Encrypted Chat Developer Detained, Interrogated at US Border(zeropaid.com)
zeropaid.com
Encrypted Chat Developer Detained, Interrogated at US Border
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/101174/claim-encrypted-chat-developer-detained-interrogated-at-us-border/
157 comments
To use the vernacular, this story doesn't 'scan'.
The comment "It’s an open source encrypted, private alternative to other services such as Facebook chat." and then the comment from an alleged interrogator, “The interrogator (who claimed 22 years of computer experience) asked me which algorithms Cryptocat used and about its censorship resistance.” really set off some bells.
If it's open source, then git/svn/cvs pull a copy of the repo and read the code. No need to interrogate the guy. And second the DHS doesn't have any history of going after folks simply because they write some open source software.
Now could the guy be detained for other reasons? Sure. But this feels more like a troll to generate buzz for his app which seems to be on a few warez sites. My quick look at Github and Sourceforge didn't find it there.
The comment "It’s an open source encrypted, private alternative to other services such as Facebook chat." and then the comment from an alleged interrogator, “The interrogator (who claimed 22 years of computer experience) asked me which algorithms Cryptocat used and about its censorship resistance.” really set off some bells.
If it's open source, then git/svn/cvs pull a copy of the repo and read the code. No need to interrogate the guy. And second the DHS doesn't have any history of going after folks simply because they write some open source software.
Now could the guy be detained for other reasons? Sure. But this feels more like a troll to generate buzz for his app which seems to be on a few warez sites. My quick look at Github and Sourceforge didn't find it there.
I agree that some elements of the story don't make sense. How many DHS/Immigration employees even know what a cryptographic algorithm is? Did the guy just happen to be sitting around when this guy attempted to cross the border? If the US was up to something, why would they randomly interview a person like this? Why not pull whatever they need to know from their massive surveillance databases - surely that would be more accurate than whatever this guy would say under duress.
If it's open source, then git/svn/cvs pull a copy of the repo and read the code. No need to interrogate the guy.
While I understand what you're saying here, I can't help but think of how many times my co-workers asked me something they could have easily looked up via Google. I can easily extrapolate that to a border guard, especially if there's an added benefit of harassing a guy you don't like.
While I understand what you're saying here, I can't help but think of how many times my co-workers asked me something they could have easily looked up via Google. I can easily extrapolate that to a border guard, especially if there's an added benefit of harassing a guy you don't like.
Oh I definitely get that. I've got a friend whose french daughter is often harassed coming into the US by immigration thinking she is an undercover nanny or something. I have no love whatsoever for the TSA (and the DHS for that matter)
My BS detector was pinging though that they even knew this guy had an open source project. If they were hassling him because of that, they had pre-knowledge of it and would know the answer to that question. If on the other hand they just pulled him out of the line and started giving him the 3rd degree because he 'looked like the type' and then got this 'crypto thing' and then tried to exploit that for some other reason, well that would be more like typical TSA protocol.
My BS detector was pinging though that they even knew this guy had an open source project. If they were hassling him because of that, they had pre-knowledge of it and would know the answer to that question. If on the other hand they just pulled him out of the line and started giving him the 3rd degree because he 'looked like the type' and then got this 'crypto thing' and then tried to exploit that for some other reason, well that would be more like typical TSA protocol.
Even if they do have this knowledge, and even if they could just as easily find it through Google or some other publicly available mechanism, they are most likely just seeing if you'll incriminate yourself. Why do they ask me what I'm doing when entering a country or where I'm staying when I've already given this information to the airline before boarding the plane?
There's a whole line of reasoning behind their questioning tactics that extends beyond getting to the facts. That's why the best legal advice is simply to not say anything, because they are not in any way shape or form on "a quest for the truth".
There's a whole line of reasoning behind their questioning tactics that extends beyond getting to the facts. That's why the best legal advice is simply to not say anything, because they are not in any way shape or form on "a quest for the truth".
interrogators will routinely ask questions to which they already know answers so that they can establish a baseline for "truthfulness" (sort of a human lie detector).
they also need to engage the subject in a conversation and may ask most banal/unrelated questions, as well as keep asking the same question in a different way.
also, http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cryptocat
they also need to engage the subject in a conversation and may ask most banal/unrelated questions, as well as keep asking the same question in a different way.
also, http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cryptocat
https://github.com/kaepora/cryptocat
That's the second Google search result for Cryptocat.
That's the second Google search result for Cryptocat.
> who claimed 22 years of computer experience
Whatever that means, it could just as well be 22 years including VB, Fortran, C, in areas unrelated to crypto, or for what it's worth, Solitaire and Excel. If he's an old-timer he may not even have heard of version control or that opensource means that code is public for anyone to read.
Whatever that means, it could just as well be 22 years including VB, Fortran, C, in areas unrelated to crypto, or for what it's worth, Solitaire and Excel. If he's an old-timer he may not even have heard of version control or that opensource means that code is public for anyone to read.
The interrogator can claim whatever he wants, he may as well have 22 years of computer experience and be absolutely incompetent.
From cryptocat front page: "Messages are encrypted inside your own browser using AES-256"
Link to source on top right: https://project.crypto.cat/
From cryptocat front page: "Messages are encrypted inside your own browser using AES-256"
Link to source on top right: https://project.crypto.cat/
> If what you develop online or what you say online as it relates to Internet freedom could impact how you are treated at the Canada, US border, it certainly would make me think twice about coming in to the US.
Come on, don't be so naive. Everybody knows that the border guards google your name when you're taken aside. That's probably how the guy with an "Arabic sounding name" ended up on the first page of results with his encrypted chat pet project and therefore got "interrogated" by border patrol by asking one question.
The 1-hour extended interview with border patrol is not detaining someone, it's just common practice. Happened to me several times.
Come on, don't be so naive. Everybody knows that the border guards google your name when you're taken aside. That's probably how the guy with an "Arabic sounding name" ended up on the first page of results with his encrypted chat pet project and therefore got "interrogated" by border patrol by asking one question.
The 1-hour extended interview with border patrol is not detaining someone, it's just common practice. Happened to me several times.
I'm wondering after reading the article if I should be worried with the app I wrote, http://www.selinked.com to learn nodejs and mongodb. It's a dead drop sort of thing with chatting, all encrypted on the frontend so nothing get's transmitted in the clear. It's not open source per se but all of the magic happens on the front end so you can see the code. Backend just manages sockets and stores encrypted data. When writing it it did cross mind that governments could have an issue with it but after seeing that I was not the first one to do this I figured I was ok. Now I'm starting to reconsider this position, I already get enough shit at the airports due to the fact I'm a green card holder and treated as a third rate citizen, don't need more.
Given that we'll only ever get one side of the story, and that side of the story being interpreted a certain way would certainly bring favor to the author, how can we actually presume that the few tweets he made really gives us the whole picture?
I mean, this is a guy who is, by what appears to be his own admissions on twitter, a "internet freedom activitist," who just got done talking at a conference about his software. This would be a great PR icing on the cake. I'm not saying it's manufactured, but I have just as much evidence for that as I do to the contrary based on the information presented.
I mean, this is a guy who is, by what appears to be his own admissions on twitter, a "internet freedom activitist," who just got done talking at a conference about his software. This would be a great PR icing on the cake. I'm not saying it's manufactured, but I have just as much evidence for that as I do to the contrary based on the information presented.
Could it be related to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_U...
I remember in my college security class our prof recommended that if we left the country we didn't bring any sort of cryptography work with us. I'm not a lawyer so I don't quite understand the legal ramifications.
I remember in my college security class our prof recommended that if we left the country we didn't bring any sort of cryptography work with us. I'm not a lawyer so I don't quite understand the legal ramifications.
With my client-side encrypted pastebin & discussion board, I'm not going to the USA anytime soon.
( http://sebsauvage.net/wiki/doku.php?id=php:zerobin )
How long until foreign businesses and governments prohibit key people from visiting or transiting the US?
Which algorithm it's using... why don't they just read the code?
Where in the hell in that article is there any attempt to get the border agents' side of the story? For all we know, this is entirely fabricated.
While it very well may be true, this is shoddy journalism at its finest. Take this sentence, for example: "Apparently, a trip to the US now allegedly features a frightening round of intense interrogation by American border guards."
Apparently? Apparently!?! Are you kidding me.
Do some real journalism and stop quoting twitter.
While it very well may be true, this is shoddy journalism at its finest. Take this sentence, for example: "Apparently, a trip to the US now allegedly features a frightening round of intense interrogation by American border guards."
