Yes, and this is why I will happily pay airlines more to transfer in another country that is not America (e.g. Canada, Mexico). It sucks because it makes travel more expensive, but US airports are not traveler friendly (they could start by having international transfer zones so you don't have to do security again) and the TSA is a bloody nightmare.
I also avoid travel to the US. There are plenty of interesting travel destinations which are not America you can visit.
For Americans impacted by this, absolutely please write your representatives and ask they tone down this madness. For the rest of the world, if you can avoid traveling to the US, do so. Vote with your wallet and pick somewhere else.
That can't be true; at least, there must be a hell of a lot more to it.
Why would Canada want to pay provide prison space for a foreign national who's committed such mundane a crime as non-cooperation, and without ill-affect on any Canadian citizens?
But a Canadian citizen they will arrest and charge with obstruction of their job.
They already have laws that criminalise even possession of certain pornographics drawings or stories. Make no mistakes, Canada is not a free country and has no problem with imprisonment for victimless crime.
* Canadian' border can ask you for your local passwords.
* You can refuse - at which point, if you are Canadian/PR, you are allowed to enter the country but your device is confiscated and sent to Ottawa for further examination.
* They can NOT ask for online passwords (like your dropbox account for example). THAT SAID, if you give them your local password, and you are logged in to Dropbox, it's fair game.
Furthermore, this has not been through the Supreme Court to set precedence.
I am not saying what the CBSA did was legal (as the case was dropped), but not handing over local passwords is considered "obstruction of the officer's job" by the CBSA (for which he was charged).
So I'm assuming that if they did want to charge you, they could.
And his case wasn't dropped. He plead guilty.
And the Kiwi's might ask, but only to find out if you are violating quarantine regulations.
There is no reason to believe that CBSA under Trudeau would have dumber policies than under Harper, I fact the opposite.
As for New Zealand:
From what I've read, I'd suggest that the law is unclear at this point. It will probably be decided by the Supreme Court within a decade. But I find the ambiguity frustrating...
Some airports are designed in a way to quickly facilitate this if the government ever changed its mind (IAH and LAX TBIT, I believe), but today none of our airports are set up for international sterile zones.
From the perspective of an American departing internationally, this is a bonus since you don't have to wait in line for exit formalities.
But there are many, many connecting flights through DFW, Houston, LAX, and SFO. The direct flight costs upwards of $500 more, often a 60% or higher premium. That's the value of avoiding transit through the USA and the visa and CIS procedures involved. (Actually, the first $100 could be the usual price for a direct flight over a connection, but the same $500+ price increment seems to apply to connecting flights.)
Aeromexico is not known for its excellent seats, service, or food (though they're fine as airlines go). It's all about avoiding US officials.
Are the countries on the continent of South America not generally considered a part of Latin America? Because there are other options from Santiago, Sao Paolo, Rio, etc. to Tokyo. Some of the options are on Air Canada, with a stop in Toronto which avoids U.S. airports but presumably not U.S. airspace so there may still be some additional scrutiny at departure.
You don't actually have to go all the way to a South American city, Panama City has Air Canada flights to Tokyo. It looks like the other carriers (Emirates, KLM, Turkish Airlines) have stops in a South American city first. The Air Canada flights aren't much more expensive but the European & Asian-based carriers are much more expensive than the flights with stops in the U.S.
Technically, every country in South America is considered a part of Latin America except British Guyana, Suriname, and France. Not including islands like the Malvinas or the ABC islands, of course.
I should have specified one single flight. Of course you can fly to Dubai from São Paulo and then to Seoul or to Sydney from Santiago and then on to Peking.
But direct flights are very limited.
Well, sort of. Looking briefly at many maps of France (in French), the inclusion of the DOMs are relatively rare, in contrast to the inclusion of Alaska and Hawaii on most US maps. Corsica is about as prevalent as Alaska and Hawaii (probably more so), while Guyana and the other DOMs are about as prevalent as Puerto Rico.
I also don't know that excluding French Guiana from "Latin America" is actually correct anyway. French is a romance language.
If you mean direct flights to Tokyo, yes there are no Santiago to Tokyo flights.
*I've written before about my experiences having to go through border control after booking last minute trips. I've been living overseas for over 10 years now, and twice I've had to do this twice now - dealing with a glorified mall cop on a power trip when you're trying to get home to see your mother before she dies is a perfect way to make you despise everything about border control.
