More Proof that the US is a Police State

[RikuoAmero]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/00454517597/homeland-security-denies-entrance-to-uk-tourist-because-twitter-joke.shtml

A UK tourist tweeted that he was going to dig up Marilyn Monroe's bones and Destroy America. Because of this, he was barred from entering the US and sent back home on the next available flight.

There you have it folks. The US now watches everything you say and if you say the wrong thing, they don't want you in the country. I do wonder though: this happened to a tourist. What would have happened if this had been a US citizen (who should have the full protections of the First Amendment)?

[lemmingllama]

I am astounded by this, both by the fact that they are actually checking peoples twitter feeds to see if they should enter the country and why they would bar this person... I eagerly await the next problem with the US so that I can laugh some more and feel sorry for people

[J-Lord]

It's true, the US seems to be getting a bit power hungry, or should I say the need to control everything. Really the US should just pipe down and keep to them selves, what ever happened to freedom of speech? I know some freedom of speech can be taken to far but still.

[VolvoKing]

I'm glad I don't have Facebook or Twitter or even a cell phone. Or would they look at me as suspicious and not let me in the U.S. for that. Being from Canada we may complain about our government but at least we don't feel like prisoners. I can travel all over the world and not have a problem even in Russia and China.

[Dan Den]

Ah and so the USA government shows it's true colors, for all those who were wondering what kind of shit we might expect when that blasted ACTA bill passes there you go. You would think they would stubble upon it by accident but no this is what the watch dog country of the world is going to start to do from hence fourth. Before long this will be the new China damn I've seen people write far worse things than that, but oh well expect more of this crap from this bastards.

[† Mute point]

What makes you so sure that's the only reason they were barred from entering the country? Maybe they did something else you're not hearing about, and they don't mention it because they want the US to look bad because of the shit with Megaupload.

[Dan Den]

Maybe who knows but I believe the main concern here is on how they went about said persons twitter feed or how they came about that particular tweet amongst the thousands of others out there. Mind you I said the USA government not the country it's self, you can't ridicule the country cause of what it's government does.

[Malyssa Rahl]

It's likely that, if this was indeed the only reason they weren't allowed into the country, the DHS has programs monitoring all social media for certain key phrases that might link to terrorism or other such unsavory activities.

[DrumRoll]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/00454517597/homeland-security-denies-entrance-to-uk-tourist-because-twitter-joke.shtml

A UK tourist tweeted that he was going to dig up Marilyn Monroe's bones and Destroy America. Because of this, he was barred from entering the US and sent back home on the next available flight.

There you have it folks. The US now watches everything you say and if you say the wrong thing, they don't want you in the country. I do wonder though: this happened to a tourist. What would have happened if this had been a US citizen (who should have the full protections of the First Amendment)?

I'm suprised they didn't just send officer pike to deal with him:D

[† L4ugh]

I guess I'm just an evil american, because I'm glad they sent this kid packing. What people don't understand is when a tweet like this pops up on the DHS' mainframe, they have to look into it. Even if it's just to make sure it's not a threat. That means people have to waste their time and resources, all because some stupid punk wants to see if he can earn a spot on the US no fly list. This means they're not doing their real job of keeping people like myself safe from the real terrorist. On top of all that, it's a damn election year. Very important political figures are traveling all over the nation intermingling with the locals to try and win votes. The DHS has to scan the entire internet looking for the hints and clues they need to prevent another 9/11, and now they also have the impossible task of making sure there isn't some butthurt kid who's decided he wants to take out a politician. They don't have the time to spend messing with stupid little assholes like this kid. He is just damn lucky he was from the UK and not of Arabian descent.

Seriously, how much brain damage does a person need to think typing "I'm going to destroy America", into a publicly viewed social media network. Then hop on a plane to America and say to themselves, "that was hilarious".

[Leviathan87]

i agree.. people just gota stop saying dumb shit

[Alegend1994]

I don't know whether it's because the person was barred from the US or because he was from the UK, hopefully because of the first point, but I think that this is just stupid. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the US is a police state but it looks like it's on it's way there. But anyway this person may have put something potential dangerous on twitter but in reality it was nothing more than a joke and to completely ban him from the country is just pathetic.

I guess I'm just an evil american, because I'm glad they sent this kid packing. What people don't understand is when a tweet like this pops up on the DHS' mainframe, they have to look into it. Even if it's just to make sure it's not a threat. That means people have to waste their time and resources, all because some stupid punk wants to see if he can earn a spot on the US no fly list. This means they're not doing their real job of keeping people like myself safe from the real terrorist. On top of all that, it's a damn election year. Very important political figures are traveling all over the nation intermingling with the locals to try and win votes. The DHS has to scan the entire internet looking for the hints and clues they need to prevent another 9/11, and now they also have the impossible task of making sure there isn't some butthurt kid who's decided he wants to take out a politician. They don't have the time to spend messing with stupid little assholes like this kid. He is just damn lucky he was from the UK and not of Arabian descent.

Seriously, how much brain damage does a person need to think typing "I'm going to destroy America", into a publicly viewed social media network. Then hop on a plane to America and say to themselves, "that was hilarious".

Just to say everyone in the world, hopefully, knows that 9/11 was a tragedy but it doesn't mean that you are or were the only country subject to terrorism. It makes me sick to see that you put luckily he wasn't of Arabian descent. Just because the terrorist of 9/11 were Arabian doesn't mean every Arabian is a terrorist people who think like this are just ignorant idiots.