Apparently? Apparently!?! Are you kidding me.
Do some real journalism and stop quoting twitter.
The impression I get is that if the US actually wants to ask you about something then they'll do it for more than an hour. They'll fly in someone from the NSA to meet you at the border, he'll probably make you comfortable and have a nice little chat with you and it will become a big deal.
Getting stuck at the border for an hour is a sufficiently short time, in the bureaucratic system, that we can assume they didn't really care. In all probability it was just some random border guard who really did have a CS background and was excited to get a chance to use it.
Getting stuck at the border for an hour is a sufficiently short time, in the bureaucratic system, that we can assume they didn't really care. In all probability it was just some random border guard who really did have a CS background and was excited to get a chance to use it.
Someone with "22 years of computer experience" and knows about encryption algorithms doesn't become a border guard.
Why not?
Work in the military for 20 years (ok, 22) in a communications or IT capacity, retire, collect pension. 20 years of military computer experience doesn't necessarily make you an expert or even employable, sadly.
You then get preferential hiring for other positions in the government, especially law enforcement. Working for ICE/CBP wouldn't be a horrible job (if you could do it for a few days a month, I think it would be fun -- you're basically the first contact a visitor has with the US, and you get to meet lots of interesting people from around the world. In most countries, this is a particularly well respected job, a whole lot better than being deep in the bowels of government bureaucracy.)
Work in the military for 20 years (ok, 22) in a communications or IT capacity, retire, collect pension. 20 years of military computer experience doesn't necessarily make you an expert or even employable, sadly.
You then get preferential hiring for other positions in the government, especially law enforcement. Working for ICE/CBP wouldn't be a horrible job (if you could do it for a few days a month, I think it would be fun -- you're basically the first contact a visitor has with the US, and you get to meet lots of interesting people from around the world. In most countries, this is a particularly well respected job, a whole lot better than being deep in the bowels of government bureaucracy.)
But if they do, they're bitter enough to want to interrogate every programmer who comes through their station.
He needs to sue the government.
we do live in a hypocrisy world, esp in US, just embrace that to make life easier.
I am wondering, they have a database that connects your name with the OSS project you're on(or any projects for that matter)? and it pops out once they input your passport number? quite surprised.
I am wondering, they have a database that connects your name with the OSS project you're on(or any projects for that matter)? and it pops out once they input your passport number? quite surprised.
I love the inherent schizophrenia in the US political system. They are so in love with anti censorship technologies when employed against countries they don't like, like in China or Arab Spring, even going so far as to help develop the tech (tor) or ask the maintainers for special considerations (the US gov asked twitter to alter its maintenance schedule for Arab spring). But when the software could be used closer to home, they target developers like they are one step away from terrorists. The hypocrisy is... challenging
"But when the software could be used closer to home, they target developers like they are one step away from terrorists. The hypocrisy is... challenging"
So you see this border interrogation as part of a systematic policy to intimidate developers entering the United States with expertise in cryptographic dev? Gotta be honest, that seems like a wild and illogical extrapolation to me based on this anecdotal story. So the end game of the United States government is what exactly, in this effort? To keep people with cryptographic talent outside of the US?
1) Why? I presume your point is that the government is attempting in a very, very, very round-about way to stifle free speech? Please inform me if this is not your point, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
2) What would that accomplish. We live in an era of instant communication and transportation of software. Developers can work on products from anywhere in the globe. If this man was denied entry to the United States, what is stopping him from simply working for his company from abroad? The answer: nothing.
It would serve pretty much zero purpose to run a campaign of intimidation against an incredibly small subset of the developer population... Programmers with cryptographic expertise who frequently travel in and outside of the United States... I don't get it. What about all of those with crypto experience who are already in the US and don't travel. Aren't they a threat? Are they being targeted? Where are their stories?
Doesn't the government, when they are looking to either break or make these same crypto software, draw from the same talent pool as private industry here in America? Why would they run that talent out of town?
If the US government wanted to suppress cryptographic research or otherwise circumvent it in an effort to subvert Free Speech, don't you think there are more precise and non-haphazard-and-idiotic ways of doing it?
This goes against the general sentiment of comments I've seen in this article, but I just have to say it. I think the idea is ridiculous and above all, completely inefficient for the goals everyone is ascribing to the border agents and the government here.
Logic doesn't really back this up. I can't imagine the point of this. I am not naive enough to think the government doesn't do some shady stuff, but I simply don't see the point and don't see this as an effective tool in whatever their war on developers is supposed to be.
So you see this border interrogation as part of a systematic policy to intimidate developers entering the United States with expertise in cryptographic dev? Gotta be honest, that seems like a wild and illogical extrapolation to me based on this anecdotal story. So the end game of the United States government is what exactly, in this effort? To keep people with cryptographic talent outside of the US?
1) Why? I presume your point is that the government is attempting in a very, very, very round-about way to stifle free speech? Please inform me if this is not your point, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
2) What would that accomplish. We live in an era of instant communication and transportation of software. Developers can work on products from anywhere in the globe. If this man was denied entry to the United States, what is stopping him from simply working for his company from abroad? The answer: nothing.
It would serve pretty much zero purpose to run a campaign of intimidation against an incredibly small subset of the developer population... Programmers with cryptographic expertise who frequently travel in and outside of the United States... I don't get it. What about all of those with crypto experience who are already in the US and don't travel. Aren't they a threat? Are they being targeted? Where are their stories?
Doesn't the government, when they are looking to either break or make these same crypto software, draw from the same talent pool as private industry here in America? Why would they run that talent out of town?
If the US government wanted to suppress cryptographic research or otherwise circumvent it in an effort to subvert Free Speech, don't you think there are more precise and non-haphazard-and-idiotic ways of doing it?
This goes against the general sentiment of comments I've seen in this article, but I just have to say it. I think the idea is ridiculous and above all, completely inefficient for the goals everyone is ascribing to the border agents and the government here.
Logic doesn't really back this up. I can't imagine the point of this. I am not naive enough to think the government doesn't do some shady stuff, but I simply don't see the point and don't see this as an effective tool in whatever their war on developers is supposed to be.
>So you see this border interrogation as part of a systematic policy to intimidate developers entering the United States with expertise in cryptographic dev? Gotta be honest, that seems like a wild and illogical extrapolation to me based on this anecdotal story.
This is not the only inference you can make. Something that I've noticed about domestic law-enforcement, which I think successfully extrapolates and pertains to the DHS and TSA, is that outlying behavior is discouraged, especially outlying behavior associated with volatile keywords. How many times have I done something unusual, and stopped when the police come by because I just don't know if it's legal or not, and I don't want to get hassled?!
The law is so extensive and arcane that enforcement relies almost entirely on precedent and patterns rather than direct application, especially when dealing with rarer violations.
The result is systematic harassment with no end-game required. It's a policy that kind of sneaks up on institutions as big as the US Govt: discourage interesting, dissenting behavior; encourage boring, mainstream behavior. It doesn't require passing a law - it's an emergent behavior that only requires extra scrutiny of behavior that is outside the experience of the enforcer. This will tend to get worse with scale and the application of technology because a) more people are scrutinized and b) more of their life will be scrutinized, increasing the risk of finding outlying behavioral points.
This is not the only inference you can make. Something that I've noticed about domestic law-enforcement, which I think successfully extrapolates and pertains to the DHS and TSA, is that outlying behavior is discouraged, especially outlying behavior associated with volatile keywords. How many times have I done something unusual, and stopped when the police come by because I just don't know if it's legal or not, and I don't want to get hassled?!
The law is so extensive and arcane that enforcement relies almost entirely on precedent and patterns rather than direct application, especially when dealing with rarer violations.
The result is systematic harassment with no end-game required. It's a policy that kind of sneaks up on institutions as big as the US Govt: discourage interesting, dissenting behavior; encourage boring, mainstream behavior. It doesn't require passing a law - it's an emergent behavior that only requires extra scrutiny of behavior that is outside the experience of the enforcer. This will tend to get worse with scale and the application of technology because a) more people are scrutinized and b) more of their life will be scrutinized, increasing the risk of finding outlying behavioral points.
From the Wikipedia page on Jacob Appelbaum:
> He has worked for Greenpeace and has volunteered for the Ruckus Society and the Rainforest Action Network
> Appelbaum is known for representing Wikileaks at the 2010 Hope conference.
The US government has a long and well documented history of systematically harassing political dissidents.
Edit: my bad, skimmed the article and thought it was Appelbaum who was detained.
> He has worked for Greenpeace and has volunteered for the Ruckus Society and the Rainforest Action Network
> Appelbaum is known for representing Wikileaks at the 2010 Hope conference.