Also, clever technical solutions won't help when not having any data is seen as suspicious.
Like, you cannot tell them "I don't know my passowrds. They are in a password safe, and I do not have access right now". When the law says you have to hand over your passwords, "I don't know them right now" is probably not a valid excuse anyway.
"...Then, before you cross the border, make sure you don’t have the SIM card that allows you—or customs officials—to receive that text message, essentially denying yourself the ability to cooperate with agents even if you wanted to. Zdziarski suggests mailing yourself the SIM card, or destroying it and then recovering the accounts with backup codes"
Kennywinker's comment is right that technological cleverness won't help much here. Carry no devices, and you are suspicious and/or non-cooperative (unless you are over the age of sixty). Carry devices with no data, and you are suspicious and/or non-cooperative. Carry devices with carefully prepared fake profiles and datasets and you might pass muster… or be regarded as suspicious, non-cooperative, and/or actively resisting (if the border agent judging you suspects he is seeing fake data).
I wonder how they are trained to react to people without social media accounts.
Not just because they can't. Because you specifically took steps to prevent them from doing it.
... or I'm travelling with my local SIM to avoid roaming charges?
Also — you left your home country SIM at home because you don't care about the roaming charges back home getting to/returning from the airport?
Because I don't want to lose it. This is exactly how I've travelled before hearing that this 'handover your passwords' existed.
No roaming charges because it's not being used - I can live without a very functional phone between the WiFi at the airport in my home country, and home.
(Actually, right now I don't even carry the dumbphone that has my SIM it. I'm content with WiFi.)
I legitimately don't know many of my passwords, there's no legal obligation to know them, and the law generally cant compel you to do impossible things (eg, tell them something you don't know).
They can subpoena my password safe, just like any other file on my computer, and possibly require I unlock it (this is disputed), but I don't see any reason they can demand I reproduce the contents of the safe that I don't know.
 (b) Every alien 10/ (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15) .
When you're a foreigner attempting to enter the USA, they can simply deny you entry for failing to do what they want. US CBP has the authority to make arbitrary decisions not to admit foreigners, and CBP faces almost no scrutiny.
Most other countries give their border guards similar authority with respect to foreigners not entitled to enter by some treaty (e.g. EU).
But in the UK, you can go to jail for not disclosing your cryptographic keys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_King...
Here is a story of a person who went to jail for not disclosing his keys: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/?page=1 He said he kept silent "because of principle", but I guess he might also have gone to jail if he told them "I don't remember" - Officers would not believe him anyway.
If you can call a lawyer and don't mind waiting several hours, you can challenge it. However most people don't have a lawyer and don't know what to do and are afraid of the officers.
As a EU citizen that visited Iran last year I'm no longer eligible for ESTA (visaless entry) and that - combined with these horrific border control policies - honestly made the threshold for me to visit so high, I'll probably never visit again.
-My work takes me to most places where there are - or suspected to be - hydrocarbons to be found. When visiting Iran a couple of years ago, the immigration officer leafed through my passport and burst out laughing halfway through.
Obviously, I got somewhat concerned - but upon looking up and seeing my worried face, he handed me my passport back and with a chuckle suggested that if he could offer a bit of professional advice, it was that my passport read like an appplication to go to Guantanamo - and I had better get a new one before attempting to visit the US again... (Prior to Iran, I'd been to places like Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Indonesia and Uzbekistan.)
"Give me liberty or give me death" has been subverted into "Give me security and I'll give you my freedom".
The risk of being jailed is real: If you chuckle while they ask questions then lose your temper because he's not happy and you lack sleep; If you have a false name on Facebook (Are you lying about your identity to any US company?); If you know the wrong person; If you've watched underage porn (knowing that even with above-age porn, you don't have any of the actors' ID card to prove it); If a person claims you've harassed her at the conference... Many reasons for your life to become miserable.
The idea of risking jail and sponsoring these rules against aliens far outweighs the advantage of going to a conference, at least for me.
Surprise: This year, the main conference in my domain, is organized in Vienna (CH) instead of SF!
Er, are you referring to Vienna (AT)?
How am i suppose to prove i have no Facebook account? I really do not have a Facebook account. :)
If you google canada border password you find this:
Here's a story about New Zealand asking for passwords:
In this case you have a gay Canadian man lawfully entering the United States. I think you could find vocal American constituents who care about such people not being profiled, harassed and threatened with violence on the whims of a single person.
