Hacker News Reader

Comment by kogepathic | Hacker News Reader

Cool. Well since us non-Americans have zero rights when travelling to the US, and government/corporations can't be trusted to keep secrets safe, I guess I won't travel to the US anymore.

Sucks, because they've got some nice nature, but I can go somewhere I'm not hauled over a barrel for every detail of my life upon entry.

View on HN

There's a huge difference between someone who comes to live permanently in the country and someone who is looking at trees for a week. Do you think the US has the infrastructure available to screen the facebooks of all 75 million tourists who come to the US every year? IMHO this is not an overstep and current US citizens should have at least cursory understanding of who someone is when they are coming to live permanently in our country.

Yes. I think it does have the infrastructure.

Millions of illegal immigrants roaming the streets seems to indicate otherwise.

Millions on legal American citizens being routinely intercepted and monitored seems to indicate that the us government has all the necessary means.

Considering illegal immigrants don't go through the immigration process, there being millions of illegal immigrants roaming and the US having the ability to monitor all legal immigrants are correlay r. IT ability is not related to how well the US can secure its border physically at this point.

They're 'roaming the streets' because despite the rhetoric, without them, the economy would take a huge hit. Also, there's a different level of effort required to monitor someone you don't necessarily know about versus someone who handed you all their info at the border.

"because despite the rhetoric, without them, the economy would take a huge hit"

I think its important to note that this was Democrats justification of slavery during the civil war as well.

Yeah, that was my point. Illegal immigrants are often exploited in similar ways, absolutely true, that is why officials don't use all the resources available to go after them, despite the rhetoric. It says nothing about their reasoning being just or altruistic, (which it isn't).

The similarity is that the oppression is now done by the state, so its much harder to fight. The difference is that the illegal immigrant does have a choice and prefers to be an illegal immigrant than a legal resident of their home.

"That just sounds like slavery with extra steps"

That's just over a two a second - doesn't seem that challenging to do some kind of analysis given that Facebook has already done the hard work of collecting and structuring the data for you.

US has resources for this and even for much more.

Lol this is not an overstep? What the hell? A bunch of these people who live long term in the US are going to become permanent residents and/or citizens of the country. Now they can no longer freely express their opinions on social media without fear of offending the authorities.

Yup, actually I do think they have the resources to do that. I don't doubt anything, anymore. Wonder why NASA is so defunded? Not to be a conspiracy guy, but realistically thinking if you aren't collecting information that's low fruit such as social media data - what are you going after, then?

* Do you think the US has the infrastructure available to screen the facebooks of all 75 million tourists who come to the US every year?*

That's exactly the problem: A queue of charlatans ready to sell Homeland Security bogus analysis of social media posts, with the predictable pernicious results.

For that matter, US citizens should have at least a cursory understanding of all US citizens that live permanently in our country.

What's good for the goose is good for the panopticon.

If nature is what you are after Canada won't disappoint you

Sadly, Canada's immigration officials can be just as invasive, though it's still up to each officer's discretion/prejudice.

The current Canadian policy requires probable cause. American policy is indiscriminate.

https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/912335895344402432

That's why many are saying that travel to the US is down 3-5% this year. Come to canada. Our headline story today (on bbc) is about a groom saving a boy from drowning. Ill take that over whatever twitterwar he starts today.

Things don't look that much better in Canada.[1]

[1]https://globalnews.ca/news/3268531/cellphone-search-at-the-b...

Didn't organisations like TSA already have rights to look through your phone/laptop at the US customs? I read quite a few articles urging foreigners to wipe their personal devices before coming to US if they care about their privacy.

Those articles are stupid though. You are just marking yourself for even more trouble with wiping your devices prior to entering the US, essentially making sure they got a reason to inspect you more.

https://medium.com/@thegrugq/stop-fabricating-travel-securit...

TSA doesn't operate at the border. That's CBP.

I am searching for a Coyote because I would like to see the Grand Canyon without HS invading my personal space ;-)

Watch one of the many documentaries on a good television. It's mostly just a big hole in the ground with nice colors that don't last very long because the light is constantly changing.

On top of that, depending on where you go, it's either full of tourists or has no facilities. Tourists are the worst part about the Grand Canyon and, while strictly an opinion, there are more interesting things to see.

If you do decide to go to the bottom, bring a lot of water with you. The climb back out can be labor intensive and hot. You're fine, so long as you remember to bring water. You might as well bring extra water, because there's almost always a tourist sitting there on the edge of the trail and slowly dying of thirst. So, you'll feel obligated to share your water. You might as well just bring a few extra bottles.

You'll get far better, and more comprehensive, imagery from a good documentary. It's hard to get a permit to raft the whole thing, for example. But, you can live vicariously through others and not have to deal with the tourists.

If you can't guess, I've been a half-dozen times. It hasn't once been my preferred destination. I've gone because I was in the area and at the behest of others. My first visit was on a family vacation. It's nice, but there are many other options that I personally enjoyed more. I'd just watch a documentary and make the trip a little longer so that I could go to Taos instead, but that's just me.

Go to the North Rim. You're missing out.

There's a nice hotel outside of the official park. I forget the name but it was quiet and comfortable. So, there is that.

On the other hand, as you go to Taos, coming up out of Santa Fe, you can see stuff like this:

https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g47224-d...

It doesn't even attract, comparatively, a whole lot of tourists.

I guess the US must be proud to join such a premium club of welcoming countries like Saudi Arabia or Eritrea.

Once you’re in the country, you’re protected by most of the same constitutional rights that citizens have.

Actually, the answer is no. (1) Some rights explicitly apply only to citizens. (2) It is a common mistake to assume that rights like right to free speech are applicable to all - citizens, visitors on visa, etc. However, a person's visa can be revoked even if his actions are not illegal. Something about visa being a privilege not a right... So in effect even those rights do not apply. (3) In many cases, courts and governments have agreed that foreign nationals have reduced rights.

Reference: Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens? http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/297/

From your link(I can only read the abstract) “Court has insisted for more than a century that foreign nationals living among us are "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution, and are protected by those rights that the Constitution does not expressly reserve to citizens. Because the Constitution expressly limits to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal elective office, equality between non-nationals and citizens would appear to be the constitutional rule.“

Yes, those are explicit laws but there are more examples in the report. For example,

"It makes no sense to say that a foreign national has a First Amend- ment right to criticize government officials or to join political groups without fear of criminal prosecution, but that he may be deported for the same activities."

"The decision marks the first time outside of a war setting that the Court has upheld preventive detention of anyone without an in- dividualized assessment of the necessity of such detention. And the majority expressly rested its decision on a double standard, noting that Congress can make rules in the immigration setting that would be unacceptable for citizens."

Unless ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com