Slashdot Mirror
CryptoCat Developer Questioned At US-Canadian Border
Dangerous_Minds writes "ZeroPaid is documenting some comments made by an encrypted chat developer who was interrogated at the U.S. border recently. According to the CryptoCat developer, border guards confiscated his passport and interrogated him about the application he developed. Most notably, he commented, "The interrogator (who claimed 22 years of computer experience) asked me which algorithms Cryptocat used and about its censorship resistance.""
According to the CryptoCat developer, border guards confiscated his passport
Maybe I'm the only one that was confused by that but the phrasing of this in the summary lead me to believe that they confiscated his passport indefinitely in some sort of draconian move to prevent him from leaving the country or traveling in general. But, luckily, I read the article:
This: “Also worth noting: my passport was confiscated for around an hour.”
I'm not saying it's okay but I've been pulled into secondary coming back from the Caribbean and, the customs official had my passport for about 45-60 minutes while he asked me the stupidest of questions (far more mundane and pointless than what algorithms I develop).
My work here is dung.
Seriously. It's only going to get worse.
-A.C.
He holds 3 certifications in Word, Minesweeper, and Internet Explorer. Dont try and pull a fast one over him.
This is elegant proof that DHS is a waste of taxpayer money. 30 seconds on google would have given him more detail than any interrogation would have revealed.
Hey DHS, I'll take Director of IT position for only $290,000 a year. I cracked the secret of CryptoCat for you....
https://github.com/kaepora/cryptocat
Everything is right there, and I did not have to waterboard anyone.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It's really none of their business though is it!?
It seems border crossings have become a point at which the usual rules are thrown out of the window and anyone can be interrogated about anything. ACTA will bring border searches of iPods to that mix. It's like bend over and take it for 'security'.
Did they question him, because he was a crypto developer? Or did they stop him for some other reason, and ask about his profession?
FTFA:
A developer of an encrypted chat program is making some dramatic claims. Nadim Kobeissi, developer of Cryptocat which “lets you instantly set up secure conversations.
There is your answer right there.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
If his electronic possessions left his sight for more than thirty minutes, I guaran-fuckin'-tee you they were imaged and are currently being combed for information on how to read conversations conducted through the encrypted chat service.
Obviously the "authorities" knew who he was, what he did and what his plans were.
Secondly, they knew he was coming and had someone with "22 years of computer experience" ready. That means that they arranged for someone to be there when he crossed the border.
So it seems he's under surveilance and they know what he's up to. If they really wanted to take him out, they would have just arrested him once he was in the US and really do a number on him. This looks like scare tactics. Whatever the outcome, Kobeissi will be a bit more paranoid and after dealing with the stress of this incident for a few months, may enter a different realm in app development.
The Canadian government will not intervene as the US can question anyone they want before they let them in their country. If one doesn't like it, one doesn't enter the US.
People need to realize that the United States has a very brutal regime in charge at the moment.
In my opinion and from experience it's not about brutality, it's about money. Sure, if they find something on you that links you to Al-Queda, you're in trouble. They'll treat you like any Allied nation would treat a Nazi war criminal. But the secondary that you're often pulled into has the primary purpose of tariffs and taxes that you might owe the government. Next on their list is export/import control of stuff like Cuban cigars or controlled substances.
... I think the words you were looking for are arcane, ignorant, laughable, annoying, etc. If you cry wolf at the stupid stuff, nobody's going to listen to you about the genuinely bad stuff.
So I used to be in a band and this band told me a story about how they were crossing the US-Canada border to play one show at a bar. Well, they were in their van, they had weed on them and they had all their guitars and crap and the side of their van said their band name. Well, they made up some excuse about how they were just "passing through" and after an hour of googling, the border guards determined that their intent was to play a show at a bar. They didn't have work permits and, as such, were denied entry. The weed wasn't a problem. The problem was that they were trying to go "work" at a bar and, as a result, a bar owner became very very upset with them. Guess which country's border guards did this to them? Canada's. Is Canada a "very brutal regime"? No.
What happened with the CryptoCat guy is that they asked him what he did for work and he got too specific. One of the guards apparently knows that there is export control on levels of encryption. There was a very very famous case about this involving Phil Zimmerman and PGP that I think has since been dropped. Of course, the guards came to the conclusion that this guy wasn't purposefully exporting high level encryption software to enemy entities. So nothing came of it after they googled for an hour.