The US government has a long and well documented history of systematically harassing political dissidents.
Edit: my bad, skimmed the article and thought it was Appelbaum who was detained.
[deleted]
Well, he has been, too.
"So you see this border interrogation as part of a systematic policy to intimidate developers entering the United States with expertise in cryptographic dev? Gotta be honest, that seems like a wild and illogical extrapolation to me based on this anecdotal story. So the end game of the United States government is what exactly, in this effort? To keep people with cryptographic talent outside of the US?"
I could probably mount a plausible argument that the end-game is to discourage talented developers/cryptographers from contributing to the sorts of projects that could be seen as "sticking it to the man". Especially since this isn't a singular isolated anecdotal story (and I know the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data", but still…)
If making that argument (and I'm not yet sure I'm convinced of it's "rightness"), I'd probably also point out it doesn't need to be on the scale of "the United States government" to exist or to be effective - it could be emergent behaviour of law enforcement agencies without being publicly chosen or acknowledged policy. A diligent "national security" agent might very well think it's entirely within their remit to "investigate" software like CryptoCat, and the Chinese Whispers propagation of that "I wonder what algorithms CryptoCat uses?" curiosity could easily end up with the observed "The NSA needs to know about your software" interrogation/intimidation behaviour by the minimum wage airport security staff.
And as a long term play - putting even a little pressure on young up-and-coming developers when they're deciding what projects to start or contribute too would "work". "Should I contribute to this borderline subversive open source crypto project? But what if I get a startup off the ground later that requires a lot of travel? Maybe I should work on my commercial mobile app idea instead…"
I could probably mount a plausible argument that the end-game is to discourage talented developers/cryptographers from contributing to the sorts of projects that could be seen as "sticking it to the man". Especially since this isn't a singular isolated anecdotal story (and I know the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data", but still…)
If making that argument (and I'm not yet sure I'm convinced of it's "rightness"), I'd probably also point out it doesn't need to be on the scale of "the United States government" to exist or to be effective - it could be emergent behaviour of law enforcement agencies without being publicly chosen or acknowledged policy. A diligent "national security" agent might very well think it's entirely within their remit to "investigate" software like CryptoCat, and the Chinese Whispers propagation of that "I wonder what algorithms CryptoCat uses?" curiosity could easily end up with the observed "The NSA needs to know about your software" interrogation/intimidation behaviour by the minimum wage airport security staff.
And as a long term play - putting even a little pressure on young up-and-coming developers when they're deciding what projects to start or contribute too would "work". "Should I contribute to this borderline subversive open source crypto project? But what if I get a startup off the ground later that requires a lot of travel? Maybe I should work on my commercial mobile app idea instead…"
If the interrogator has 22 years of 'computer experience' and is asking about specific algorithms I sincerely doubt that they're minimum wage airport security staff.
Doesn't any 22-year-old have 22 years of computer experience?
"I could probably mount a plausible argument that the end-game is to discourage talented developers/cryptographers from contributing to the sorts of projects that could be seen as "sticking it to the man". Especially since this isn't a singular isolated anecdotal story (and I know the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data", but still…)"
I addressed this in one of my earlier points: I don't quite understand what you are talking about. We are computer programmers. We can build a product from anywhere in the world. Why would physical borders stop us?
I addressed this in one of my earlier points: I don't quite understand what you are talking about. We are computer programmers. We can build a product from anywhere in the world. Why would physical borders stop us?
So you see this border interrogation as part of a systematic policy to intimidate developers entering the United States with expertise in cryptographic dev? Gotta be honest, that seems like a wild and illogical extrapolation to me based on this anecdotal story.
See the many other similar stories of detentions on this thread.
But also, just following the question of what's "wildly implausible", assuming the event happened, what's more plausible, that this was a sanctioned action based on US policy or that low-level airport security people have the ability to detain whoever they want based on criteria they make up and that they just happened to choose a crypt expert based on their personal interests in the subject?
See the many other similar stories of detentions on this thread.
But also, just following the question of what's "wildly implausible", assuming the event happened, what's more plausible, that this was a sanctioned action based on US policy or that low-level airport security people have the ability to detain whoever they want based on criteria they make up and that they just happened to choose a crypt expert based on their personal interests in the subject?
Everything you say makes sense, but alas, the government is not always observed to be strong on logic.
But okay, given your argument, what do you think happened here, and why? Do you think this report is a complete fabrication?
But okay, given your argument, what do you think happened here, and why? Do you think this report is a complete fabrication?
In my view, untog had a perfectly reasonable and simple explanation.
True, I am assuming a certain level of logic and you are right, the world doesn't always work that way. But the above poster makes a lot more sense to me than some idea of a very, very, very ineffective campaign against crypto devs. The idea that we are targeting crypto devs really doesn't hold up when you think about it, it doesn't make a single ounce of sense.
And is it really that hard to believe that this man, whose job it is to monitor the flow of people and properties in and outside of the united states, would be interested? Is it a stretch to imagine any number of scenarios, including one where this man was simply overzealous? I understand the obvious sympathies we have to this man as a fellow programmer... I just don't see anything "there" there.
True, I am assuming a certain level of logic and you are right, the world doesn't always work that way. But the above poster makes a lot more sense to me than some idea of a very, very, very ineffective campaign against crypto devs. The idea that we are targeting crypto devs really doesn't hold up when you think about it, it doesn't make a single ounce of sense.
And is it really that hard to believe that this man, whose job it is to monitor the flow of people and properties in and outside of the united states, would be interested? Is it a stretch to imagine any number of scenarios, including one where this man was simply overzealous? I understand the obvious sympathies we have to this man as a fellow programmer... I just don't see anything "there" there.
So you see this border interrogation as part of a systematic policy to intimidate developers entering the United States with expertise in cryptographic dev? Gotta be honest, that seems like a wild and illogical extrapolation to me based on this anecdotal story.
Agreed. This is simply a case of border control agents going overboard. I'm not defending it for a second (as a US visa holder, I despise the process I have to go through every time I enter the country) but these agents aren't technically inclined in any way.
When you arrive at their desk, they ask "what do you do for a living and what does your company do?". If you answer "The company makes chat software", you'd walk straight through. If you say "The company makes encrypted, secure chat software" then they are going to ask further questions. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a watchlist of words to listen out for, and "encryption" is one of them. Encryption is subject to export controls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_U...
Agreed. This is simply a case of border control agents going overboard. I'm not defending it for a second (as a US visa holder, I despise the process I have to go through every time I enter the country) but these agents aren't technically inclined in any way.
When you arrive at their desk, they ask "what do you do for a living and what does your company do?". If you answer "The company makes chat software", you'd walk straight through. If you say "The company makes encrypted, secure chat software" then they are going to ask further questions. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a watchlist of words to listen out for, and "encryption" is one of them. Encryption is subject to export controls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_U...
This is simply a case of border control agents going
overboard
Suggesting it's because of something they said is ludicrous and aggravating. That's the same argument as suggesting that if someone didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have dressed skimpily. While you don't even know what she was wearing.
Is there a Godwin's Law equivalent for how long it takes someone to use a rape comparison in an online discussion?
Nothing is being compared to rape: an argument is being compared to a well known argument involving rape, to illustrate its fallacious nature.
Perhaps there is also a law for how long it takes until someone attempts to dismiss an argument by introducing a red herring.
Perhaps there is also a law for how long it takes until someone attempts to dismiss an argument by introducing a red herring.
It's an emotionally loaded comparison, even if you're referring to the argument and not the act.
I think untog brings up a good point, which is that we don't know what the interaction was. And we do know that what you say can cause you to be further questioned.
I think untog brings up a good point, which is that we don't know what the interaction was. And we do know that what you say can cause you to be further questioned.
It's highly unlikely that so many smart people are being harassed 'because they said something unwise'. These people know very well to keep their mouth shut at the border, which is a sad thing in itself. How often is the person being harassed an accountant and how often is it a security researcher? Joe Random also complains on Reddit about being harassed and their stories are upvoted just as much. Still a few categories stick out. I can't explain that, unless they are being harassed, because of what they do or believe in when not travelling.
Of course, this harassment doesn't accomplish anything. If these people were truly a threat, the FBI would stake them out, the CIA would make them disappear or the NSA would hire them. Them being harassed at the border once more illustrates the weirdness of the TSA and border patrol. Their employees seem to suffer from the group delusion that harassing people will keep them from doing security research or being a danger to the United States. I don't understand their motivation. They give the US a bad name and they achieve nothing.
