
NSA critics Ilija Trojanov: German writer must not enter the U.S. - sveme
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fkultur%2Fgesellschaft%2Filija-trojanow-nach-nsa-protest-einreise-in-die-usa-verweigert-a-925467.html
======
Zoepfli
My attempt at a good translation:

NSA critic Ilija Trojanow: German writer not allowed to enter US

Despite an invitation to a conference, german writer Ilija Trojanow was denied
entry to the US - without reasoning. In the past, Trojanow signed a petition
of protest against NSA surveillance.

Hamburg - Writer Juli Zeh broke the news: Through Facebook, she passed on a
message from her college Ilija Trojanow. According to it, Trojanow was denied
entry into the US. "He's marrooned at the airport in Brasil and can't
participate in a conference on german studies in the US", said Zeh.

Ilija Trojanows' publisher Hanser confirmed this account upon request from
Spiegel Online. Trojanows reported monday evening via SMS from Brasil "I was
denied entry into the US today. Will be an arduous journey home".

Juli Zeh linked the denial of entry with a protest against NSA surveillance
she initiated. Zeh presented the german chancellery a petition with 65000
signatures on september 18.

Trojanow was not present at the presentation, but he was one of the first
signees, the Schöffling publisher coordinators told Spiegel Online. The
writers alluded to a "historic attack on our democratic state under the rule
of law".

"Let's frame it in a positive light: Our commitment makes an impact. It is
being noticed", writes Zeh on Facebook on the entry ban to her "friend and
fellow activist". Zeh and Trojanow wrote a non-fiction book on internet
surveillance called "attack on freedom" in 2009. Zeh continues: "Let's frame
in a negative light: it's a farce. Pure paranoia. People sticking up for civil
liberties are treated like public enemies". In the comments on her posting Zeh
emphasizes that Trojanows' ESTA application was answered positively, so in her
opinion there can't be a problem with his visa or a work permit issue.

Ilija Trojanow, born 1965 in Bulgaria and escaped to Germany in 1971, received
the Leipzig Book Fair Prize 2006 for his adventure novel "Der Weltensammler"
(The Collector of Worlds). He held a honorific speech for nobel laureate Herta
Müller at the Franz-Werfel human rights award. He was in Salvador de Bahia on
invitation from the Goethe institute. He was supposed to talk about his latest
novel "EisTau" (IceDew) on a conference of the German Studies Association in
Denver.

(Edit: congress -> conference)

~~~
belorn
So the congress invites someone, and the NSA branch steps in to block it by
censoring the speaker at the border.

I wonder whats next in this hollywood movie. Drone strike in central london to
take out an embassy? A firewall blockade directed at news paper articles?
Secret kill lists and torture?

Maybe someone should sneak a telepresence robot to congress, give it a dark
trench coat and a code name. This is _Truth Teller_ congress members, let the
robot speak!

~~~
kybernetyk
> the congress

No, not THE congress. The original article means a convention/conference.

~~~
belorn
Thank you. Still a bit of an movie plot move, but slightly less so than if it
had been the congress.

I guess visiting speakers should always have a backup plan, and be able to do
a video conference stream from the airport directly to the conference. That is
if they are allowed to keep their electronics equipment intact at the border,
which I guess is doubtful. Maybe a prerecorded speech?

~~~
CaptainZapp
Or maybe organize your convention in a country that doesn't pull such
shenanigans, just because they don't like the speaker?

In the long term moves like this can't be good for the US.

~~~
sanderjd
As a U.S. citizen, this is actually my _biggest_ concern - this is all going
to hurt us economically. Of course most people will think it is Snowden's
fault for making it known, rather than the government's fault for doing it.

~~~
tripzilch
> As a U.S. citizen, this is actually my _biggest_ concern - this is all going
> to hurt us economically.

Of course it is. Always the effect on you "as a US Citizen". Because that's
the only way you can think. What about the rest of the World?

Are you not a "World citizen" too?

Think about this for a moment. Is your economy _really_ your biggest concern?
What is the US doing to the rest of the world? Do you disapprove of this
behaviour just because of the effect it might have on you, economically? Of
course it is _a_ reason, but is it really the first and foremost reason? When
you look at it in the light of what the US is actually doing _in your name_?