Just because Russian border guards are lax or corrupt doesn't mean "the United States has a very brutal regime in charge at the moment." 'Brutal' means savagely violent, vicious, ruthless, or cruel
My work here is dung.
Try going into Canada as an IT contract worker. They take the attitude that you are stealing Canadian jobs and they often try to make entry a very annoying process. This once included a two hour questioning by immigration agents where they wanted to know every detail of my stay, my contract, etc. The hell of it was, the contract at that time was with the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency. This even extends to shipping equipment into Canada, we had electronic signage held for weeks at a time and sometimes even rejected (when the exact same item was cleared for another customer). Things may have change recently, I haven't worked in Canada for 4-5 years but don't assume that just the U.S. can be jerks.
I am really sceptical Slashdotters go and buy stuff from posts like this, which leaves the question - Why bother spamming?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
They're far more dangerous than most people realize: the checks and balances and legal avenues of appeal that US citizens are used to don't apply on the border for non-citizens. They can jail you indefinitely, subject to appeals from your native country if they wish. If your "native" country doesn't care (eg. you are an asylum seeker) you can rot in jail indefinitely.
Google whats happened to citizens of "former countries", for example. If you break the law in the US, you go to jail. Fair enough. Typically if you're not a US citizen you may be deported. What happens if your original country no longer exists, or won't take you? you can sit in jail indefinitely. There were several thousand in this position the last time a journalist investigated (oh, and FOIA requests are pretty hard here too).
I'm posting AC because I have relatives in the US in a similar position. They are in a small, Pacifist Christian sect. They left Ireland (sent to relatives in US) in the 1940s as children, less than 10 at the time; they are now retirees, and naturalized, but not US citizens: becoming citizens would mean swearing an oath to defend the US, which they will not do as pacifists. Their children are US citizens and don't have to swear this oath.
Now, they have to be careful: their children are active in the antiwar movement and have frequently been arrested on protests. Small, non-violent stuff. But if they go near a protest, they risk being arrested: they will be deported "back home" after they have paid the fine, etc. They are in their 70s and don't ever remember Ireland, never mind have friends and relatives there. Any small infringement: traffic violation, etc. can ruin their lives, on the whim of an ICE official.
So when you see that nice American granny in your neighborhood, upstanding member of the community, don't imagine they don't live in fear of arbitrary "American Justice".
what you just said I went to Caesars windsor?? you don't have to even play there or play $1-$5 and say you lost big. also they have a good buffet
I wish I could say more, but you know chilling effect.
Is there any source for this aside from random Twitter posts? I generally trust ZeroPaid, but come on - this entire story is built on the basis of a few Tweets.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
I was wondering why the border folks were interested in the cat-copter :)
Protesting in a way that results in a fine is not something you are supposed to do at all--(of course it could be a problem if they are unjustly fined for something they didn't actually do, but it doesn't sound like that's the problem you're describing). I have little sympathy for the idea that these elderly people have to avoid doing things that they're not supposed to be doing at all anyway to avoid being deported.
A fine is not a fee. You don't pay a fine and get permission to perform one illegal protest, any more than a company which paid the fine for illegally dumping chemicals has actually purchased permission to dump the chemicals, or a rapist who's put in jail has retroactively purchased, with his jail time, the right to commit one rape. A fine is a punishment and the activity for which you are punished is prohibited; it doesn't become okay because you've paid the fine. If you're thinking "their children can protest if they pay the fine, why can't they", you're thinking about it the wrong way.
I am currently checking out all his sites to see if there's a newsletter I can subscribe to
If he was coming into Canada from the US, then it would Canadian Border Services "interigating" him, would it not? It would not be DHS. So, I am thinking this might be some way to gain attention to his product.
It possible to get a waiver on religious grounds for the part of the oath that requires you to bear arms. See http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/chapter5.pdf
I don't think your relatives looked very carefully at the citizenship process.
* Well, OK. Sometimes that's what it takes to get O/S developers to comment their code.
Have gnu, will travel.
I suspect their interest in him did not originate from Cryptocat, but instead from his support for WikiLeaks (including at one time having a WikiLeaks mirror).
I think you as well. Protesting shouldn't be illegal, and a citizen of the US should never be fined for doing it. If you are on private property then it is tresspassing. If your activity is unsafe or otherwise disrupts other's lawful activites, there are other relevant charges. But protesting in the USA should always be legal for US citizens. Now, I'd rather see protesting be legal for anyone here lawfully. I want people here on visas, or green cards, who are wronged by the US government to have a public voice as well. But I'm willing to accept there may be good reasons to not do this.