The actual security agencies know better than that. You may disagree with their practices and beliefs, but they at least give the impression of being mostly competent and efficient in achieving sensible goals. The current news around a 0-day cryptographic breakthrough being incorporated in Flame doesn't result in "I never expected that", but in "Go figure".
Of course, this harassment doesn't accomplish anything. If these people were truly a threat, the FBI would stake them out, the CIA would make them disappear or the NSA would hire them. Them being harassed at the border once more illustrates the weirdness of the TSA and border patrol. Their employees seem to suffer from the group delusion that harassing people will keep them from doing security research or being a danger to the United States. I don't understand their motivation. They give the US a bad name and they achieve nothing.
The actual security agencies know better than that. You may disagree with their practices and beliefs, but they at least give the impression of being mostly competent and efficient in achieving sensible goals. The current news around a 0-day cryptographic breakthrough being incorporated in Flame doesn't result in "I never expected that", but in "Go figure".
The introduction of rape as a metaphor serves an emotional purpose, not a logical one.
Working on encryption software : Being questioned at the border !:: Wearing a bikini : getting raped.
It's a lazy argument and he was right to point it out.
Working on encryption software : Being questioned at the border !:: Wearing a bikini : getting raped.
It's a lazy argument and he was right to point it out.
That's just contradicting me, by stating !::, where I'm obviously stating ::.
I think it's the best known example, and hence the best illustration, of 'blaming the victim'. I would have used that description, were it not for the fact that I couldn't remember the name of the fallacy at the time. I remembered it after a good night's sleep. If you wish to attribute my usage of an example to lazyness, so be it.
I wasn't going to let "You get temporarily detained at the border? Well, you must've said something that alerted them." slide and I don't see how it is logically different from "You got raped? Well, you must've worn something that aroused them."
I think it's the best known example, and hence the best illustration, of 'blaming the victim'. I would have used that description, were it not for the fact that I couldn't remember the name of the fallacy at the time. I remembered it after a good night's sleep. If you wish to attribute my usage of an example to lazyness, so be it.
I wasn't going to let "You get temporarily detained at the border? Well, you must've said something that alerted them." slide and I don't see how it is logically different from "You got raped? Well, you must've worn something that aroused them."
Comments like yours are not how "karma" is acquired here, FYI.
I'm guessing what happened was something like the following:
- They asked him what he did for work (as they pretty much always do at a border crossing, in my experience). - He said he developed software. - They asked what kind of software. - He said CryptoCat. - The officer, knowing that there are export restrictions on cryptography, gave him a longer secondary interview.
I don't think they're targeting anyone here, though I wonder just how much knowledge the interviewer had about cryptography specifically.
- They asked him what he did for work (as they pretty much always do at a border crossing, in my experience). - He said he developed software. - They asked what kind of software. - He said CryptoCat. - The officer, knowing that there are export restrictions on cryptography, gave him a longer secondary interview.
I don't think they're targeting anyone here, though I wonder just how much knowledge the interviewer had about cryptography specifically.
I'll bite.
Disclaimer: Never been to the US, don't plan to do it, limited insight into the laws over there.
How are export restrictions relevant for people entering the country? Aren't US export restrictions only affecting US citizens or corporations? According to his twitter page that guys from Montreal / Beirut? And how does the whole idea of export restrictions for decentralized internet projects work?
I do believe this might've been blown out of proportions, but your answer seems a little too naive/easy, from this armchair here.
Disclaimer: Never been to the US, don't plan to do it, limited insight into the laws over there.
How are export restrictions relevant for people entering the country? Aren't US export restrictions only affecting US citizens or corporations? According to his twitter page that guys from Montreal / Beirut? And how does the whole idea of export restrictions for decentralized internet projects work?
I do believe this might've been blown out of proportions, but your answer seems a little too naive/easy, from this armchair here.
Actually, he was leaving the country[1], but I'm pretty sure that's ultimately beside the point. I have sincere doubts that cryptography was the reason for his detainment. By his own admission he had been detained four times in the previous three weeks[2]. Tweets quite often in support of Wikileaks/Assange/Manning, hails from Lebanon[3], makes strong indications that he is an activist, and just got done speaking at a human rights conference[4] - I have a hard time believing they stopped him because he wrote an encrypted chat program.
Did they ask him about cryptography? They probably did, but I'd bet dollars to donuts he brought it up first.
[1] https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/210363454954016769 [2] https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/210367538759086083 [3] https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/210386514369191936 [4] https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/208388821346299904
Did they ask him about cryptography? They probably did, but I'd bet dollars to donuts he brought it up first.
[1] https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/210363454954016769 [2] https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/210367538759086083 [3] https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/210386514369191936 [4] https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/208388821346299904
Interesting, I didn't realize he had been detained so much. It does make one wonder how much detaining "activist" types actually helps anything though.
Also, do we know if he was detained by USCBP or CBSA (i.e. Canadian Customs)? You did mention he was detained as he was leaving the country, and unless they were running a special program that day (which happens every so often), usually the US side doesn't examine people leaving.
Also, do we know if he was detained by USCBP or CBSA (i.e. Canadian Customs)? You did mention he was detained as he was leaving the country, and unless they were running a special program that day (which happens every so often), usually the US side doesn't examine people leaving.
Agree. I took my mother to the airport last year(we live in Csnada drove her across border to detroit). We ended up in immigration for two hours. She has visited the states many times before but this time they decided to give a hard time. They ask EVERYTHING. So it wouldnt suprise me if it playe out just how you described.
Agreed. I think this incident has been blown way out of proportion. I am disappointed it has received so much attention ... the news article doesn't even give voice or opportunity to comment to anyone other than the complainer in the story. ....
Hardly even a news article - it's someone making supposition from a handful of tweets. Good fodder for the intertubess.
Thank you for your comment.
It has been added to your profile and your thoughtcrime score has been updated.
We look forward to interviewing you the next time you attempt to cross the border.
It has been added to your profile and your thoughtcrime score has been updated.
We look forward to interviewing you the next time you attempt to cross the border.
[deleted](1)
[deleted]
This is a minor derail, but please don't use the term "schizophrenia" to be equal to dissociative identity disorder.
"Cognitive dissonance" is better and doesn't use other people's actual conditions as pejoratives.
Just a pet peeve I have, don't mean to call you out or anything. :)
"Cognitive dissonance" is better and doesn't use other people's actual conditions as pejoratives.
Just a pet peeve I have, don't mean to call you out or anything. :)
And in any case, many DID systems are perfectly co-operative so that wouldn't really apply either.
"Hypocrisy" or "self contradiction" would IMO be even better.
"Hypocrisy" or "self contradiction" would IMO be even better.
What's even more sad is the repercussions that I see for the startup and technology scene. I believe our freedoms and our rights are what gives the US a huge edge in terms of creativity compared to countries like China and Singapore. Our intellectual freedoms are what leads to huge innovations, that tends to surprise a lot of people still. Without these freedoms I feel that we'll slowly lose one of our major advantages in the coming decades.
You really think that the government even cares about behaving consistently at all any more? They just ask the PR people to whip up whatever they think will move the situation in the direction they want and they craft the message and the media plays along. The people in operations operate independently from the PR people so their actions are rarely consistent with the message the PR people are feeding to the public.
[deleted]
Quite right too. If somebody had managed to detect the subversive writings of that terrorist leader Benjamin Franklin in time, the whole revolution business could have been avoided.
I see your point. It's not a great analogy though. He was a revolutionary, but he was not a terrorist.
The way you phrased your comment can only lead to arguing semantics of the word “terrorist”. As risk to the establishment, a “subversive” can always be framed as a terrorist with a little bit of creativity.
Can you volunteer a significant difference between Franklin and a modern-day terrorist from the establishment ruler's standpoint?
Can you volunteer a significant difference between Franklin and a modern-day terrorist from the establishment ruler's standpoint?
Yes, I just meant that he didn't orchestrate and/or carry out the murders of innocent people with the sole purpose of inciting terror.
I don't think there's much to argue about here.
I don't think there's much to argue about here.
Yeah Franklin is a guy who has some of the same interests and values as you. You could imagine having dinner with him. You could imagine being him.
The modern terrorist is none of these things.
The modern terrorist is none of these things.
It's a shame this comment got downvoted. Be it serious or tongue-in-cheek, it was very enlightening.
I totally agree. These bloody modern terrorists, not sharing our views and customs. Bet they don't even play cricket. Very uncouth. You'd think that half of them had grown up in a war zone or something, the way they go on. Pass the gin.