You do realize that when you write things like this you post them in front of
an international audience, right?

I'm not singling you out, I see this attitude everywhere. In particular in
regard to the blatant spying and thrashing of our privacy. If it's your
privacy it is an outrage, if it's everybody else's privacy it is "expected".

I just can't understand this attitude. If my country would be engaging in such
behaviour, in my name, I would strongly denounce it _because it is wrong_ to
treat people like this regardless of where they live! Sure I might think "huh
this could be bad for trade-relations of the Netherlands, and we're a trade
country", but _not for a single moment_ would I consider this a major reason
to fault those actions. It is wrong because you should not treat people that
way.

Like, what you just said is basically, if this couldn't hurt you economically,
it would be much less of a concern to you. Because economically is your
_biggest_ concern. So all the other concerns must be so much smaller.

Hm.

How nice.

Say that to my face?

~~~
sanderjd
First of all, no, saying something is my biggest concern does not imply that
barring it this would all be "much less of a concern" because all other things
are "so much smaller" concerns. Those conclusions simply don't follow from
what I said.

The rest of your points are pretty good and they are well taken. It is
possible that U.S. citizens generally view ourselves less as "World citizens"
than we should. For me, personally, I feel like this is because we have
(largely through our own past mistakes!) made many enemies throughout the
world, and I struggle to feel like there is any useful world citizenship that
includes both me and those enemies. So yes, it royally pisses me off that you
in the Netherlands are being spied on, and that German writers are being
mistreated, and that European embassies are being bugged, all in my name, but
no, it really doesn't bother me that we are spying on the North Koreans. I'm
mad that we don't seem to know our friends from our enemies and are
embarrassing ourselves by just drag-netting everything, but from a _legal_
standpoint, within my own government, I think there is a useful line between
U.S. citizens, and non-citizens.

For what it's worth, I absolutely think that I belong on the other side of
that line for you in the Netherlands, and if I found out your government was
spying on me, I would be more upset with my own government for failing to
protect me than with your government for the spying.

I'm sure none of that made you like me or other Americans any more, which bums
me out, and I wish there were a big happy World family for me to feel a part
of, but as far as I can tell, there isn't.

~~~
tripzilch
Thanks, that was pretty good, thanks for saying that.

And I do like many/most Americans that I've met, it's just that the discourse
on this subject on HN had started feeling a little bit one-sided. As I said, I
wasn't trying to single you out, it was something that had been bubbling under
my skin for a while now (and others too).

For what it's worth, if my government was spying in NK, the way yours is
intercepting, recording, cataloguing and datamining the lives of all
(Internet/technology-using) humans on this planet, I would in fact _not_ be
okay with this. Because it's no way to treat people, anywhere. As we've seen
every single time, just because something that is actually wrong seems
justifiable, doesn't mean it should be done because it'll just lower the
threshold for it to be used again in situations where you wouldn't agree with
it. Because you can't close that door, you can't say "I trust your judgement,
_this time_ ", because in a few years it'll be somebody else making that call,
and the machinery is already there.

Of course irony has it that not even the US gov is spying on NK in that
manner, because they can't really get a useful intelligence foothold in that
place. So the comparison doesn't actually quite work, because they're doing
all this very deep hard-core intercepting/recording/datamining on pretty much
all places _except_ NK, and a few others that you might consider "justified".
Why is it that the places where they far exceeded the boundaries of what can
be reasoned as "justifiable intelligence" are in fact not the places where it
might actually matter? _Because they were allies._ The UK hacked Belgium, FFS!
It is an abuse of trust. For what, for nothing, well I'm guessing for business
intelligence.

So yeah, that's a bit of a conundrum. With "national security" and all. Some
tough choices maybe? But really, nobody said it would be easy. If you're
dealing in global politics, affecting the lives of billions of people all over
the world, all with different attitudes and beliefs, that's what you're
signing up for. And there is no easy way out, 100% "Total Information
Awareness" isn't a solution, for similar reasons as "let's bomb the ever-
loving shit out of everybody" is not (as the US seems to be slowly learning).