I am confused by what grandparent says about his relatives are naturalized but not citizens. I thought naturalization by definition is becoming a citizen of a country in which you were not born. If they can't protest and they are naturalized citizens, I am really concerned. But if they are green card holders but not citizens, then again I'd rather they could lawfully protest, but can understand otherwise.
Except that the restrictions on even peaceful protest in the united states has exceeded a reasonable level. Protesting outside of a 'designated zone' (which will be so far away from what you are attempting to protest as to be effectively censorship of your statement); arrest.
Failure to identify your intent to protest; arrest.
Challenge a politician with a non-vetted question during a presentation at a public location- fine+removal, refuse to leave; arrest.
Protesting for too long; eviction, arrest, and fines.
Actually effectively delivering your message via a gimmick; fine, told to stop, arrest if you refuse (under 'obstructing traffic, or public nuisance)
Chanting your slogan fine, told to stop, arrest if you refuse (under 'obstructing traffic', or public nuisance)
Essentially protesting, even peaceful protesting, is now a fine-able or arrestable offence.
Perhaps it's a competitor (or ex-girlfriend, or anyone else with a grudge) trying to get that company's site added to various blacklists. I'd think posting to Slashdot would be an above average site for doing that.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Protesting in a way that results in a fine is not something you are supposed to do at all
When the government doesn't respect your right to peaceably assemble, how else are you supposed to protest?
The only protests worth participating in are the ones that could actually change something. Those are the protests that the government will fight with all of its power. That power includes arresting protesters for simply protesting. This is what we saw happen last fall from NY to Oakland.
Think of it this way, if Mubarak had tried to forcibly clear Tahrir square with the excuse of "health and safety", the international community wouldn't have bought that excuse for a second. Yet the US is allowed to get away with claiming "health and safety" as a reason to break up peaceable assembleys like Occupy. And nobody bats an eye.
If you could trust the government to follow the rule of law, you'd have a point. But we're far, far past that point.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Some things in your story don't pass my BS test as an immigrant from Canada preparing to Naturalize in a year or so...
naturalized, but not US citizens
Naturalization means to become a citizen of a country other than by means of birth. Hence, you can't naturalize and not be a citizen by definition. Did you mean they were / are lawful permanent residents?
becoming citizens would mean swearing an oath to defend the US, which they will not do as pacifists.
From the USCIS Guide to Naturalization (PDF links in page, quote is from Chapter 5):
Waiver or Modification of the Oath of Allegiance.
In certain circumstances there can be a modification or waiver of the Oath of Allegiance. These circumstances are as follows:
If you are unable or unwilling to promise to bear arms or perform noncombatant service because of religious training and belief, you may request to leave out those parts of the oath. USCIS may require you to provide documentation from your religious organization explaining its beliefs and stating that you are a member in good standing.
If you are unable or unwilling to take the oath with the words “on oath” and “so help me God” included, you must notify USCIS that you wish to take a modified Oath of Allegiance. Applicants are not required to provide any evidence or testimony to support a request for this type of modification. See 8 CFR 337.1(b).
USCIS can waive the Oath of Allegiance when it is shown that the person’s physical or developmental disability, or mental impairments, makes them unable to understand, or to communicate an understanding of, the meaning of the oath. See 8 USC 337.
Frankly, USCIS is remarkably accepting here, and if it was brought up to an immigration officer I'm certain they'd advise your parents of the possibility of a modified Oath. So either your parents don't know about this, are assuming it can't be modified, and haven't tried, or your whole story is fabricated.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Facilitating murder is just as bad as murder. That you don't wield the weapon yourself is no excuse.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I have little sympathy for the idea that these elderly people have to avoid doing things that they're not supposed to be doing at all anyway to avoid being deported.
Disagree. The point I was making (in retrospect unclearly) is that there were times when a relatively minor offense has major consequences. They were not expecting a fine and treating it as a fee: depending on the mood of a law enforcement officer on the day, a perfectly legal protest could see them punished. E.g. for jaywalking. While most of us might see it unfair, but pay the fine, it now opens the door to much more serious consequences for some.
While I endeavor to obey the law to the full, its hard to go through life without ever breaking minor laws like parking offenses, etc. But its a different matter when someone who escaped the Soviet Union in the 1940s with their parents finds they've now racked up their 3rd parking ticket, crossed the line into "persistent offender" and are passed to ICE for deportation. Who now, realize there is no Soviet Union to deport them to. So they hold them in indefinite detention for years. They have no right to a lawyer, or due process. They can potentially appeal to the Soviet government (RIP), or maybe one of its successor governments? Azerbiajan or Belarus, perhaps?