Fortunately and unfortunately this is not how rallying works. You'd have to convince the right club, event and advocacy group organizers that this would produce turnout, coverage and possibly even results. Note the size of the protests against Donald Trump's recent immigration ban.
At some point these experiences may affect tourism, business, and desirable immigration.
But it's probably too distant of an effect to have that much political capital.
If not long in the past; I for one decided around 2003 that visiting the US is too spooky a prospect for me. By boat maybe, so that if I get turned back I at least have a bit of a fun time traveling. But then again why not simply go to like a thousand other places where I pretty much know it'll be great and that I'll be treated with respect, with the added bonus of pumping money into an economy that does worthwhile things with it?
I have a trip to the USA coming up soon, I'm now worried that they'll seek passwords to my work devices.
When it comes to stuff like this the US is graded on a curve. The same incidents under Obama feel like friendly diplomacy might make it better. Now, maybe Europe and places like Canada should just return the favor. A bit like how travel visa's are often a reverse FU. Ever notice how many destinations dont charge tourists visum costs except when you are from the US or another country that would charge them as well?
I understand your point, but it's rather impractical and more importantly not very politically amenable for countries that benefit from US tourists/visitors and are less paranoid about security to reciprocate for the sake of reciprocating. This is how we end up in a downward diplomatic spiral. I'd much rather prefer (as someone who visits countries that reciprocate and those that don't) to have places like the Schengen Area hold what they see as a moral high ground.
(Our family was seriously considering a touring camper holiday to the US in a year or two. Now: no way in hell.)
Overseas arrivals to the US is tracked in .
Domestic tourism represented 96.7% of the annual market in 2013. 
In the context of this thread's discussion of overseas visitors avoiding the US and its knock-on effects upon the US tourism industry, if overseas visitors 100% disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn't be a rounding error, but according to these statistics it's definitely not the political-economic club it's made out to be in these discussions. For better or worse, it is up to US citizens to vote in any changes in border control service delivery standards.
For what it's worth, many of the procedures I've heard people complain about have some basis in reasoning lurking in the background. International transits (where you land in a US airport but go onwards to a different country, never once stepping foot onto non-airport soil) requiring a security re-screening is explained in some places . The cost to Americans getting People's Republic of China (PRC) visas traces back to diplomatic tit-for-tat, as PRC citizens visiting the US pay similar fees. Many security industry observers admire Israel's airport security, yet discussions like this thread neglect to mention Israeli border control also demands social network and email credentials, and the US is singled out for adopting an Israeli practice, when just scant few years ago the US agencies were excoriated for being too unenlightened to adopt Israeli practices .
Where I see room for improvement is service delivery, and education of citizens might help, while increased focus upon anchoring the mobility of capital to mobility of labor will definitely help. I've had my share of visa issues traveling into Canada as a US citizen, but the staff were unfailingly polite while still being hard-nosed, while I hear of other US citizens getting hassled at the Canadian border. I've had minor snafus in border crossings into Mexico and the PRC as well, and I was treated politely there, too. My attitude in all of these interactions was, "Ah, sorry I made your day harder just now, what can I learn about what I missed with regards to the policy so I don't make the same mistake again, what is the rough, overall process and timeline to fix it this time around, and what is the detailed next action item (who/where/what/how)?" This has never failed to elicit the officer politely, sometimes gladly, assisting me, so maybe this helps others. YMMV, of course.
On a slightly different note. Can this be used to send people home even if they are not bringing a device? I mean, wouldn't it be suspicious to not bring a computer or phone? And if border police are as arbitrary as people say, why not send people away for not having devices that could be unlocked. It would be suspicious couldn't it?
This year's schedule is probably set already, but 2018 may be different.
The biggest ML conferences are ICML and NIPS. ICLR is a new one focused on deep learning that is also very good, but smaller. AAAI seems to be the big general AI conference, but I haven't really seen much talk about it. KDD seems semi-popular, but not a top-tier conference.
There are also application-specific conferences like ACL & EMNLP for language & CVPR for computer vision.
I'm not an academic, but I went to ICML last year since it was in NYC, and it was definitely worth it.
This wikipedia page has a list of some others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_science_confe...
I have no realistic chance of convincing enough of my fellow Americans that the privacy of foreign nationals who wish to enter this country is more important than maintaining the false sense of security we get by violating it to put any pressure on lawmakers or enforcers of policy and get things changed.