See, the Dutch NSA, called AIVD, is doing just as bad. At some point they were
tapping more phones than the US. If you buy Bitcoin you're on a list. They are
already tracking our locations via the cellphones and "invisible text
messages" and "Bob" knows what. It's pretty bad. But they're doing it to just
these 17M people and it's our problem. This is why I donate money to Bits of
Freedom, which is like the Dutch version of the EFF. One thing they're very
good at, is informing politicians what all this new-fangled technology can do,
so they can make better choices. So I hope B.o.F. can put some brakes on that.
_However,_ if my government were to turn its eyes outward, and decide it can
just invade and intercept the personal lives of, well, anybody guilty of the
crime of not being a Dutch citizen, I'd _damn well_ be outraged, and expect my
gov to cut it the hell out. ("Some of my best friends aren't Dutch
citizens!!", Americans, in fact). And I'd demand that even though B.o.F. is a
Dutch foundation, they'll work to put a stop to that as well even if it
doesn't directly affect Dutch citizens.

Because, really, should allies have to be protecting their citizens from each
other? Well they should protect their citizens, that's one thing a government
is for, but ostensibly the point of having allies is that you're not trying to
screw one another over.

Okay, and sorry this is getting a bit long, but I must point out that it is in
fact more complicated than this :) Now it seems like I say just the US is
screwing over its allies (and I also said the UK was). But part of the reality
of the situation is also that many of these both-heavily-spied-upon-as-well-
as-allied countries, are in fact governments screwing over their own citizens,
with agreements that say basically "you spy on my back, I'll spy on yours".
Which is _another_ reason why you need to look past your own boundaries
instead of asking/expecting your gov to better protect just _your_ privacy.
Because they don't really want to. And they use the excuse of spying on other
countries as a distraction. As has been pointed out many times already, in the
US there's some things in your Constitution that says, if anyone was
listening, roughly that they shouldn't spy on US citizens for no good reason.
That is why they have the deals with other countries, we can't legally spy on
our own people, so you spy on ours, we spy on yours, deal? (this has been the
case since ECHELON, it's right there on Wikipedia).

And THAT, is why you should not just expect your government to protect you
from the other spying eyes, but why you should _demand_ that they stop the
type of intrusive surveillance / intercepting / recording / datamining they're
doing to others as well. Because you're not alone in this world. Or, if only,
to view from an economical perspective again, it removes the bargaining chip,
if they don't have the deep intelligence on their "allies" they cannot trade
it back for the deep intelligence that they are legally prohibited from
gathering on their own citizens.

------
DominikR
So this basically means that if I sign some anti-surveillance petition, or
join a anti-surveillance group on Facebook I can forget ever visiting the US
for vacation (I'm living in Europe)

Good to know, but I already signed a petition months ago. So no Yellowstone or
Grand Canyon for me anytime soon.

I wonder when they will start rejecting US citizens on flights within the US
based on petitions signed.

~~~
antocv
A colleague of mine said once that he wouldnt visit countries like Iran, China
or Saudi Arabia because he wouldnt feel safe and it wouldnt be good for him to
support oppressive regimes with his tourist money. There has to be some rule
of law and democracy for him to visit a country.

I told him, I wouldnt feel safe traveling to USA, my possessions are at risk
of appropriation and "borrowing" for an extended period of time. They could
even send me to Gitmo for no apparent reason, or even if they had a reason, I
still wouldnt receive a fair trial, just like in those countries, Saudi Arabia
or Iran.

I actually felt and still feel the US could just put me in a black bag in a
bathtub and nobody would care. No way my money is going to support such a
regime. Never.

------
vidarh
While it's worth giving attention to this, keep in mind that there's
absolutely nothing new about the US denying entry to foreigners on political
grounds:

For decades people who were members of foreign political parties deemed "too
left wing", were often routinely denied all kinds of visas, for example.

What exactly the US government considers thought-crimes worthy of visa
refusals have changed over the years, but the use of visa refusals as a tool
to restrict access to government critical foreigners has been a constant.