A small technicality, but if have "naturalized" in the US, you are a naturalized US citizen. If you have not become a US citizen, but have the visa to live in the US on a permanent basis (via a "green-card"), you are technically called a permanent resident.
When I hear about situations like this (e.g., permanent residents that do not wish to return to their country of origin, nor become US citizens). I don't really feel sorry for them. Like everyone in live we make choices and many times, those choices have consequences, and sometimes it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Very few groups respond positively to criticism from outside, why not join us and complain from the inside? I say to such folks, you live in one of the few countries in the world where it is fairly easy (although slowly) to become a citizen. If you really want to own your life, join with us. Then you can gripe with us about our government and vote your choice, rather than scold us with one foot out-of-the-door with a "holier-than-thou" chip on your shoulder...
If someone objects to taking the "modified" oath (as allowed by law and listed below), then I suggest that they don't believe in our constitution, have no desire to support the people of our country more than a typical random joe in a random country in the world, or more likely are just being difficult on purpose to set themselves apart for some personal reason... That's a choice you are free to make, but don't expect the US to help...
I hereby declare, and solemnly affirm, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
There's no difference between being a citizen and a permanent resident in terms of facilitating.
So that's completely irrelevant. Not to mention that the oath was the problem not the citizenship since the kids who are citizens without swearing an oath are all fine and dandy.
Umm, most people who were Soviet citizens at the time of breakup became a citizen of one of the new countries automatically. If they were born in Russia and lived there all their lives and then escaped to the US, then Russia would have to accept that person as a citizen even if he had not been present in Russia for 70 years. The only situation where this may be a problem is if they are Russians from Latvia, but even so most of these people qualify for either a Russian or Latvian passport.
What's really bad is that this is all true only for some protesters, and not others. If you're protesting a politician or some big politically-connected corporation or something, then the above is what happens to you. However, if you're picketing at a soldier's funeral and saying he deserved to die because "God hates fags", then you're A-OK and the cops won't bother you at all. If the cops are going to harass protesters, they could at least have the decency to harass the Westboro assholes too.
Am I really expected to feel sorry for people, who have spent decades in this country — enjoying the safety, security, and wealth it provides to its residents — but would not defend it from an adversary?!
Pacifists? Yeah, right..
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
— George Orwell
Sorry, how's that work, again? In what way does "living here, contributing economically to the support of the military via all the taxes and government fees you pay" "facilitate murder" less than "taking an oath in which your promise to take up arms is specifically eliminated in deference to your religious beliefs"?
Because as far as I can see, paying taxes represents a direct support of the government (and by extension, the military); swearing an oath that you "will defend" your new homeland if it's ever necessary is, at best, a tenuous "someday I would maybe fight..." - and is *entirely* waivable if you provide supporting documentation for your objection's religious basis.
I know all the cool, hip kids love to bag on the US government and the military, because "WAR R ALWAYS BAD" and "MILITARY IZ MURDORORZ" but this line of argument doesn't even make sense, Hatta.
That power includes arresting protesters for simply protesting. This is what we saw happen last fall from NY to Oakland...Think of it this way, if Mubarak had tried to forcibly clear Tahrir square with the excuse of "health and safety"...
Look, I'm all for the right to protest, and I'm all for civil disobedience that might get you arrested to bring attention to an injustice. The Occupy protests were still stupid, and the police was in their right to remove them.
Here's how you make the determination. If it's illegal to do something (like putting up tents and sleeping in an area where this is generally not allowed), it doesn't suddenly become legal because it's part of a protest. That doesn't mean you don't do it, like I said, I'm in favor of civil disobedience as a form of protest. What you are protesting must be related to the laws your are disrespecting however.
Case in point, when Rosa Parks refused to get up to allow the white passengers to sit, she broke a law. That was, however, the law she was protesting against. The law itself was unjust. The only way that the civil disobedience of the Occupy protesters would have been valid would be if they were protesting laws against trespassing or the health codes that prevented them from being there. If they are in favor of those laws being enforced for people who are not protesting, then it is not legitimate for them to disobey them in a protest.
Just about every location gave them the right to protest, just not sleep there. They could go home and come back the next day, just not set up tents. They just felt it was more dramatic to put up tents and not move. Well, it's also more dramatic to set buildings on fire, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it to make their point. Unless they think arson laws are unjust, that is.