Not like the old historic terrorists, no, those lot had style. They were on our side for one thing, made us a lot of money in the long run. And they look bloody good in paintings. Oh look, the gins run out. I'll go find some rum.
Not like the old historic terrorists, no, those lot had style. They were on our side for one thing, made us a lot of money in the long run. And they look bloody good in paintings. Oh look, the gins run out. I'll go find some rum.
Extremists on your side are revolutionaries.
Extremists not on your side are terrorists.
Extremists not on your side are terrorists.
Extremists that win are revolutionaries
Extremists that lose are terrorists
If we aren't sure yet they are insurgents
If it ends with nobody winning and the leaders getting Nobel peace prizes (N.Ireland) then they were all just folk dancers that got out of hand.
Extremists that lose are terrorists
If we aren't sure yet they are insurgents
If it ends with nobody winning and the leaders getting Nobel peace prizes (N.Ireland) then they were all just folk dancers that got out of hand.
I don't think that Betty Williams or Mairead Maguire could be described as extremists, John Hume and David Trimble were not at the extreme end of their respective sides in the conflict either. 'Folk dancers', well if you feel happy about that comment thats up to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Williams_%28Nobel_laureat... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairead_Maguire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Trimble
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Williams_%28Nobel_laureat... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairead_Maguire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Trimble
Yes it's odd how afterwards there were no terrorists, they had been no civil war and yet a few politicians an arms length from the Armalites all got Nobel Prizes for solving a problem that never happened.
I'm going to guess that the loyalists of the day couldn't tell much difference.
Material supporter?
Would have been if he had lost
Who did he terrorize?
The British?
There was the 20% of the population that actively opposed the revolution many of whom were attacked had their property seized and were eventually forced to move to Canada. As well as the majority who really just wanted everything to carry on peacefully
Alternatively it could be that 100% of the population fully supported the revolution leading to a universal popular uprising of the oppressed - just like Russia in 1917!
Alternatively it could be that 100% of the population fully supported the revolution leading to a universal popular uprising of the oppressed - just like Russia in 1917!
A partisan wouldn't find it hard to call what happened after the war as a sort of ethnic cleansing, though more on political lines than ethnic.
On top of that, numerous civilians, particularly those in positions of authority, were subject to a sort of low key terrorism, such as being dipped in hot tar or having their homes burned down. Even being a child of such an official was solid grounds for being attacked. And in the South, people were actually murdered for having Loyalist sympathies.
This was actively encouraged by the leadership, by the way, not some decentralized mob violence. On reports that this was happening in New York, for instance, a military official put an halt to it. On hearing this, George Washington immediately intervened to allow it and upbraided the officer for hurting the revolutionary cause.
Not actually making the case that American rebels were evil terrorists: just making the case that making such a case wouldn't be too difficult for someone with an agenda, given the standards of how we label things terrorism nowadays.
On top of that, numerous civilians, particularly those in positions of authority, were subject to a sort of low key terrorism, such as being dipped in hot tar or having their homes burned down. Even being a child of such an official was solid grounds for being attacked. And in the South, people were actually murdered for having Loyalist sympathies.
This was actively encouraged by the leadership, by the way, not some decentralized mob violence. On reports that this was happening in New York, for instance, a military official put an halt to it. On hearing this, George Washington immediately intervened to allow it and upbraided the officer for hurting the revolutionary cause.
Not actually making the case that American rebels were evil terrorists: just making the case that making such a case wouldn't be too difficult for someone with an agenda, given the standards of how we label things terrorism nowadays.
The records show 100% of the population were on board.
And that we have always been at war with Eastasia.
If 100% of the population was on-board, then who did they rise up against? Even if it's a single leader, he/she is still part of the population of a country.
I was satiring totalitarian states that tend to produce fake nonsense statistics about how popular they are.
e.g. in 2002 Saddam Hussein was re-elected President of Iraq. He got 100% of the votes, and there was 100% turnout ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/16/iraq )
e.g. in 2002 Saddam Hussein was re-elected President of Iraq. He got 100% of the votes, and there was 100% turnout ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/16/iraq )
Yes they always do!
This is not the first time I'm noticing how US is checking every passenger against some database with everything he said online. This makes me a lot less likely to ever visit the US, and if awareness about cases like these grows, I'm sure others will think the same way.
This makes me more scared living in the US. I am approaching the level of fear of the government that is close to what I remember having from the older Soviet Union (note: I never living the harsher political times there, mostly during the mid 80s when stuff was thawing out).
It is not a fear that legally I can't talk or do things. It is fear again irrationality and against bureaucratic mistakes. You pissed off one police officer or one border patrol agent and now you are on some kind of secret database or black list for life.
It is not a fear that legally I can't talk or do things. It is fear again irrationality and against bureaucratic mistakes. You pissed off one police officer or one border patrol agent and now you are on some kind of secret database or black list for life.
Someone who has lived in communist countries understands the danger of this trend a lot better than Americans do, it seems. There is Reddit in other sites that raise awareness about situations like these, but I don't think there's a critical mass yet to turn things around. The vast majority of Americans is probably still more afraid about terrorists than they are of this trend in Government, therefore the trend will continue.
"The vast majority of Americans is probably still more afraid about terrorists than they are of this trend in Government, therefore the trend will continue."
Government border checks are a bigger problem than religious terrorists?
Government border checks are a bigger problem than religious terrorists?
No, intrusive government government checks combined with government databases of citizens' online activities are a bigger problem than religious terrorists.
And the answer is yes.
And the answer is yes.
I don't know that it's possible to make such a comparison, since the people who are fighting for these intrusive government checks and databases ARE religious terrorists.
If you don't want it known, don't put it into the public sphere. You call the checks intrusive, I don't quite mind the idea that we are attempting to figure out who exactly the people are that are coming across American borders into this country. I'm sure you disagree.
And my answer would simply be no. In no way do I see monitoring the flow of humans into our country as a bigger problem than religious terrorists whose sole intent is to murder and maim as many innocent people as they can. shrugs
And my answer would simply be no. In no way do I see monitoring the flow of humans into our country as a bigger problem than religious terrorists whose sole intent is to murder and maim as many innocent people as they can. shrugs
Very disappointed to hear that most people view a simple border check as more dangerous than a fanatical religious terrorist. Again, I know this is not a popular view, and will surely get more downvotes. Just kind of sad to me, to be honest.
> most people view a simple border check as more dangerous than a fanatical religious terrorist.
Which terrorist?
So by your logic, because there was a fanatical religious terrorist at some point in time, it is perfectly ok for this country to start prying into everyone's (public and private) accounts, infer who knows what from what they read there ("You write on twitter you are going to have a _blast_!? in Boston" "Ok, step over here please"), and then proceed to interrogate people at the border.
It seems like the guy was added to some black database somewhere. Are you in that database too? Can you check who is in there? Do you know how one gets added or removed from it?
Are you prepared to justify all the groping, and x-raying going in airports because because of a religious terrorist. What else are you willing to sacrifice because of this religious terrorist.
I am, for one, also very disappointed to see that you and others have drunk the cool-aid that has been flowing from Washington D.C. (This is a War on Terror, Be Afraid, Be Prepared for More Attacks, We Must Invade etc. etc.)
Which terrorist?
So by your logic, because there was a fanatical religious terrorist at some point in time, it is perfectly ok for this country to start prying into everyone's (public and private) accounts, infer who knows what from what they read there ("You write on twitter you are going to have a _blast_!? in Boston" "Ok, step over here please"), and then proceed to interrogate people at the border.
It seems like the guy was added to some black database somewhere. Are you in that database too? Can you check who is in there? Do you know how one gets added or removed from it?
Are you prepared to justify all the groping, and x-raying going in airports because because of a religious terrorist. What else are you willing to sacrifice because of this religious terrorist.
I am, for one, also very disappointed to see that you and others have drunk the cool-aid that has been flowing from Washington D.C. (This is a War on Terror, Be Afraid, Be Prepared for More Attacks, We Must Invade etc. etc.)
I think you misunderstand. It's like saying I'm more afraid of twisting my ankle than getting struck by a meteorite; It's not that the latter isn't worse than the former, but rather that the latter is less of a threat when actual probability is taken into account.
"It seems like the guy was added to some black database somewhere."
Or, a much more simple explanation as was outlined in a post above, is that they asked what he does for a living, and he mentioned cryptographic technologies. Which is a controlled export in this country. Which would naturally raise the curiousity of someone whose job it is to monitor the flow of humans and properties in and out of this country.