~~~
sveme
I guess that is the point: actions leading to a barring of entry seem to have
been becoming less and less severe. Anyone knows how these no-entry lists are
being compiled?

~~~
schrijver
Criticism of surveillance is not any more or less severe than all kinds of
other ‘Non-American behaviour’ of the past, there just happens to be a larger
overlap between this instance of ‘Non-American behaviour’ and the HN
demographic.

How exactly do the parents examples of being a left-wing, gay or anti-
apartheid activist seem severe to you?

~~~
hobs
Also the surveillance state makes it much more obvious who is doing what, and
how to block whom.

------
rb2k_
What a horrible pice of writing...

He was denied entry without explanation. That this has anything to do with
some petition he signed at some point seems a bit far fetched.

Also: A positive ESTA application doesn't mean anything. For Germans on the
visa waiver, ESTA is just a quick online transaction that is good for several
years. It doesn't actually mean that there aren't "any problems with the visa
or work permit".

If he doesn't have a German passport (came to Germany in 1971 with his parents
from Bulgaria), I can see why somebody from Bulgaria coming to the US from
Brazil might seem a bit strange.

So far, this is all speculation and really not worth the read.

~~~
viraptor
> I can see why somebody from Bulgaria coming to the US from Brazil might seem
> a bit strange.

Sorry, I don't. What qualifies as "strange"? Is that an official term? There
are loads of people who travel via countries they don't live in. There are
also many people who were born in countries that don't exist anymore - how
strange is that?

~~~
vidarh
There are certainly degrees of "strange" that triggers various levels of
scrutiny. I'm Norwegian. Live in England, and used to travel to California
regularly on business. I never had any problems entering, the US thankfully.

But I repeatedly tried to print my boarding pass online in advance and check
in using machines at the airport. In London that always went smoothly. At SFO,
it almost always caused me to be referred to the ticket counters due to some
undefined "problem". The staff were equally baffled every time, and the only
thing they could come up with was that the system flagged me because I was
travelling to England with no onward ticket and no visa (don't need one, as
Norway is in the EEA which gives me the same residency rights in the UK as EU
citizens) - they at least claimed that their systems did not give them any
reason.

Mine was just a minor hassle, but I would be surprised if the systems "score"
people based on tiny little unexpected deviations from the norm like that for
various additional levels of attention. (I still printed the boarding passes
every time, as whenever I couldn't check in, all I needed to do was look a bit
baffled and walk over to the premium checkin and they'd get me processed very
quickly)

~~~
CaptainZapp

      and the only thing they could come up with was that the system flagged me because I was travelling to England with no onward ticket
    

This is quite likely the issue. The UK are an extreme stickler in this regard.

When you fly from Zurich, you need to show your passport to leave the Schengen
part of the airport and in addition there are strict controls at the gates for
UK bound flights, where your id is checked again.

Contrast this to flights within the Schengen room, where you scan your
boarding pass (mobile, home printed, or airline issued) at a couple of
automatic gates and you're in the plane. No id at all required.

From what I've read it's more and more the case that countries use airlines as
cops to deny entry at the point of origin. If somebody with invalid travel
documents, or missing visa gets onto the flight the airline can be heavily
fined.

------
sveme
What's worst about this is that this seems way out of proportion. He signed
(and co-authored I believe) a petition arguing against NSA surveillance out of
concern for its effects on democracy - a move that is absolutely in agreement
with democratic values. Is there anyone who could argue that barring his entry
to the US is justified? I don't like hyperbole but this is indeed truly
worrying; I would expect it from Russia and China, certainly not from the
former "shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving
people everywhere."

~~~
hannibal5
There is nothing out of proportion here compared to previous decades. There is
nothing out of ordinary in denying visa from someone writes and works against
the national interest of US.

Visas have been denied from communists, peace activists, greens, anti-
apartheid activists and homosexuals in previous decades. Surveillance critics
fit this group just fine.

~~~
grey-area
_in denying visa from someone writes and works against the national interest
of US._

The national interest of the US is congruent with the interests of the NSA?

An interesting point of view, but not one I think you'd find majority support
for in the US or elsewhere.

~~~
hannibal5
Majority support is not what defines national interest.