Yes, health and safety. Occupy protesters squatted in makeshift tent cities for weeks, with trash, feces and urine uncontrolled. The city of Los Angeles had to haul away 30 tons of garbage after the protesters left. Drug use and sexual assault was rampant. Some Occupy organizers even had plans for dealing with sexual assaults (we prefer you don't report it to the police), but it's pretty sad that they had to in the first place -- that's the kind of people the protests attracted.
This is quite different from people protesting in the town square to make a point and then going home.
It's definitley quite different from the Tea Party protests, which were generally clean, safe and orderly, and temporary. If you wonder why the police broke up Occupy and didn't break up Tea Party, that's why.
> Protesting in a way that results in a fine is not something you are supposed to do at all
True, but that doesn't mean it's morally wrong. The fine may be unjustly imposed, for example, like the police who steered the protest onto the Brookyln Bridge and then arrested the protesters for protesting on the Brooklyn Bridge.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
I said it once and will say it again
America is NOT safe to travel to. Avoid wherever possible.
People's right to protest is not limited just because you feel that their reason for protesting is not valid.
They have the right, whether you like it or not.
I'm sure Mubarak had his own view on those protesting in Egypt.
That doesn't make it less valid.
In short : you don't get to decide who protests and who doesn't , and neither should the government.
I will say the US is not like Egypt where people are literally starving.
However, the people protesting are not just some stoned college students who are angry at life because they have a 32GB iPhone 4S and not a 64GB model.
When I graduated high school, it didn't matter what you majored in college. You got your degree in underwater fart-lighting, and you could get a decent job somewhere.
Recently, I was at a college job fair. The people there were a bank or two looking for low end tellers. The US embassy system was looking for some diplomats from the political science majors. The FBI was there recruiting from the criminal justice majors.
The computer science and STEM majors? There was the Army recruiter who would happily give them the rank of PFC as soon as they got out of Basic training. Of course, if they wanted in, they would get MOS 11X because the Army needs infantry.
The ONLY way a STEM major can find work is if they have an internship. If someone doesn't have either the social networking or has been an intern, they will be out on the streets with their degree pounding the pavement indefinitely.
First, job positions these days are not made public.
To boot, most employers run a NCIC check on resumes before they even hit interviewers. If someone has an *arrest* (not conviction) for anything, their resume gets tossed. This is extremely common.
Don't forget Facebook access, either as a friend or a demand for the username/password.
So, for a 20-something to get a job, they have a lot of hurdles to get through. They couldn't have been tossed in the drunk tank during a frat party. They have to have a fake and hoky Facebook account. They had to get the news of the opening through a friend or a network.
So, it isn't just spoiled trust fund babies not getting their CEO job. Where I live, even McDonalds gets people actually writing resumes and 20 applicants for one position.
I wanted a stamp in my passport and they just wanted to wave me through. It took some convincing to get them to find the stamp and stamp my passport. Damn Czechs, so relaxed, they can't even have a violent revolution and civil war, just peacefully transfer governments and split the country.
Is this not an opportunity to compromise his devices? If they were mine, I'd probably bin them on the spot.
Could be a defensive cyberwarfare tactic, they're not so much interested in him but whom he may find himself talking to.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
Just like that Facebook investor that renounced his citizenship just prior to the IPO to avoid taxes, these people want the benefits that America has to offer, but deny the costs associated with those benefits.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
However, if you're picketing at a soldier's funeral and saying he deserved to die because "God hates fags", then you're A-OK and the cops won't bother you at all. If the cops are going to harass protesters, they could at least have the decency to harass the Westboro assholes too.
Yeah, but don't forget that these Westboro shitheads are basically the real life equivalent of internet trolls. As such, the proper response if you want them to go away (and I think we do) is to ignore them. Arresting them just makes them martyrs and puts their name in yet more papers.
I'm not saying that ignoring them is the morally right thing to do here, just the smartest.
I know what it was put there for and I'm actually OK with the requirement and the history behind it.
But having seen what its present citizens have elected as lawmakers today, that part scares the fuck out of me. Deal-breaker.
I travel from country to country all the time and have never been detained for longer than about 45 minutes, and that was just queuing. I stopped going to the US when they started treating travelers like convicts some years back. As far as I can tell instead of getting better the situation just keeps getting worse.