What you can do, today, is employ technical measures to prevent the agents at the border from snooping into your private business.
Please, by all means use whatever technical measures you want at the border. My criticism was of hn commenters armchair quarterbacking, as thought the ability to bypass these checks (at great effort) makes it ok that you have no expectation of privacy.
I have mixed feelings on the matter. At an international border, non-citizens shouldn't have an expectation of privacy.
At the same time, this man's private sexual preferences shouldn't be used to evaluate his fitness to enter the country.
Makes you wonder why the people keep having bad politicians. Maybe it's time they taught themselves that system a little bit better.
in-person > phone > lettermail > e-mail
Technical self-defense measures are imperfect partial workarounds but the best we have to offer for people in these situations.
Even if you manage to stop customs agents from demanding access, some other branch of government will do it, even if it's outright illegal for them to do so. Technical solutions are the only ones that will make a dent.
Realistically speaking the US was never a democracy but over the year it's turned more and more into a corporatocracy where the only way to get heard is if you are rich or a corporation.
If the US government was code I would have scrapped it a long time a go and re-written it but then again don't expect anything to change for the better where it matters since all the interest groups are really good a protecting themselves and as log as they have the money anybody else has no say on the matter.
the social and political aspects of it are not. there's no political traction against this stuff. the border patrol types are too stupid to understand simple and innocent explanations, and treating them as equals is a surefire way to incur their wrath.
the way to make privacy at the border work for everyone is for everyone to conspire to keep the border patrol in the dark. throw them a (fake) bone or a (true at first evidence check) lie, and keep moving on.
No, they're at least somewhat solveable. It's true that in the long term, those with power will use it to seek more power. But that would seem to imply that the government cannot be peacefully replaced every few years through voting, or that checks and balances cannot keep authoritarianism in check, and that's at least worked for a while. We just need to re-strengthen those limits and develop new rules to account for the new technology.
Temporary cultural issues and a lack of understanding are surmountable problems. But you're correct that this social and political change is a lot more difficult than encryption software.
Thinking you can change a rigged, corrupt system? You've already lost. This is 100% a case where the state needs to be thwarted through technical means.
For example, women's suffrage was a constitutional amendment.
Or the Civil Rights Act. It didn't by any means fix all the problems in the US, but it represented real progress.
And then there are the thousands and thousands of lawsuits filed by groups like the ACLU.
The last time I flew from Canada to Singapore through the US, the US Customs officer - on Canadian soil - was hostile, asked me numerous questions about my travel, itinerary, who I was intending to meet, and my personal finances.
When I questioned if all this was necessary as I'm not even traveling to the US, he became agitated and threatened "You know I could stop your trip right here? I might not be convinced you'll actually transfer on your next flight or leave the US."
After scowling at his screen for a while, he finally scoffed, slammed my passport on the counter and said "Go." I guess he felt he had shown his power enough.
It was extremely stressful and humiliating, and I vowed never to subject myself to it again. FWIW, I'm a caucasian, middle-class Canadian IT nerd. I can only imagine what others who meet their "profile" go through.
Now one instance can be chalked up to a bad apple but over and over again I have heard stories like this and experienced on multiple occasions.
Canadian customs officers may ask questions but they are generally not in a abusive tone.
Brit here, anecdata. I once entered Canada for business reasons and (long story short) my employer hadn't given me the correct visa paperwork. The Canadian border guys let me leave the airport and gave me 24 hours to come back with the correct paperwork (and threatened arrest if I didn't return). It was stressful but the guards were professional and relatively courteous. The guy I spoke to the next day basically said "we get this all the time, we know it's your company and not you".
I know I'm being purposefully naive in saying this, but why pay for something that's not working?
Because it's The American Way! We spend so much money on programs that are proven not to work, it's embarrassing.
Going to disagree with this statement. I've had 3 instances where Canadian border police were very aggressive and basically accused me of breaking the law without any evidence.
The US? 1 instance.
I recently travelled to Australia on business - which, I suppose, is the larger neighbour in the same way the US is to Canada.
Through immigration and customs at both airports, I was never obliged to actually interact with a real person: only check-in machines, face scanners, and a quick walk past sniffer dogs.
Well to be fair when I was visiting Canada from EU I got asked exactly same questions from Canadian customs.
