people focus on Trump as a particularly evil anomaly
that must be removed at all costs, and then everything can go back to normal.
"Normal" is terrifying to me. The virtue of Trump is that people are paying
attention, at least: it's difficult for the government to arrogate more powers
when people are paying attention. I hope that the outrage against Trump
continues when the next Democrat gets in, and all of this creeping
authoritarianism will get rolled back. But, I also suspect that's a delusional
fantasy.

------
hans_castorp
So apparently freedom of speech in the U.S. means "freedom to say whatever the
U.S. thinks is right".

~~~
neighbour
Not a U.S. citizen but why would the constitution apply to non-American
citizens?

~~~
pjc50
The corresponding provision in European human rights law, article 10, applies
to all humans.

------
Uhrheber
Obviously, the US of A don't want any visitors anymore.

Duly noted.

~~~
Noos
Not only do some of us don't want visitors, we'd love to completely withdraw
all support for the EU and our military bases there, too :)

The amount of complaining the EU does when it's been free riding on The USA's
foreign aid and military power for decades its a wee bit annoying.

~~~
gambiting
Wait....are you actually serious?

Let me get this abundantly clear. US has military bases in the EU(and
elsewhere) for their own benefit. They are not protecting us, they are not
here for any sort of contribution to military power - they are here to project
American might across the globe. In case of actual global-scale conflict with
say Russia, I have less than zero faith that US army would do anything to
defend us, unless it aligned perfectly with their own goals.

I've heard this argument multiple times actually - that somehow EU states
should be grateful for "protection" that US is providing the the rest of the
world. No, it's the other way around - US should be grateful that those
countries let US keep a solid foothold in those parts of the world, but let's
not kid ourselves - protecting those countries is probably not even in top 3
of American priorities should an actual war break out.

------
Mikeb85
Honestly, he should know better. Not going to lie, I've got friends that post
questionable stuff (drunken antics, random rants) and when I was in school,
looking for internships and whatnot I shut down those social media accounts
and scrubbed my online life.

Based on the fact he's Palestinian, I'm going to guess there were posts that
were anti-US. Guilt by association is a thing and since he's not a citizen,
the US doesn't have to let him in. Maybe it's a tad unfair, but he chose to
continue to follow those friends online, he could have disengaged...

~~~
jeena
Before throwing the first stone I would look through my own accounts. The
Facebook algorithm doesn't even show you what your friends are posting for
years, only those you engage with.

------
edejong
Maybe now people will stop using social media. Ah, wait, no. Everything in the
name of convenience.

~~~
SenHeng
Immigration will likely think you're lying if you say you don't use any form
of social media.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Maybe, but if you claim just WeChat, they will probably give up since they
don’t Chinese.

~~~
SenHeng
You think they have someone that reads Arabic on site?

They probably use some kind of translation service.

~~~
benj111
Really?

"the US is a goat"

Could reasonably be an insult or a compliment, an automated tool wouldn't be
able to say which.

Or by translation service, do you mean a person.

------
ALittleLight
Without seeing the comments it's difficult to know if this is a reasonable
call or not. I can certainly imagine posts from Facebook friends that I think
would be disqualifying for a visa, but I can also imagine government employees
overreacting.

One imaginary scenario that occurs to me is the one where he is admitted,
commits a terrorist act, and then everyone looks at his friends on Facebook
who are posting the kind of content that would make you suspect terrorism, and
we'd wonder - why is a person so obviously terrorist adjacent admitted to the
country?

On the other hand, my immediate thought on reading this is that I wouldn't let
my phone, and definitely not my accounts, get searched on visiting a foreign
country. I'd also support people encrypting their phones and turning them off
prior to government checkpoints. I just don't know how to square my intuitions
there with my doubts about this case.

Finally, it strikes me as a bit elitist of the NYT to add "Harvard Student" to
the title. If this choice is wrong, it's wrong regardless of which school he's
been admitted to. If we can't judge people based on their friends, then we
should apply that standard to the Harvard-bound and non Harvard-bound alike.

~~~
tastroder
You go from "difficult to know if this is a reasonable call or not" to an
imaginary scenario where you dream up the perfect scenario for some CBP agent
to make it reasonable according to a pretty clear cut politicial narrative,
not a factual one. Terrorists usually do not engage with the NYT to make
headlines after being rejected entry to a country. These are people, please
treat them like that. This mentality always reminds me of the mathematician
that was delayed for working on their equations [0]. Stuff like this is
grounded in weird and unrealistic terror fears and affects people.

> I wouldn't let my phone, and definitely not my accounts, get searched on
> visiting a foreign country.

So, you either don't travel or look caucasian enough for that to not be an
issue for you personally so far? That's great but it's not like this is even a
US-only thing, this is a quite common occurrence these days.

> Finally, it strikes me as a bit elitist of the NYT to add "Harvard Student"
> to the title.

With current administration actively villainizing citizens of other countries,
reporting on the academic background of those affected seems perfectly
reasonable.

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/07/professor-
fl...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/07/professor-flight-delay-
terrorism-equation-american-airlines)

~~~
maze-le
>> That's great but it's not like this is even a US-only thing, this is a
quite common occurrence these days.

I never heard of any of that except from the US and China.

~~~
madaxe_again
I’ve never had anything beyond a bag search going into China - zero interest
in my phone or online accounts.

~~~
maze-le
I heard phone seizures were common when entering from the western continental
route (Kazakhstan, Kyrgiztan).

~~~
madaxe_again
Not when I drove in that way about four years ago, it wasn’t, but it’s
entirely possible it has changed in the interim.