Someone who enters and leaves this country frequently, who works in an area that is a defined controlled export of this country...
Tell me, if your job was a border agent, would you be curious? Would you interview that person? Wouldn't you be horrible at your job if you didn't?
Or, a much more simple explanation as was outlined in a post above, is that they asked what he does for a living, and he mentioned cryptographic technologies. Which is a controlled export in this country. Which would naturally raise the curiousity of someone whose job it is to monitor the flow of humans and properties in and out of this country.
Someone who enters and leaves this country frequently, who works in an area that is a defined controlled export of this country...
Tell me, if your job was a border agent, would you be curious? Would you interview that person? Wouldn't you be horrible at your job if you didn't?
The point of those religious fanatics is to kill the influence the US has so they can increase their influence. Every time someone says they aren't going back to the US because of their last experience at customs we lose influence. When a company avoids doing business with the US because of our laws we lose influence.
The simple border checks are symbolic in nature. It means we are intentionally excluding people from our conversations. Eventually those people will form a new dialog without us. Think about Pakistan, they are our allies in name only. The population doesn't like us, government actively works against with states who are not our friends.
The simple border checks are symbolic in nature. It means we are intentionally excluding people from our conversations. Eventually those people will form a new dialog without us. Think about Pakistan, they are our allies in name only. The population doesn't like us, government actively works against with states who are not our friends.
Are you aware of the level of details people have to report (or have reported by the airline and weird treaties I'll never understand) to enter this fine country?
How many people are scanned (using information that's, in spite of your advice of 'not putting things in public', readily available to the US immigration and border control)? How many of those are terrorists?
How many people are scanned (using information that's, in spite of your advice of 'not putting things in public', readily available to the US immigration and border control)? How many of those are terrorists?
That's because many of us understand that fanatical religious terrorists are extremely extremely rare. Government abuse of power is not.
But you can rest assured that this viewpoint you're disappointed by is much more common on internet forums than among people with actual power.
But you can rest assured that this viewpoint you're disappointed by is much more common on internet forums than among people with actual power.
if furniture is more dangerous than terrorists, then the bar isn't very high for border checks
Do you remember the story about the woman losing her teaching certificate because of a picture on facebook as a "drunken pirate"?
Now imagine that as government policy instead of an isolated incident.
"Quantity has a quality all its own."
Now imagine that as government policy instead of an isolated incident.
"Quantity has a quality all its own."
>I don't quite mind the idea that we are attempting to figure out who exactly the people are that are coming across American borders into this country.
What exactly does the kind of software a person develops have to do with whether they should be allowed entry into the USA?
What exactly does the kind of software a person develops have to do with whether they should be allowed entry into the USA?
Karunamon: absolutely nothing, on the face of it. And that is my entire point: I don't doubt this is how the developer interpreted these events, but if you can scroll up to see my post, I am 100% skeptical that there is some kind of silly campaign to keep crypto devs out of the country through intimidation at the border. It simply makes no sense when you take a step back and extrapolate the larger implications. It's very easy to roll your eyes and say, "Here goes that government of ours, AGAIN". It's very easy to have that emotional reaction, but in my obviously unpopular view here, it doesn't jive with reality.
Another poster, untog, made an interesting point I agree with. He said it better than I can summarize, so let me copy/paste:
"When you arrive at their desk, they ask "what do you do for a living and what does your company do?". If you answer "The company makes chat software", you'd walk straight through. If you say "The company makes encrypted, secure chat software" then they are going to ask further questions. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a watchlist of words to listen out for, and "encryption" is one of them. Encryption is subject to export controls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_U... "
Encrpytion is subject to export controls. Obviously, if there are controls on such a product, and you are an individual coming in and out of the country frequently, working on crypto for an American company... They are going to be interested. It's their job to monitor, inspect and even restrict the flow of humans and controlled properties in and out of the country. They'd be terrible at their job if they didn't want to hear more about a controlled export.
If you were a nuclear scientist working on energy research in America, and nuclear components and intelligence properties are a controlled export... Would you be surprised if someone stopped you at the border?
My point is not to equate crypto with nuclear research, it's to equate crypto with another controlled export.
to further expand, let me copy/paste my first response to this entire situation:
"1) Why? I presume your point is that the government is attempting in a very, very, very round-about way to stifle free speech? Please inform me if this is not your point, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
2) What would that accomplish. We live in an era of instant communication and transportation of software. Developers can work on products from anywhere in the globe. If this man was denied entry to the United States, what is stopping him from simply working for his company from abroad? The answer: nothing.
It would serve pretty much zero purpose to run a campaign of intimidation against an incredibly small subset of the developer population... Programmers with cryptographic expertise who frequently travel in and outside of the United States... I don't get it. What about all of those with crypto experience who are already in the US and don't travel. Aren't they a threat? Are they being targeted? Where are their stories?
Doesn't the government, when they are looking to either break or make these same crypto software, draw from the same talent pool as private industry here in America? Why would they run that talent out of town?
If the US government wanted to suppress cryptographic research or otherwise circumvent it in an effort to subvert Free Speech, don't you think there are more precise and non-haphazard-and-idiotic ways of doing it?
This goes against the general sentiment of comments I've seen in this article, but I just have to say it. I think the idea is ridiculous and above all, completely inefficient for the goals everyone is ascribing to the border agents and the government here.
Logic doesn't really back this up. I can't imagine the point of this. I am not naive enough to think the government doesn't do some shady stuff, but I simply don't see the point and don't see this as an effective tool in whatever their war on developers is supposed to be."
Another poster, untog, made an interesting point I agree with. He said it better than I can summarize, so let me copy/paste:
"When you arrive at their desk, they ask "what do you do for a living and what does your company do?". If you answer "The company makes chat software", you'd walk straight through. If you say "The company makes encrypted, secure chat software" then they are going to ask further questions. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a watchlist of words to listen out for, and "encryption" is one of them. Encryption is subject to export controls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_U... "
Encrpytion is subject to export controls. Obviously, if there are controls on such a product, and you are an individual coming in and out of the country frequently, working on crypto for an American company... They are going to be interested. It's their job to monitor, inspect and even restrict the flow of humans and controlled properties in and out of the country. They'd be terrible at their job if they didn't want to hear more about a controlled export.
If you were a nuclear scientist working on energy research in America, and nuclear components and intelligence properties are a controlled export... Would you be surprised if someone stopped you at the border?
My point is not to equate crypto with nuclear research, it's to equate crypto with another controlled export.
to further expand, let me copy/paste my first response to this entire situation:
"1) Why? I presume your point is that the government is attempting in a very, very, very round-about way to stifle free speech? Please inform me if this is not your point, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
2) What would that accomplish. We live in an era of instant communication and transportation of software. Developers can work on products from anywhere in the globe. If this man was denied entry to the United States, what is stopping him from simply working for his company from abroad? The answer: nothing.
It would serve pretty much zero purpose to run a campaign of intimidation against an incredibly small subset of the developer population... Programmers with cryptographic expertise who frequently travel in and outside of the United States... I don't get it. What about all of those with crypto experience who are already in the US and don't travel. Aren't they a threat? Are they being targeted? Where are their stories?
Doesn't the government, when they are looking to either break or make these same crypto software, draw from the same talent pool as private industry here in America? Why would they run that talent out of town?
If the US government wanted to suppress cryptographic research or otherwise circumvent it in an effort to subvert Free Speech, don't you think there are more precise and non-haphazard-and-idiotic ways of doing it?
This goes against the general sentiment of comments I've seen in this article, but I just have to say it. I think the idea is ridiculous and above all, completely inefficient for the goals everyone is ascribing to the border agents and the government here.
Logic doesn't really back this up. I can't imagine the point of this. I am not naive enough to think the government doesn't do some shady stuff, but I simply don't see the point and don't see this as an effective tool in whatever their war on developers is supposed to be."
Trend is the keyword. The Gov won't stop at border checks.
What will they do next?
Well, consider Arizona: right now, I have a grad-student housemate who simply cannot set foot there, despite being here 100% legally. Unfortunately for the purpose of visiting that state, he has noticeably brown skin, and his papers are hundreds of miles away in the home he grew up in. That's a pretty deep restriction on freedom.
Even if someone has their papers easily accessible, it's a very scary thought that if you're driving from one city to another, the government officer has the right to stop you and demand you show your papers for no reason. And that's assuming everything going on is above-board. If he came across a corrupt cop, it's pretty terrifying to think about the possibilities of what could happen.
And this is becoming the norm, simply because we as a society have decided that virtually everything is permitted to "protect our borders."