Unfortunately Canada's awful security policy comes because we need to be "up to US standards", or else we risk huge barriers being put in the middle of our trade relationship due to US paranoia. And economically, Canada is totally dependent on trade with the US.
My first crossing in to Canada was riding with my girlfriend and her parents, all Canadian citizens. It was maybe 10 PM, crossing from Maine to New Brunswick. The Canadian agent was very friendly to my three companions with Canadian passports, but immediately become agitated when she saw my US passport. It struck me as quite odd how rude she was to me given how she had no suspicion of the other three people in the car with me. I wasn't driving the car, I was in the back seat listening to music on an MP3 player.
I've decided it isn't so much that Canadians feel the need to be "up to US standards," as much as it is they feel the need to treat US citizens with the same contempt that the US treats Canadian citizens.
The two times I crossed (~5 and 15 years ago) the Canadian border agents were polite and brief. I guess that first one was in the days where US citizens didn't need a passport to travel to Canada.
US and Canadian border guards will search your stuff without telling you why, seem disappointed not finding anything, curtly dismiss you leaving you to repack. And it's like they're disappointed when it turns out you've committed no offense.
I believe that automatically flags them to see if you are working in the US illegally. I always have this problem when I travel for work to SF. I was secondary screened when I said I was paid via PayPal and he didn't know what PayPal was. The girl in secondary screening had to google it to make sure I wasn't getting paid by American company but in fact was paid for a contract.
It's a shame; US citizens are generally lovely people, the US natural environment is beautiful and, hell, the US makes killer craft beers that I'd love to drink my way through. However, there's enough other destinations around the world to keep me busy so that I don't have to possibly subject myself to this sort of treatment, and therefore I'll visit them instead.
go where it's exotic (this ain't US), where you are actually welcomed (again not US), experience traditional culture (what? seeing how shamefully native indians were/are treated? no thank you) and so on. if you are into big cities, european and asian places are way more interesting and intense anyway.
Plus there is what happened to Sam Blackman
Also, Garage Project do phenomenal work. Love their stuff.
That kind of thinking is dangerous, though, in all forms: equating people with their governments is the beginning of the end, in all directions.
I think that's actually the best way to achieve change in this case. Will suck for the tourism industry though.
Also, based on my family members' experiences of working in the US, it's easier to work illegally than to immigrate legally. And hard to be a tourist apparently. You guys have your priorities all backwards - should be easy to visit, hard to work illegally, and somewhere in the middle to immigrate legally.
It could be done if tightening the rules is combined with finding solution for having so many illegal immigrants, one way or another (in various combinations). But political stances in US are such that making comprehensive solution is very hard, the trust between parties almost nonexistent, the desire to cooperate is very low, and the entrenched positions are incompatible and only cover part of the possible solution, which can not work without other parts.
Housing assistance is a government service.
Access to housing would mean controlling the private housing market, I guess.
Those are very different ideas in terms of feasibility, morality, economics, etc.
Second, many illegal immigrant are poor, or comparatively poor (e.g. housing in SF Bay Area is crazily expensive as you know, but in other parts of California is not super-cheap either usually) - and thus the government has a choice - either provide at least some assistance, or deal with tons of homeless people and all the problems that arise from that. California has pretty mild climate, which can be good because people won't freeze to death, etc. in most places most of the time, but that also means they can actually live on the street in most places most of the time, and the rest of the population usually gets uncomfortable when this happens. So they ask the government to solve this somehow.
In my experience, illegal immigrants were frightened of encounters with police/authorities and were much less likely to be homeless or live in government-subsidized housing than others of a similar stratum. That said, my experience is mostly with migrant workers (agricultural and service industry); so these were people with jobs, albeit low-paying jobs. Those who couldn't work would live with their traveling companions until they moved to next location or eventually return home if they weren't making money.
I'm not arguing there's no correlation. It just feels like a stretch to imply the government is providing low-income housing so the streets aren't flooded with homeless illegal immigrants. But maybe that's true in CA; I really don't know. My experience and knowledge is all rooted in the southeast (AL, MS, VA).
You'll need to spend a lot of money and effort on finding them and getting them out, on enforcing eligibility checks at workplaces, etc. And face very strong political opposition - since it's one thing just not to let the person in and very different thing to uproot a person who already has been in for a while, got some local contacts, established themselves, etc.