That ("treating travelers like convicts") is exactly what I thought I was seeing when I last entered the US, just over a year after 9/11. I, too, decided not to visit the country any more unless its officials seemed to be returning to standards of civilized behaviour. I think those US officials and agencies are betraying their fellow-citizens, many of whom are very civilized and are perhaps unaware of what is being done in their name.
-wb-
Well folks, IMHO it's no longer safe to carry electronics of any kind across the border anymore. Leaving yourself open to either confiscation or the border guards "finding something" makes it just too risky. Better to carry just yourself, your clothes, and _maybe_ a paperback.
When the government doesn't respect your right to peaceably assemble, how else are you supposed to protest?
The only protests worth participating in are the ones that could actually change something. Those are the protests that the government will fight with all of its power. That power includes arresting protesters for simply protesting. This is what we saw happen last fall from NY to Oakland.
Think of it this way, if Mubarak had tried to forcibly clear Tahrir square with the excuse of "health and safety", the international community wouldn't have bought that excuse for a second. Yet the US is allowed to get away with claiming "health and safety" as a reason to break up peaceable assembleys like Occupy. And nobody bats an eye.
If you could trust the government to follow the rule of law, you'd have a point. But we're far, far past that point.
This was by far the best post in the thread, and one of the best I've ever read on Slashdot.
Quoted for truth and emphasis.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Which way was he trying to cross, and which country's border guards confiscated his passport and interrogated him? It's kind of an important detail that the author of the summary left out. Please fix it.
why wouldn't they just choose to legalize their status and get a green card. They came here as children, now they are in their 70s, there has been tons of opportunities over a decades (amnesties) to get a green card. Aahh yes, but then they couldn't go on complaining about living in fear and arbitrary "American justice". Apparently it's better that way. This is why America is a free country: you CAN live in fear if you choose so.
One word: pagerank
"I will say the US is not like Egypt where people are literally starving."
Thank God that your 45 million poor ones get foodstamps.
I remember reading a an article in college written by about a man in that situation. He basically went to some official (INS I think) and had to have a notary next to him while he took the oath, who recorded that he lowered his hand and shut up when that part came up. Got his citizenship just fine, but it was a big hassle (He mentioned even nuns just go through with it normally and don't bother to waste time arranging for it)
At 70 they might not bother, but their children could at least find out what the procedure is and arrange everything just to give them peace of mind.
Experience means different things to different people ... '22 years computer experience' could mean, 'I used an Apple ][e when I was in elementary school, and we got to play Oregon Trail', vs. 'I ran my own BBS back in the day'.
If they were on Prodigy, Compuserve or AOL, it might've just mean that he knows how to send email:
--The IT Crowd, 'Yesterday's Jam'
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Depends which Occupy camp you mean. Some were not peaceably assembling. And why is a city government allowed to put up restrictions about sleeping or defecating in a park which apply to individuals but somehow don't apply if it's a group with "Occupy" on their banners?
Of course a lot of this is illegal, and the protesters _know_ this is illegal. If it were legal it would not be "civil disobedience"! The whole point of many protests is to break the law in order to force the opposition into an uncomfortable stance (do nothing and appear impotent or overreact and lose credibility with the public).
Naturalization == US citizen. The only difference is that they would have become US citizens by virtue of naturalization and not birth. If they are naturalized then they will already have sworn an oath.
I think you mean that your relatives are 'Permanent Residents', in other words they have green cards. Being a permanent resident is not the same as becoming naturalized.
"A citizen of the United States loses U.S. citizenship by becoming a citizen of a foreign country unless a special exception is made by the State Department. A person can also lose U.S. citizenship for serving in the armed forces of, or holding office in, a foreign government. U.S. citizenship can also be taken away from people who have been convicted of a major federal crime, such as treason. But people cannot lose their citizenship for something they were forced to do. A person who is forced to serve in a foreign army, for example, will not lose U.S. citizenship."
See http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/government/civics5.htm
I am not trying to troll here and somewhat see you're point, but what would you suggest is the correct way to protest against money grabbing bankers and a government that bails them out?
I don't know about that. Internet trolls have a different motivation: they want attention. I think there's a saying something like "negative attention is better than no attention"; we see it with children all the time, they'll misbehave just to get attention if their parents aren't paying any attention to them. Internet trolls are basically like children this way (and in fact, many are children/teenagers). If they can stir up a bunch of angry responses to their troll post, they've done their job. I remember doing something like this when I was much younger, back when IRC was popular and the web didn't exist: I'd sign onto some IRC forum like "hotsex", post a message that said, "hey everyone, type '/sign naughtypicture.gif' to see some cool pics!', and then sit back and laugh as a dozen people would suddenly sign off the forum. (It didn't work so well when I tried it in a computing forum; they'd just /kick me.)