Even if someone has their papers easily accessible, it's a very scary thought that if you're driving from one city to another, the government officer has the right to stop you and demand you show your papers for no reason. And that's assuming everything going on is above-board. If he came across a corrupt cop, it's pretty terrifying to think about the possibilities of what could happen.
And this is becoming the norm, simply because we as a society have decided that virtually everything is permitted to "protect our borders."
1) You simply do not understand the law as written. That is not how it works. You do not get randomly stopped because you have brown skin. I know this is a popular misinterpretation of the law, so I understand why you say this.
2) Your example of a corrupt cop: What is your point. If you come across a corrupt law enforcement officer, they can do whatever they want to you. They can plant enough drugs to put you away for a decade. Does this mean we should get rid of police officers? Of course not. Because there is a possibility of corruption in the police forces of AZ that may lead to a few edge cases where people are mistreated and improperly detained, does that mean we should not have peace officers protecting the border at all? Does this mean we should not, when someone commits a crime, be able to ask if they are legal citizens of the United States of America?
My view is that this is not unreasonable. I know many of you disagree. shrugs
3) Why do you put "protect our borders" in quotes. Do you think that the idea of a sovereign block of land with the ability to restrict the input and output of human flow in that area of land is a farce?
2) Your example of a corrupt cop: What is your point. If you come across a corrupt law enforcement officer, they can do whatever they want to you. They can plant enough drugs to put you away for a decade. Does this mean we should get rid of police officers? Of course not. Because there is a possibility of corruption in the police forces of AZ that may lead to a few edge cases where people are mistreated and improperly detained, does that mean we should not have peace officers protecting the border at all? Does this mean we should not, when someone commits a crime, be able to ask if they are legal citizens of the United States of America?
My view is that this is not unreasonable. I know many of you disagree. shrugs
3) Why do you put "protect our borders" in quotes. Do you think that the idea of a sovereign block of land with the ability to restrict the input and output of human flow in that area of land is a farce?
I think his point, which is a valid answer to your question, is that we now have laws that force law-abiding citizens to carry their documentation with them everywhere they go. While I believe this is more of an immigration issue than a terrorist issue, I do have to say that something like this would have never passed pre-911. This is fine for nice-lookin white folks, but for everyone else, a law like this can and will be selectively enforced.
The point is that we are slipping further and further into the realm of handing over control of our lives to government bodies whose purpose is neither our safety or freedom, but power.
The point is that we are slipping further and further into the realm of handing over control of our lives to government bodies whose purpose is neither our safety or freedom, but power.
If you plan on committing a crime, yes. Please carry your documentation with you. If you don't, feel free to carry on with life as normal.
(sorry, I know this is rather flippant and intended to be humorous/tongue-in-cheek.. I simply don't see this radical expansion of slippery-slope philosophy that many of you do.)
(sorry, I know this is rather flippant and intended to be humorous/tongue-in-cheek.. I simply don't see this radical expansion of slippery-slope philosophy that many of you do.)
(Relevant in response to your earlier 1)...)
Yeah, if you plan on getting pulled over for speeding. Or accidentally getting your car towed, or accidentally getting into a bar fight. Or getting pulled over for driving, ahem, suspiciously. If those things, you should definitely always have your papers on you.
Or witnessing a crime. Or being a victim to a crime. Definite situations where you should plan to have your papers on you.
Most people are not violent criminals. Most people still have run-ins with the police at some point in their life.
Particularly if you have darker skin.
That's why my housemate can't go into Arizona, despite being here legally.
The Soviet Union also had perfectly valid reasons for requiring that everyone have their papers on them at all times. There were genuinely foreign spies moving around, and the government of the Soviet Union had a genuine interest in doing everything necessary to capture and neutralize them. That doesn't change the fact that it's a terrifying encroachment on your freedoms if you've always got to have your papers on you. Particularly if you're a dis-empowered minority.
Yeah, if you plan on getting pulled over for speeding. Or accidentally getting your car towed, or accidentally getting into a bar fight. Or getting pulled over for driving, ahem, suspiciously. If those things, you should definitely always have your papers on you.
Or witnessing a crime. Or being a victim to a crime. Definite situations where you should plan to have your papers on you.
Most people are not violent criminals. Most people still have run-ins with the police at some point in their life.
Particularly if you have darker skin.
That's why my housemate can't go into Arizona, despite being here legally.
The Soviet Union also had perfectly valid reasons for requiring that everyone have their papers on them at all times. There were genuinely foreign spies moving around, and the government of the Soviet Union had a genuine interest in doing everything necessary to capture and neutralize them. That doesn't change the fact that it's a terrifying encroachment on your freedoms if you've always got to have your papers on you. Particularly if you're a dis-empowered minority.
This is such a ridiculous statement, your friend can't go into the entire state of Arizona out of fear for being harrassed? Hyperbole much?
By the way, I carry my documentation every single day. As do 99% of all of you. It's called a drivers license. You can't operate a vehicle without one, and it's valid proof against Arizona's immigration laws that you are not an illegal alien. So if your friend is pulled over for any reason, he's going to have his proof right there.. Please stop with this baloney that your friend can't enter the state of AZ. It's just silly. If he doesn't want to go to the state as a form of protest against the law, so be it.
By the way, I carry my documentation every single day. As do 99% of all of you. It's called a drivers license. You can't operate a vehicle without one, and it's valid proof against Arizona's immigration laws that you are not an illegal alien. So if your friend is pulled over for any reason, he's going to have his proof right there.. Please stop with this baloney that your friend can't enter the state of AZ. It's just silly. If he doesn't want to go to the state as a form of protest against the law, so be it.
Do you carry a driver's license with you every day? Because that's all the documentation you need to prove you are not an illegal alien.
Wait? I thought there was a recent decision that you don't have to carry ID in the US. Has this changed?
re #1 -- i'm going to take a stab in the dark: you're white
Because "how it works" is indeed that people get randomly stopped because they have brown skin. For example, driving while black. You're white so you ignore this, but other people can't. If you cared to understand this, the knowledge is trivially available.
Because "how it works" is indeed that people get randomly stopped because they have brown skin. For example, driving while black. You're white so you ignore this, but other people can't. If you cared to understand this, the knowledge is trivially available.
[deleted]
The US border agents claim the ability to set up checkpoints as far as 100 miles from the border, as I recall. And they use this power. I live in Canada, but driving through Vermont I've seen "border" checkpoints located several hours from what you or I might think of as the actual border.
Random house checks, stops on the street, curfew, mandatory information delivery from private companies (not that this isn't happening already)...just to name a few possibilities.
To be honest, my mind is blown. The activities you have described are not the country I live in. I don't know how else to say it, and this is not meant to be an attack. We simply do not view the world the same way, and I guess that happens in a country of 300,000,00 people.
I think somebody wrote down a list:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
There is no evidence that they checked him against some database with everything he said online. It sounds to me like a completely routine check.
This is standard procedure, and it is not a bad thing. If you are a border control agent and you want to assess if a businessman coming through is a security threat, you don't ask him, "Are you a security threat?" No, you ask about his work and get into his conversation. If he's honest and straightforward, you move on. If you catch a discrepancy in his story or he is oddly defensive (as it sounds was the case here), you ask some more questions to figure out what is going on.
Personally, I enjoy talking about my work. I cross a lot of borders and it can be a pleasure to converse with an agent who is honestly interested. Yes, 45 minutes to an hour would be annoying, but it isn't that terrible and in this case he may have brought it on himself, we can't know.
This is standard procedure, and it is not a bad thing. If you are a border control agent and you want to assess if a businessman coming through is a security threat, you don't ask him, "Are you a security threat?" No, you ask about his work and get into his conversation. If he's honest and straightforward, you move on. If you catch a discrepancy in his story or he is oddly defensive (as it sounds was the case here), you ask some more questions to figure out what is going on.
Personally, I enjoy talking about my work. I cross a lot of borders and it can be a pleasure to converse with an agent who is honestly interested. Yes, 45 minutes to an hour would be annoying, but it isn't that terrible and in this case he may have brought it on himself, we can't know.
I see no evidence of that.
It's like someone going for a stroll at night in a shady part of town and then complaining they got mugged. What the hell did they expect would happen? Same goes for the US. Start paying attention to the news. It's been widely reported for the past decade, yet people still go there.
While I think the US has some absurd border policies, this sounds overblown -- only 1 hour?
I regularly hear about people detained for far more than that, and it wouldn't be difficult for Border Control to hold him far long than that.
I regularly hear about people detained for far more than that, and it wouldn't be difficult for Border Control to hold him far long than that.