Now add people that oppose virtually any immigration enforcement for political reasons, and you've got the situation US is now in - there are about 10M illegal immigrants, about 1M have final deportation orders (which mean the state ordered them to leave now, all process, appeals, etc. have been exhausted) and ICE has in custody about 12K (yes, 12K out of 1M), where are the rest - nobody knows and nobody will know.
If anyone were serious about this problem, E-verify would be in force everywhere and the working population that supports 12M undocumented immigrants would be out of work tomorrow, and out of the country the next day.
Basically all the fears in this article were realized with the DHS announcements yesterday: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-immigrant-crackdown-worri...
"When he went through secondary inspection at Vancouver airport, US Customs officers didn’t even need to ask for his passwords — they were saved in their own system."
"They said, ‘Next time you come through, don’t have a cleared phone,’ and that was it. I wasn’t let through. "
I know that US/Canada privacy laws might not give people protection in this situations, but what about universal human rights? UN Declaration of Human Rights and other binding international agreements recognize the right to privacy.
Americans 4th Amendment right wasn't created by the 4th Amendment, but merely acknowledged by it. All human beings have an inherent right to privacy -- to suggest otherwise as a US citizen is self-contradictory.
And more simply, it means you have to trust border patrol's password management as well as your own. (Or change them all immediately.)
UNCLOS - "Although the United States helped shape the Convention and its subsequent revisions, and though it signed the 1994 Agreement on Implementation, it has not signed the Convention as it objected to Part XI of the Convention."
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: "The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it"
Basel Convention: "Haiti and the United States have signed the Convention but not ratified it."
Additionally, the US wages illegal wars all the time - against the UN charta where only aggression for self defence or with a UN mandate is allowed.
There was one time last year where I got detained for 8 because they didn't believe that a college dropout could run a company, even calling me "full of shit" at one point. They had my computer and went through my email one by one asking me to cite specific dates of employment at 3am in the morning.
They ultimately rejected me on the basis that I got one of the dates wrong. Can't say I've ever had a good experience with any US customs official.
The only reasonable explanation apart from quotas I can come up with is that they want to harass people.
Our investor was also based in California, which made sense to leverage his network there to raise subsequent rounds of funding.
Also, its difficult to get a NEXUS card if you have been rejected recently, but they wont take yours away for being turned back unless you did something against the rules of the program like fraudulently applied for a visa.
There are a lot of these stories that are suddenly making the mainstream press -- the stories themselves are true, but the "why write this now" aspect is clearly an attempt to imply that these issues are Trump inspired when they have been anything but.
And example of this are all of the deportion stories -- the Obama admin had fairly aggressive deportation enforcement, but they didn't inspire protests because Obama isn't Trump.
Even the framing of the stories is suspect: "Muslim Ban" for example -- yet 85% of the world's Muslims were unaffected and not a single religion was named in the text of the executive order. Don't misunderstand -- I don't support national origin bans either, but the media framing is definitely designed not to inform people -- but to provoke.
The fact that this story is appearing now when the incident happened 5 months ago is extremely suspect -- it fits a crafted narrative that Trump is anti-gay or whatever he's supposedly 'anti' this week.
> "to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality."
I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's a ban on Muslims, but it strategically bans (arbitrary groups of) Muslims. Also, if we're going to talk about portrayals, it's worth reminding readers that the countries on the list (Trump signed it, not Obama) have not historically been sources of terrorists.
The EO extended those controls from "no waiver, manual review" to "no access"
This is also horrifying. So there's a government database of plaintext passwords and a massive body of people have legitimate access?
If you were dealing with a reasonable system, a compromise might be to unlock the accounts for them (without them seeing the password) and allow them to review the contents in your presence. That way you know exactly what they've seen, and that they're not holding onto anything, but they should still be able to do any necessary screening. Unfortunately the system appears to be weighted rather more toward maximum intimidation than reasonableness.
So you have to change everything + the master password, that is 1 more than you would have to change, had you not used it. Without a password manager, you could just give them the passwords they wanted, if you remember 20+ different random passwords. Otherwise you are reusing your passwords and so have to change most of them anyway.
>If you were dealing with a reasonable system
That this could seriously be described as "reasonable" shows just how much things went wrong.
And yes, I agree that having to show border guards your facebook account isn't ideal. It's a hell of a lot more reasonable than just giving them all your passwords and having them run rampant through your digital life without your even knowing what they've done or seen though.
One can't only act after going through, one has to change all their passwords to throwaway passwords before going through the border.
