I flagged it for the reason that the headline purports to know something tech crunch can’t possibly know: the reason the individual was denied entry.
It’s clear that the CBP says whatever they are saying, and it’s clear the individual has a different version of events.
That’s all that’s clear from this as far as I can tell, yet tec crunch is asserting this is a particular pattern they have somehow discovered.
This feels beyond biased in to deliberately misleading.
Techcrunch looked into the image:
>It was an image from 2009 of a child, who had been murdered and mutilated. Despite the graphic nature of the image, TechCrunch confirmed the photo was widely distributed on the internet and easily searchable using the name of the child’s murderer.
The border guards did not do any examination of the image, and appear clueless as to how Whatsapp works. Anyone who's used it knows that it autodownloada images by default.
Further, anyone familiar with whatsapp usage in south asia knows that viral whatsapp forwarding is common there.
Nothing there relies at all upon the story of the man turned away. It's all in the border report + techcrunch's search of the image.
This is relevant for travellers who use whatsapp. Any meme forwarded to you could be grounds for visa revocation, even by a loose connection.
This seems to be a rather significant story for our age - border agents can search your private email and messaging history, then judge you based (at least partly) on content that you might not even know is there.
Do you know for certain that every image you've ever received in every messenger is "safe" in every context? I sure as hell wouldn't let anyone dig through my phone. They can steal ("confiscate") it first.
This issue is very much on-topic for HN.
That's a reason to suggest modifying the HN headline from the source headline to something more accurate for the factual content; flagging is for a story that is out-of-bounds for the site, not for suboptimal (including clickbait, editorializing, or outright misleading) headline on an otherwise appropriate story.
That's fine; I wouldn't argue that it is improper to flag this as off-topic (I may or may not agree, but it's a reasonable opinion in any case, and an appropriate reason for flagging.)
I’m personally horrified that dubiously educated, low-wage bureaucrat thugs can cancel granted visas based on dubious evidence and personal bias. Even if you can’t “prove” that the image was the reason for the denial here, it’s repulsive that it’s a possibility.
If I have a 'terroristic' picture on my phone and I try to cross a border, and at the same time I tell CBP that I want to work in my cousin's gas station so that he will be freed up to do other things, it is reasonable to think that CBP might exercise their right to decline to admit me.
Commenters who are saying that CBP are lying: if its he said / she said, I am going to believe the person without the dead baby image on their phone. Not the person with the 5 year visa who wants to be away from their wife and child for three months for 'vacation'.
It seems a bit weak to me to call CBP liars absent any evidence (and here there is none) that they have lied.
Mainly what I want to say is about the dead baby image: if my 'friend' sends me that photo, we are having a talk stat about good judgement, he is not sending me any more photos, I am probably blocking him, and that photo is getting deleted.
And if I have that photo on my phone and I choose to tell some bullshit story about child safety PSAs etc, and about my cousin's gas station, I have to expect that discretionary decisions are not going to go well for me.
Surely he can see why this looks bad.
Or, who knows. It's not like there are rules written anywhere.
Interesting. They are denying him a tourism entry but also asking him if he wants to stay indefinitely.
Any app/website can put whatever it wants on your phone and you would have no idea.
Edit: since that other thread contains similar stuff. Can we please agree to read articles on volatile topics before commenting people?
One line of questioning focused on an officer’s accusation that Dakhil was planning to work at a gas station owned by his cousin — which Dakhil denied.
“They totally changed this scenario,” he said, rebutting several remarks and descriptions reported by the officers. “They only disclosed what they wanted to disclose,” he said. “They want to justify their decision, so they mentioned working in a gas station by themselves,” he claimed.
" stated that he was not sure how much he would get paid or how many hours per day he will work.  stated that by working at one of the gas stations, this would free  of the responsibility and allow  to work at a different gas station."
There's a lot of detail in that statement that lends credibility over what Dakhil says.
Edit: I'm aware of the fact that this isn't a US citizen, however there's no standards to define what the rules are and absolutely zero ability for accountability to the people that they are supposed to be protecting.
Edit: I'm not condoning or arguing against the CBP decision, just pointing out that their line of thinking is not novel. It has been around since the times of Socrates.
The social advice older people tend give younger people in the US is often extremely self destructive and isolating.
But to answer your question: How about just not adding everyone you meet at a party at 3 am to your Facebook while drunk? I don't see how this prevents you from meeting people IRL. People managed to get to know each other before social media just fine.
Bonus chatter: When I was almost done with college I had a new flat mate who just started his bachelor's and joined him once or twice when he went out. Usually during college time you don't care about or notice age that much. But suddenly I was surrounded by a bunch of 19 year old freshmen at a BBQ and everyone was constantly checking their phones and messaging people who weren't there. Suddenly an age gap of 6 years that was never an issue before made me feel like a freaking grandpa.
What does any of this say about whether I should be allowed in the US?
FYI software at the border to inspect phone content simply parse the file system and copies over all files for further analysis. It also transfers all emails and more text analysis. Anything flagged by filters get shown to the operator who may be surprised to see so much crap on a visitor device.
(And yes, I'm aware that consular posts do it all the time, issuing fewer visas to people from the wrong countries. States suck, and state violence sucks.)