

Ioerror's tweets after yet another detention (this time in Texas) - neilk
http://www.exquisitetweets.com/tweets?eids=eqt3bK9L1E.equdE5Igj8.equjFUYMxM.equunSrA96.equCze0DXU.equKkjGTC1.equM9wJJv2.equQJD8Dcb.equZBWohCT.equ7xm9arQ.eqvwgwlvIO.eqvMBtk8s0.eqvQUsu0Zx.eqvT74Lriu.eqvXEyMNzg.eqwgPKYFRl.eqwnDO4580.eqwrITBTY4.eqwFo79nem.eqwKW5rqhg.eqwM5rUpOu.eqwX9Hr7GS.eqxbeyCo1s

======
patio11
Might want to FOIA / Privacy Act request them for the information in your
file. It should make for interesting reading. The person who'd be authorized
to say "no" to that has very, very different motivations in life than a
ground-level security screener. For example, they're paid to avoid bad PR, and
"The Privacy Act, which was established to prevent government abuses of power
like the secret files the FBI kept on folks, does not prevent us from keeping
secret files on you" is the definition of bad PR. They would also have to
commit to that position in writing. Every bureaucrat learns very quickly that
things which are not written down never happened. The events described by
those tweets? Never happened. Get a signed logbook entry, though, and you have
instant chain of evidence going back to God Almighty.

This is, generally, one of those "letters on paper can be used to hack
bureaucracies to one's advantage" kind of things.

c.f. <http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/admin/fl/foia/reference_guide.xml>

The above is mostly motivated by an enduring interest in the inner mechanics
of complex systems, not by any particular feeling with regards to Wikileaks.

~~~
avigesaa
Also, check out the DHS TRIP program:
<http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/customer/redress/index.shtm>. It's intended for
this sort of thing. If nothing else, it may force someone to commit something
to paper.

~~~
pieceofpeace
[http://www.exquisitetweets.com/tweets?eids=eqt3bK9L1E.equdE5...](http://www.exquisitetweets.com/tweets?eids=eqt3bK9L1E.equdE5Igj8.equjFUYMxM.equunSrA96.equCze0DXU.equKkjGTC1.equM9wJJv2.equQJD8Dcb.equZBWohCT.equ7xm9arQ.eqvwgwlvIO.eqvMBtk8s0.eqvQUsu0Zx.eqvT74Lriu.eqvXEyMNzg.eqwgPKYFRl.eqwnDO4580.eqwrITBTY4.eqwFo79nem.eqwKW5rqhg.eqwM5rUpOu.eqwX9Hr7GS.eqxbeyCo1s#tweet23)

"I would really love to know the contents of the CBP file on me. It's too bad
that they refuse to disclose it via TRIPS or any other system."

------
Cushman
Yesterday: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430465>

_ioerror: I'm flying back through Texas in a few hours from Serbia. I wonder
if this article or any of the others will change the way that Customs and the
rest of the Federal Government treat me? I'm guessing "no" - care to take any
bets?_

Oof.

------
chwahoo
I wonder if there is some kind of official annotation that can be added to a
person's record indicating that they should be inconvenienced and harassed? If
so, are officials "officially trained" to perform this function?

Or else, is this a case of local officials seeing that someone notorious is
passing through and abusing their discretion to harass them and cause them to
miss flights?

~~~
jbooth
Presumably, there's a memo box that says wikileaks, since I doubt these guys
knew him by name.

I was ok with wikileaks when I first heard of them. After seeing the type and
character of their opposition? I'm now a rabid supporter. What they do is
legal, this has been upheld in the supreme court, and these people are being
fundamentally unamerican in the 1st amendment sense by trying to
extrajudicially harrass people.

EDIT: See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_St...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States)

~~~
tedunangst
That court case may not be a slam dunk defense. For a different perspective, I
found this article interesting.

<http://www.slate.com/id/2276592/>

~~~
jbooth
Eh, I think that's just a linkbait headline. It's materially different to
wiretap private individuals for the purpose of defamation than it is to
publish federal documents. There's no such thing as "defaming the govt" under
law, for example.

~~~
tedunangst
The more important facts, imo, were the six different opinions written and
that while the court refused to grant a pre-publication injunction, they
didn't actually grant immunity from post-publication prosecution. The summary
of the Pentagon Papers case is not "publishing secrets is ok".

~~~
jbooth
Good call. This is where I put on my IANAL hat :) I guess I made an assumption
based on the fact that Ellsburg never got prosecuted for anything.

------
jbooth
Seriously, how is this legal?

Like, can't somebody be sued here? This guy apparently lost some basic rights
for _saying stuff_?

~~~
tedunangst
You would have to prove he lost his rights for saying stuff. The govt would
probably respond that he lost his rights for associating with and
participating in a movement with the purpose of undermining the government.

~~~
jbooth
All the movement in question does is publish stuff. See my Pentagon Papers
supreme court cite above/below.

As far as associating with a movement.. it's legal to be a Nazi if you want.
There's a supreme court case for that, too.

~~~
tedunangst
"publishing stuff" is not incompatible with undermining the government, it is
the means by which the mining under is accomplished. From a govt perspective,
Assange is just a guy publishing stuff like bin Laden is just a guy making
video tapes. They are interested in knowing if he is doing more than just
publishing stuff.