The Westboro people aren't just kids looking for attention or just to stir things up for fun. They have crazy religious beliefs that God actually wants to punish America because it tolerates homosexuals instead of rounding them all up and exterminating them. Taking away the attention isn't going to change their crazy beliefs; they really think they're on a mission from God, much like the Al Qaeda terrorists thought they were on a mission from God. They spend quite a lot of money sending their members on trips all over the country to make asses of themselves, even though they're actually a pretty small church, so I don't think ignoring them is going to change anything; they'll keep doing it until their demands are met.
It is a nice break from the paranoid rambling.
I am not trying to troll here and somewhat see you're point, but what would you suggest is the correct way to protest against money grabbing bankers and a government that bails them out?
Like I said, I think they had all the right in the world to be there peacefully protesting for the whole day just like they were, then go home at night, and come back the next morning. It's the setting up tents and just living there that's a problem.
And people peacefully protesting without breaking laws are often harassed by the police. Under those situations, I'll side with the protesters every time. The occupy movement really did give the police a legitimate reason to remove them, however. There really are real health and safety issues.
That was his official title. You know, the same SS that is burning people in churches and guarding concentration camps:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#Membership_in_the_Allgemeine_SS
Wernher von Braun made good use of KZ prisoners to build V2 parts and assemble these. He apparently gave shit about their state of poor housing, poor medical aid and very poor nourishment.
But he was the only guy who actually could build powerful missiles in the US after 1945, because he had so much work experience from that German R&D facility. They first tried without the SS man, then USG basically decided "If you are crap yourself, just use the Nazi". America would have never reached the moon without him. Neither would the soviets, who had many members of his former team.
If Mr Bin Laden would have be in possession of some secret, powerful weapons tech, they would surely make BinLaden the director of some American R&D outfit, just like they did with the Sturmbannführer. At least, if Mr Bin would be minimally cooperative upon capture. But he was just a medival idiot, so he got the slug.
You betcha they DO have some guys who got a one week, $100000 training from Lockheed Porkworks in how to attach a PorkUSB thingy to traveler's devices. A Porkworks engineer will have created a shoddy virus that sits in PorkUSB and L-P will have sold it for the small sum of $20000000 to USG.
They hat at least hours of warning time from the airline and USG have lots of small, fast aircraft turboprops to Boeing 737. After all, their Finest Duty is International Abduction of Suspects (based on flimsy evidence).
They will simply fly the expert to the right airport/checkpoint.
What this guy apparently did was to create a networked Javascript version of GPG. I do think so people are very concerned about a sharp increase in the number of encrypted messages. Even if they can break the crypto, this would reveal their capability sooner or later and that would make them even more upset. So they decided to question the guy.
NSA certainly looked at the code and then some DNI fucker decided to send a CIA guy with some tech background for questioning, as the NSA guys would be totally incompetent with people. I once had the favour to talk to a humint officer (he identified himself properly) and he was technology-wise completely "naked".
If that cryptocat is properly implemented and does not contain some fucking backdoor (who volunteers for checking ?), it could easily make the work of UKUSA very, very hard when millions of people start using it. Today, probably 10000 people actively use GPG. I know how to use it, but haven't used anything than the symmetric crypto for years. Now imagine 100 million people using GPG-grade crypto.. That would definitely change the game. Even if they can break it, because it would reveal their capability sooner or later. They want to send a message: don't fuck with UKUSA and their role model Felix T.
Shame on them because they don't wave some big guns near barbecues.
Tell me they don't drink beer and i'll tip cops myself.
At least the US has free speech as a basic right. Good luck on that in say, Europe.
No US law enforcement officer can interrogate you without your permission. Don't speak. Lying to them is a felony, and if you don't say a word, you can't be accused of that.
Oh for fuck's sake.
Yeah, same for me. Except I graduated into an INFLATED ECONOMIC BUBBLE ABOUT A YEAR FROM COLLAPSING. People who assume that their degree in underwater fart lighting will guarantee them a job are stupid. That economic bubbles allowed them to buy a "HTML FOR DUMMIES" book and get a job in IT was not a motherfucking career plan. They chose education in a field that's pretty much pro sports: either you're a marquee name that makes a million dollars per speaking engagement, you're eating Top Ramen 7 days a week and living in a studio apartment with 3 roommates. If you make dumb choices, it's not the fault of Bank of America.