You are confusing political opinions to the workings of US government.

------
Zoepfli
Apparently, for the US, the right to free speech only applies to US people,
not the world.

Same as with the right not to be spied upon, really. Sad...

~~~
venomsnake
Right to free speech sadly does not conflict with the right of US to refuse
entry to a person without reasons. US Visa does not guarantee entry - it is
stated there in the application entry. It gives to the right to beg and
immigration officer to grant you entry.

And at the border the majority of your rights are suspended anyway.

~~~
mattmanser
Ever thought to ask exactly why your rights are suspended?

~~~
venomsnake
Actually not my rights because I have not traveled to the US yet, but yes.
Disclaimer (IANAL)

The answer is has many faces - until you have entered any country you are not
subject to the full jurisdiction there - Snowden was not having full rights in
Moscow for the months he spent at the terminal. He was also not having full
obligations - in Russia you need to register with the police as a foreigner
and generally help them keep track of you when you switch your residence. So
even as a US citizen while on the border you are not in the US fully.

The second is that the Supreme Court has balanced the rights and obligations
of the government (the right to refuse entry and the duty to protect the
country) and has determined that it is greater than the rights given by the
fourth amendment.

------
tilsammans
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism)

------
kghose
How do we know it was his political views and not some screw up with his paper
work? How do we know this incident is true and not manufactured as part of a
publicity stunt? I understand the communication is through his publisher, does
he have a book in the works? I just feel it is important to ask questions,
that's all.

~~~
captainmuon
The problem is that he can't just call the embassy and ask why his entry was
denied. They have a policy of not giving out information on entry denials.

~~~
kghose
FOIA?

~~~
desas
He's not a citizen so can't make a FOIA request. No-one else can make one on
his behalf as it would be breach rules on data protection and personal
information.

Probably.

------
lazyjones
It seems that the Apparatchiks of the US regime deal with critics quickly and
efficiently these days, the totalitarian laws are already employed as needed.
It's only a bit cynical that the barred author had to flee from Eastern Bloc
Bulgaria in 1971...

~~~
w_t_payne
The swibbles are already on back-order.

~~~
raganwald
Where the fuck is my +1000 upmod wand? This is one of the most appropriately
witty comments I've seen in quite some time. Thank you.

[http://sickmyduck.narod.ru/pkd058-0.html](http://sickmyduck.narod.ru/pkd058-0.html)

------
dgellow
Are people still surprised ? The USA is definitely not a state of freedom.

------
forktheif
Is there any evidence of these two events actually being linked, or is it just
the fact they both happened, and therefore must be connected?

------
martin_k
Trojanow published his own account of the events here:
[http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faz.net%2Faktuell%2Ffeuilleton%2Fbuecher%2Fautoren%2Filija-
trojanows-einreiseverbot-willkuer-und-freiheit-12599490.html&act=url)

Apparently he had already been denied a work visa without explanation last
year by the US consulate in Munich. However, that decision was apparently
later reversed after protests from Washington University in St. Louis. Since
that must have been before the Snowden leaks and NSA protests, I'd say it
doubtful if those are really connected to his more recent refusal of entry.

Edit: To be clear, I am not suggesting that his refusal was not politically
motivated. But the original article suggests (or rather quotes author Juli Zeh
on suggesting) a direct connection to the NSA protests and their petition
against NSA surveillance.

------
frank_boyd
This is how you stop people from talking and discussing openly. Very
effective.

------
themanr
I'm in the uk and get a redirect loop from this page. Changing to .co.uk works
[http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=de&tl=en&prev=_t&...](http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=de&tl=en&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/ilija-
trojanow-nach-nsa-protest-einreise-in-die-usa-verweigert-a-925467.html)

------
ksec
Why is it that when any other countries doing the same, it will be heavily
criticize and be named and shamed on nearly all sort of Newspaper and media.

Yet US is no difference. And there is countless other examples.

I am going to be very brave and say this. Americans, you cant blame people in
other parts of the world hate you.

------
growupkids
was it an issue with ESTa visa waiver program? I'm looking at the eligibility
website and it says that German citizens can use the program, but Bulgaria
isn't on the list. Is he a German or Bulgarian citizen or national?