I'm not particularly thrilled with the way the government is reacting to WL
etc., but I also recognize that it's rather difficult to tell apart real
threats from unthreatening people who behave in many ways like the real
threats would. Appelbaum can say he's not going to hurt anyone, but that's
what any terrorist can say. His actions may be perfectly legal, but also
probably constitute probable cause.

He hasn't been arrested, he's been searched. That is exactly what I'd expect
the police to do in such cases. Your neighbors report a blood curdling scream
from your house? The police come and check it out. It's not illegal to scream,
but you'll still get asked a few questions.

When does it become harassment? We've probably crossed that line, but what's
the solution? Once you're screened and land successfully, you're exempt from
future screening? That'd be a pretty big security flaw.

~~~
jbooth
Bin Laden was A) not a citizen and B) I think he did a little more than make
videotapes.

Let's be honest here, the problem with wikileaks isn't the (nonexistent)
threat to national security, it's their politics. These meatheads at the
airport weren't concerned with national security, they were concerned with
teaching this liberal pansy a lesson. Short-cop-syndrome writ large.

~~~
tedunangst
Honestly, I don't think the meatheads at the airport even knew he was a
liberal pansy. I could believe somebody at the top put him on the security
watchlist knowing what happens at the bottom, but I really doubt the meatheads
keep their own list of people needing lessons.

~~~
jbooth
Did you read the tweets? The border patrol dudes were former army and sounded
pretty personal about it. If it mentioned wikileaks in the dossier (which I
presume it did), then these guys have heard of it, and specifically have heard
of the collateral murder video.

~~~
tedunangst
Do you think the tweets are an unbiased objective account of the events that
transpired? I view them as a sort of color commentary. Anyway, which ones do
you think were personal? His experience doesn't sound any different from what
I expect anyone who gets bonus screening to get. It's inconvenient and
adversarial. I assume that's the rule, not the exception.

~~~
jbooth
Did you notice how they held him until the minute his connection left and then
let him go?

It sounds way more like harrassment than screening to me.

~~~
dotBen
Welcome to your government _(excuse me if you're not American, I'll assume you
are)_. This is one of many standard MO's I've seen all through this exchange
between CBP and Jake.

I'm a foreign citizen working in US on a visa, this has happened to me in the
past - and I'm just here to work. I'm not suspected of doing anything illegal.

Immigration/Border Patrol in China is far, far more friendly than the US's. If
Citizens don't like it and feel it is harassment then they should be
campaigning to change it.

------
jrockway
Is there a legal defense fund I can donate to? If anything, it's time to start
FOIA-ing the files.

------
jwn
Can someone give us some context here?

~~~
Construct
The US Government Keeps Harassing a UW Researcher Who Speaks for WikiLeaks:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2430090>

Basically, a University of Washington researcher associated with WikiLeaks is
detained for several hours without reason every time he goes through a US
airport. He goes by 'ioerror' here and on Twitter, among other places.

------
hsmyers
CPB agents much to young to know what 'Jack Boots' are, who wore them and what
'Papers Please' really means.

~~~
raganwald
You don't need to go back to 1936 to find examples of this behaviour. Try
talking to an African American who was involved in the struggle for civil
liberties in the 1960s.

------
dools
I have to wonder why one would continue to return to the U.S under these
conditions. Then again I wonder the same thing about TSA screenings, health
care and gun control.

------
flipbrad
Can he not get a restraining order against CBP? I say this, obviously, in
jest, but one wonders: how exactly does the rule of law protect against this?

~~~
rbanffy
Well... His harassment is obviously systematic.

------
thyrsus
Joseph N. Welch and Edward R. Murrow managed to shame the red-baiters into
some semblance of quiescence. I fear that American authorities and those they
serve are now immune to shame.

Cheer me up; please adduce some evidence to the contrary.

------
papercrane
Off topic, but I really appreciate the layout of this site. Reordering the
tweets to read from top-to-bottom makes it much easier for me to parse.

~~~
humbledrone
As much as I appreciate the content, it feels like maybe Twitter is not the
right format for a post like that.

------
metabrew
Don't know if it's legal or not, but would be fascinating if he snagged an
audio recording of the entire process next time.

~~~
jws
The use of recording and communication devices is forbidden in the customs and
immigration areas of US airports.

I don't know if it has the force of law. It does have the force of "lots of
official looking signs".

~~~
donohoe
Only by airport policy I believe... Not 100% sure

------
patrickgzill
Sorry for being dense: is he being detained going into/out of the country
(that is, international flight) ; or is this a domestic flight?

EDIT: per another comment, seems he is flying from Serbia to USA.

------
rbanffy
<http://twitter.com/ioerror/status/57713368735289344>

Truth is, you can never be sure your screening wasn't random

<http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2001-10-25/>

~~~
djcapelis
Usually when they meet you at the gate instead of at the customs checkpoint
the random screening isn't so random.

~~~
rbanffy
Let's imagine they randomly meet people at the gate ;-)

Anyway, this is so wrong on so many levels I am astonished it's happening.

------
phlux
>Q: _It sounds like a CBP joke in the making, right? What's do you call being
stopped, harassed, insulted, delayed, unable to call a lawyer, etc?_

A: FREEDOM!