Sounds like there are jobs to me, then.
Bullshit. Bull. Fucking. Shit.
First: no army recruiter on a college campus is sending recruits to basic. They go to officer training. Where they will probably end up with a 35X MOS (Intel), 25X (Signal), or some other rear-echelon gig that's pretty much an office job. Approximately 20% of the Army is Combat Arms - the other 80% are support and service support MOS's.
Second: If there were no CS / STEM recruiters at your college fair, then your college is either irrelevant in that area, or you're lying.
Yeah, because that's happened twice, so it must be happening in every interview? Sure. Number of interviews (in STEM fields) I've been on in the last 3 years: about 15. I have a job, and I'm being picky about moving to something new; but the jobs are certainly out there. Number of interviews in which I've been asked for a Facebook password: zero. So... 2 jobs reported recently asking for FB passwords, versus my 15 interviews where nobody asked.
So move. Seriously, I know you think it's your "right" to live in a hip lower Manhattan loft during your gay New Yorker phase, but it really isn't your right. If there are no jobs in the area you live, move someplace where there ARE jobs. And knowing personally a good dozen or two people who protested, I'm sorry - they're far more "spoiled trust fund babies" than they are "people who just aren't being given a chance."
Zero sympathy for these fools. You want to fight "corporate" control? Start your own business. Don't take their money, don't give them money. Put them out of business. Don't bitch about how they "owe" you something.
Ah yes. God forbid the government take steps to prevent people from being sexually assaulted, or catching diseases from the unsanitary conditions these "protesters" were squatting in.
In short: you move far beyond "protest" by taking up residence *for months* on public property and denying your fellow citizens access to that public property.
You lose your right to protest when you start raping fellow protesters, or rolling around in your own shit because you don't have the sense enough to organize toilet facilities for your protest.
I have relatives in the US in a similar position [...]
If these people were to swear to defend the US they could become citizens. Then if someone demands they actually do some defending they explain they are pacifists and they'd be OK. Nobody would force them to fight because US laws on conscription etc. recognise conscientious objector status.
In other words, the arm of the US government concerned with demanding violence from its citizens (the military, etc.) doesn't mind them declining to commit acts of violence, but another arm of the government (the citizenship authorities) does mind because it feels obliged to protect the interests of the first arm. The second arm is being overly zealous, providing assistance beyond what the the first arm wants or needs, and causing unnecessary side effects in the process.
The moral of this story is that there's a bug in the citizenship procedure. Conscientious objector status ought to extend to the citizenship laws as well - someone who can prove conscientious objector status, to the same standard as demanded by a conscription board, ought to be allowed to swear a citizenship oath that does not demand defence, at least not in a violent way.
Caveat: Assuming the parent's information is all accurate.
http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/child-hunger-facts.aspx Child hunger rates in the US
With your vote, of course. Last I checked the American government still generally respected your right to do that. If you don't agree with the laws on peaceful assembly, or with the enforcement of same, you can always vote in new representatives who pledge to amend, repeal, and/or better enforce those laws.
@!#$%^ you!
Now I'll have to forget their name AGAIN!
At least the US has free speech as a basic right. Good luck on that in say, Europe.
Only if you are in the predesignated Free Speech Zones. In Europe, you cant be arrested and detained indefinitely without trial. Good luck on that in the USA (NDAA).
Yeah, but don't forget that these Westboro shitheads are basically the real life equivalent of internet trolls. As such, the proper response if you want them to go away (and I think we do) is to ignore them. Arresting them just makes them martyrs and puts their name in yet more papers.
They already get media attention. Repeated court appearances and fines would slow them down. Who knows, you might get them more interested in fighting for their Constitutional rights and put them to some useful purpose...
Most of the Westboro dickheads are lawyers, and they would relish the publicity they could gain by a lawsuit against some local PD, even if the suit had the flimsiest basis. What feeds them is (media) attention; best to simply starve them.
- T
Clearly not because they've decided the cost isn't worth the benefit and hence are staying in a status that is not as beneficial to them. Which is strange because the cost doesn't actually exist, but to each his own.
This reminds me of Phil Zimmerman & PGP. Also, the US has a track record of rewarding criminals while harassing legit citizens. I've seen this before. http://bit.ly/KBvUdZ
Border crossings can be nasty. That Nadim Korbeissi was harassed is not surprising. Why he was harassed is not surprising. That he was harassed is stupid. That's the border guards for you.