Additionally, it states there are a lot of restrictions for using the visa
waiver program that I imagine someone like him might object to, see the list
below:

[https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/WebHelp/ESTA_Screen-
Level_Onli...](https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/WebHelp/ESTA_Screen-
Level_Online_Help_1.htm#vwp3)

It sounds like they need biometrics, and there are all kinds of restrictions
on duration, destination, etc. is this program like TSA Pre in that it's seen
as a "privilege" program in lue of getting an actual VIsa?

I'm not saying this wasn't done for political reasons, but before we all jump
to that conclusion is it possible this program, EStA, is just a mess of
requirements that only works for people that fit a narrow definition of
excluded? Again, just looking at the requirements it looks pretty stringent
and it sounds like this is an alternative to a visa program. Reading the
article on FAZ

[http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A//www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/buecher/autoren/ilija-
trojanows-einreiseverbot-willkuer-und-freiheit-12599490.html)

it sounds like American Airlines told him his option was to get a Visa. Is it
possible that's what really happened here, and the leap to blaming this on the
NSA is unwarranted?

It certainly would be easier if you could just find out what the reason was
for all this from a independent source.

------
bckrasnow
I don't know why I still get surprised when the US government consistently
screws up, either with surveillance or with finances

------
znowi
When it happens in the US - it's to protect freedom. If it happens elsewhere -
OMG! Human rights violation! Must send the troops to save the world :)

------
kowdermeister
In this case would there be a difference entering the US through the Canadian
border or by airports?

~~~
evadne
If you’re refused by the pre-clearance facility you’re still screwed but you
might get to pass thru immigration in the host country again. The CBP will
just call the CBSA who will dispatch somebody to come and take you and re-
scrutinize documents provided by the US officer.

TL;DR: don’t get screwed.

------
bayesianhorse
Immigration laws have stupid consequences? No surprise these.

------
hannibal5
There is nothing out of the ordinary here. Prior criminal convictions,
affiliation with unsuitable political parties or organizations or poor
character are valid justifications for denying entry according to US law.

It has been used against communists, peace activists, anti-apartheid
activists, greens and homosexuals in previous decades. Now it's surveillance
critics who don't get in.

~~~
r0h1n
> There is nothing out of the ordinary here

Sure there is. An (apparently) peaceful person from a friendly country was
banned simply because she led an Internet signature campaign against a
clandestine and borderline-rogue surveillance agency. How many other HNers
would have signed a similar petition?

> Prior criminal convictions, affiliation with unsuitable political parties or
> organizations or poor character are valid justifications for denying entry
> according to US law

I don't see any of those being applicable in this case, at least as per the
article.

When intelligent, well-informed and progressive citizens reach the point that
they don't see anything wrong in a government/regime trying to muzzle critics,
simply because they can and they have done so in the past, we implicitly grant
approval to the continuation of such tactics.

The first step towards solving a problem is acknowledging you have one.

~~~
hannibal5
No. This is perfectly ordinary for US. If I had signed anti-apartheid
petition, I might have been denied entry in the 80's.

>borderline-rogue surveillance agency

That's not the opinion of the government. It's the job of the people to change
the policy of the government. NSA surveillance is government run activity and
foreigners speaking against it can be denied visa.

As forefinger I find the naivety of US citizens towards their government
disturbing. NSA is not borderline-rogue as long as the White House and the
Congress are on the same boat.

~~~
diydsp
A-hem. "NSA is not borderline-rogue" ?

They are in flagrant, publicized violation of the Fourth Amendment (rogue)
with only a subtle, borderling rationalization keeping them from being wiped
out by congress "we won't used the mined data/results-of-unreasonable-search
until we need it". The amendments being, as you may recall, agreements
leveraged by the states to prevent an out-of-control federal government.

Remember, the colonies didn't need the feds as much as the feds needed the
states. it has a hard sell, and without protections like the Fourth Amendment,
it ain't worth it for states to be part of the nation.

------
w_t_payne
Ooooh... _somebody_ is feeling a bit touchy.

~~~
w_t_payne
I meant the NSA, dammit.