Link is blocked via Websense at work. Is there an alternate source?
You can find the story without useless "journalistic context" on his twitter feed, where it came from:
https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/210366514442932224
Or I pastebin'd the article for you or anyone else curious:
http://pastebin.com/hKkLBMFp
Or I pastebin'd the article for you or anyone else curious:
http://pastebin.com/hKkLBMFp
If it's open source, why would the agents be asking what algorithms it uses? I'm calling bullshit on this article and the tweets.
If it is like the interrogation I have gotten from developed countries outside the US, they are asking questions about what you do and what brings you to their country, and the questioning can be somewhat adversarial. Which nobody likes.
I know this is almost impossible, but can it be that the interrogator with 22 years of computer experience asked him those questions out of professional curiosity. Again, even I think it highly unlikely to have been the case. But were I to end up in some other profession after 22 years of computer experience, even I would be interested in knowing which algorithms were used and what the philosophical implications are for such a program.
If anything, that would make it worse --- it's anything but proper for law enforcement officers to detain people on a whim to satisfy "professional curiosity".
If they NSL his Gmail, now they have the email addresses and frequency graphs of everyone with whom he communicates.
Ok. Maybe people leaving in the US don't know about that, but spending time with US border officials is absolutely normal on the entry to the US. I travel to the US about once a year, and my times spent on the border look roughly like this (sorted, in hours) - 0, 0, 1, 1, 3.
If you travel frequently across borders, you will often be taken aside and asked questions. It is mind-numbingly common, it has happened to me in Schiphol (EU) several times. Very annoying, but not at all the same as people being beaten and censored and put into gulags for mild civil forms of political dissent.
Let's not trivialize real totalitarianism in our haste to condemn stupid airport security theatre.
Let's not trivialize real totalitarianism in our haste to condemn stupid airport security theatre.
This is different from routine security nonsense. This developer was specifically questioned about his open-source projects.
If DHS is targeting people when they travel just because they work on information security, that's pretty chilling.
If DHS is targeting people when they travel just because they work on information security, that's pretty chilling.
We don't really know what questions he asked. For all we know, the developer has a bone to pick and is grossly exaggerating his claims.
Guard: "What do you do for a living?" Dev: "Software developer on a secure chat app"
Dev later claims he was interrogated about his work.
In regards to the specific question about the algorithm and the interrogator knowing something about computers, isn't it possible that he was personally interested in and asked while he had the chance to talk to someone who was familiar with that stuff?
Guard: "What do you do for a living?" Dev: "Software developer on a secure chat app"
Dev later claims he was interrogated about his work.
In regards to the specific question about the algorithm and the interrogator knowing something about computers, isn't it possible that he was personally interested in and asked while he had the chance to talk to someone who was familiar with that stuff?
While I'm generally the tin hat wearer in my circles, it's perfectly logical that he was just curious.
If he had computer science experience he may have had a legitimate interest in it. That said, he may not have been a programmer, thus the open source part eluding him.
If it was the government they could just...look at the source.
If he had computer science experience he may have had a legitimate interest in it. That said, he may not have been a programmer, thus the open source part eluding him.
If it was the government they could just...look at the source.
[deleted]
I've been rather thoroughly questioned about just what exactly openbsd is and what it's good for and why I'd be silly enough to work on it for free just about every time I visit Canada. It's annoying, but doesn't feel nefarious. Maybe I should start blogging about so the Internet will throw me a pity party.
[deleted]
I wonder if I will subjected to the same sort of questioning ... I am developing crypto software for my day job.
Crypto software is subject to export controls for many countries. If you are going to distribute it as open source (or across borders from where it was developed) you should become familiar with the laws and regulations for your circumstance.
For the US there is a wikipedia post at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_...
For the US there is a wikipedia post at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_...
I've worked in INFOSEC (of a sort) before and now I generally work on routing platforms. One thing that I've been schooled in pretty carefully is the law as is pertains to import/export of cryptographic technology.
Some folks here might not be familiar with the plight of Phil Zimmerman, who had the bright idea to invent PGP when there was a real chance that ALL crypto in the US would be fiercely regulated by the federal government.
For his trouble, he was under indictment for something like 3 years while the federales were deciding if he had broken any laws or not. His supposed crime: someone managed to get PGP out of the US. Not him...someone else. I guess they thought he helped them.
SO this sort of thing isn't new; it's been going on for a while and there are lots of stories around about folks who decided to write books about secret crypto-loving agencies in the US and almost got arrested for doing so.
To ignore the reality of the government's position/actions on this is to invite trouble. Your best answers to an agent of the government are always the ones that provide a true but ultimately useless answer. Never lie.
I'm an US citizen, served in the military, and middle aged. On my last trip back from Toronto, I got flack from the border agent because my flight out was from LaGuardia but I was connecting through Philadelphia on my return. Border agent gets all inquisitive and asks how I'm supposed to get from PHL to LGA as if I'm trying to be subversive about it. I roll my eyes and show him my ticket from PHL to LGA and all of a sudden he realizes he's an idiot. Bear in mind, NONE OF THIS MATTERS. I'm a goddamn US citizen and I can enter anywhere I damn where please. Of course, I didn't ARGUE with him, I just showed him and went along my way.
The less upset/indignant you act when being questioned, the less suspicious you look. That goes even if you've done nothing wrong and are completely within your rights.
Some folks here might not be familiar with the plight of Phil Zimmerman, who had the bright idea to invent PGP when there was a real chance that ALL crypto in the US would be fiercely regulated by the federal government.
For his trouble, he was under indictment for something like 3 years while the federales were deciding if he had broken any laws or not. His supposed crime: someone managed to get PGP out of the US. Not him...someone else. I guess they thought he helped them.
SO this sort of thing isn't new; it's been going on for a while and there are lots of stories around about folks who decided to write books about secret crypto-loving agencies in the US and almost got arrested for doing so.
To ignore the reality of the government's position/actions on this is to invite trouble. Your best answers to an agent of the government are always the ones that provide a true but ultimately useless answer. Never lie.
I'm an US citizen, served in the military, and middle aged. On my last trip back from Toronto, I got flack from the border agent because my flight out was from LaGuardia but I was connecting through Philadelphia on my return. Border agent gets all inquisitive and asks how I'm supposed to get from PHL to LGA as if I'm trying to be subversive about it. I roll my eyes and show him my ticket from PHL to LGA and all of a sudden he realizes he's an idiot. Bear in mind, NONE OF THIS MATTERS. I'm a goddamn US citizen and I can enter anywhere I damn where please. Of course, I didn't ARGUE with him, I just showed him and went along my way.
The less upset/indignant you act when being questioned, the less suspicious you look. That goes even if you've done nothing wrong and are completely within your rights.
Nope. Not open source, and is currently being developed for the US gov't... either way, as a foreign national that likes to travel home to The Netherlands it is something I am worried about (not exporting crypto, but being held at the border due to my current work).
I'm curious as to how they know he is a developer on the project? Is he vocal about his participation?
[deleted]
a perhaps over-embellished encounter as a means to get publicity for his app.
"The filmmaker: Laura Poitras is an Academy Award-nominated documentary filmmaker, whose recent films include “My Country, My Country,” about the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and “The Oath,” which was filmed in Yemen. Since 2006, Poitras has been detained and questioned at airports at least 40 times. She has had her computer and reporter’s notebooks confiscated and presumably copied, without a warrant. The most recent time, April 5, she took notes during her detention. The agents told her to stop, as they considered her pen a weapon."
...
"He [Jacob Appelbaum - a computer security researcher for the nonprofit organization the Tor Project (torproject.org)] has been detained at least a dozen times at airports: “I was put into a special room, where they frisked me, put me up against the wall. ... Another one held my wrists. ... They implied that if I didn’t make a deal with them, that I’d be sexually assaulted in prison. ... They took my cellphones, they took my laptop. They wanted, essentially, to ask me questions about the Iraq War, the Afghan War, what I thought politically.”
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2012/4/26/the_nsa_is_watchi...
* Detained in the U.S.: Filmmaker Laura Poitras Held, Questioned Some 40 Times at U.S. Airports [Video w/ Transcript] http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/detained_in_the_us_fil...
* "We Don’t Live in a Free Country": Jacob Appelbaum on Being Target of Widespread Gov’t Surveillance [Video w/ Transcript] http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/we_do_not_live_in_a
* Whistleblower: The NSA is Lying–U.S. Government Has Copies of Most of Your Emails [Video w/ Transcript] http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/whistleblower_the_nsa_...