That is poor password security right there, even before giving your master key to some rando.
I'm not surprised they have access to a lot of accounts, but that's different from trusting that everyone working the front line at border patrol will use that database securely and ethically.
Currently, I have absolutely no intention of even flying through the US. The only reason I could imagine doing it is if I were to have a onsite interview at some companies headquarters; or if I through some miracle get tickets for I/O or WWDC. That would be about it. And if I get a ticket, I would now have to think about a plan how I could keep my data safe while still taking my phone/laptop with me. It's a shame really.
(Unrelated side story: I am a frequent traveller and invested good money into a nice robust trunk. I usually have the PIN lock on it with the normal TSA key thing for them to open it. I took it to a dozen countries and never had any problems, but at the first time through the US it got directly broken open (despite TSA lock), my stuff left in a messy state and I got the usual paper notice about a TSA inspection. Now I can't close the trunk correctly anymore and will probably have to buy a new one. Booh.)
US police have always been shooting/killing citizens (mainly political out groups) without repercussions. The difference now is that documentation of such acts is easily accessible for large portions of the population and the information is extraordinarily easy to be decimated.
I figure if I don't get the runaround on the way in, I'll get it on the way back. Sad, but not worth the trouble.
Non-US people traveling with me have been denied entry after being sent to secondary for refusing to unlock their devices (the only reason they were sent to secondary and the unlock demand made was because they were traveling with me, a known fifth-amendment-user).
US CBP are total scumbags. I've had lower level CBP insult the country in which I live, unbidden, in response to my plain, unadorned factual responses to questioning about where I live and what I do there, in what appeared to be self-reassurance about the USA's number one status. Both me and a female partner have had our genitals groped as punitive response to our refusals to unlock our phones.
The sooner we can drive this issue to a head and get all these pigs out on the street looking for new jobs, the better.
The more time goes by, the more the US is moving away from that pedestal I had put it on.(privacy is getting eroded, cops are killing people, the govt. does not trust it's own citizens etc. - and no it's got nothing to do with Trump, this was happening before Trump too - doubt if he'll make it better).
Even now, US still has a lot of ideals I consider dear, but man, they are making it hard for me to even visit the country (wanted to have an all-over-US driving trip when I get my car - but I doubt if that's happening considering recent news)
I have the ability to move anywhere in the world and, all things considered, I'm staying in the US. It is not without it's problems, as you mention, privacy and a militarized police force are high on the list, but also keep in mind the positives. I think they still outweigh the negatives by a lot.
I get very worried about traveling with an object as alien and shiny as a Yubikey. I don't know how I'd explain it to an aneurism in a Kevlar vest without triggering them with words like "encryption".
But then you risk:
> They said, ‘Next time you come through, don’t have a cleared phone,’
There was a recent (Canadian) bill that gives US customs the ability to hold and search in pre-clearance, in Canada.
Scripts could be written to populate a system with an inoffensive browser history and file usage that reflects light-moderate casual use, the only issue is making any attempts at spoofing appear congruent, believable and not anachronistic with whatever dummy accounts you present.
It's extreme and absurd, yes, but preferable to have them snooping in on your actual life. I suspect crossing the border in the future will be on the same level of 'invasive' as a personal audit.
It's also instrumental for getting me from the airport I land at to my hotel, as well as remembering the name and address of the hotel I need to travel to from the airport.
I would do what you suggest but a) the Apple store isn't always open when I land, and b) I have no way of summoning a non-taxi to get there (or to where I am sleeping).
Reports like this tend to trigger a Google search for my own name and correspondence with all sites that show up, "please delete all my shit".
Finally deleted my Facebook account last week, too.
Maybe we need a religion that forbids using social media, or more broadly, your real identity online?
Good idea. You'll get bonus social points for being a persecuted religious minority when you're turned away and it's publicized.
Or don't bring your devices with you.
That would look like a clumsy "I'm just like you" attempt at building personal rapport.
If my current mind were to be downloaded somehow into the other guy's body, would I be a border patrol agent? No! But that weird hybrid person never existed and never will. If I had been born as he did, and had the same brain, and gone through the same experiences (in other words, if I were actually him), I would be doing exactly the same things.
This realization that people are doing the best they can (usually very unskillfully) can help us be compassionate toward them.
I don't think they have grounds to seize wiped/empty devices from US citizens, but who knows.