Also from what I've heard, which may be lies, but the US isn't completely innocent of 9/11 since they supplied the terrorists with the training and weapons to fight communism, this also goes for the UK who were involved in helping the terrorists.

But to me you just sound like another brainwashed American who thinks the whole world should be Americanized, but I guess that we are all subject to brainwashing and propaganda of some kind.

[† L4ugh]

@ Alegend1994 I managed to make my case in this debate without the need of insulting any of the other posters, so I would really appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy.

Just to say everyone in the world, hopefully, knows that 9/11 was a tragedy but it doesn't mean that you are or were the only country subject to terrorism.

I am well aware of the fact that the US is not the only target of terrorism. I am not aware of it being the job of the DHS to protect all of those other nations as well. That is why I didn’t feel the need to mention it in my post.

It makes me sick to see that you put luckily he wasn't of Arabian descent. Just because the terrorist of 9/11 were Arabian doesn't mean every Arabian is a terrorist people who think like this are just ignorant idiots.

I am also not a racist. Any of the slew of racist Americans wouldn’t have referred to people from that region of the world as Arabian descent. They would have called them Terrorists, Muslim Terrorist(s), or the Muslim Threat. I mentioned the part about it being worse if he had been of Arabian descent, because it really would have been a lot worse. People from that region are screened far more than those from any other ethnicity, and it is entirely because of 9/11. Is it fair? Hell no it isn’t fair, but it is the way it is. Don’t think for one second that your country doesn’t do the same damn thing. You may not have the evil TSA Nazis, but your country still screens Muslims equally as harsh in their own way.

Also from what I've heard, which may be lies, but the US isn't completely innocent of 9/11 since they supplied the terrorists with the training and weapons to fight communism, this also goes for the UK who were involved in helping the terrorists.

I have to be honest, I never served in the military because of a bad knee. However, I don’t remember any of my friends that did serve talking about learning how to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. Bin Laden was butthurt because Kuwait told him "no thanks" when he offered his army to help them evict Iraq during start of the Persian Gulf War. Instead they took the first Bush’s offer and Bin Laden swore revenge against the Western World for it.

While we did supply weapons and training to them in the '80s. It was to help them protect themselves from Russia. Saying we deserve to be attacked because we taught them how to defend themselves is a very fail way of thinking. We were attacked because Bin Laden got butthurt, that's all there is to it.

But to me you just sound like another brainwashed American who thinks the whole world should be Americanized, but I guess that we are all subject to brainwashing and propaganda of some kind.

You don’t know the first thing about me, so don’t blindly assume that I’m a brainwashed American just because I don’t feel sorry for some retard who should have known better. There are a crap load of things about this country that really really piss me off, but this is most definitely not one of them.

I would also like to point out that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t through stones. Try looking up Paul Chambers. My good buddy Paul did a very similar thing in England two years ago. Said on twitter he wanted to blow up an airport, but insisted he was only joking. He just wanted to have some fun with his friend, that’s all. Paul was from the UK as well. He was also one year older then Mr. Van Bryan. What’s the big difference you ask? Well, my buddy Paul was charged and fined £2,984 for being a retard, while good ole Van Bryan walked away with a slap on the wrist. I guess it would be nice if the US government could be more like the UK. Then Van Bryan would still be setting in a jail cell awaiting his trial. It would have saved him the embarrassment of being caught on camera as a 26yr old man with a Justin Bieber hair cut. I also loved how unbelievably staged those photos were.

Everything about this is complete bs. The DHS wasn't 100% sure that he wasn't going to do something that would only come back to bite them in the ass, so they sent him packing. That's their job, and they did a damn fine job of it. They got the message across, (don't be a retard on the internet) without being to harsh.

Here is a few more links for anyone that is interested. Note that the BBC is the only one that even bothers to mention Paul Chambers.

The Sun

Daily Mail

BBC

[Alegend1994]

@ Alegend1994 I managed to make my case in this debate without the need of insulting any of the other posters, so I would really appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy.

I apologize for how I behaved on my previous post after reading it again I was just attacking American and your opinion, which is completely pathetic of me. I think I was just a bit pissed off by this time and was acting unnecessarily aggressive.

After discussing this with my friend I came to the conclusion that actually the US government had a completely valid reason to bar him since it could have resulted in death if they ignored it. I think that the problem I have with it is that we are unable to have jokes like this with our friend without someone looking in on us, I know that doing it is stupid but for me that's the whole point of a joke to be a bit stupid.

[RikuoAmero]

I apologize for how I behaved on my previous post after reading it again I was just attacking American and your opinion, which is completely pathetic of me. I think I was just a bit pissed off by this time and was acting unnecessarily aggressive.

After discussing this with my friend I came to the conclusion that actually the US government had a completely valid reason to bar him since it could have resulted in death if they ignored it. I think that the problem I have with it is that we are unable to have jokes like this with our friend without someone looking in on us, I know that doing it is stupid but for me that's the whole point of a joke to be a bit stupid.

Actually, no they didn't. There may be a law somewhere saying that yes, they can do it, but laws do not always equate to valid reason or common sense. At worst, they should have investigated him and then let him in, once it became clear he posed no threat.

I am actually very concerned about this, because it seems to show the US has no regard for privacy or the First Amendment. The only way I can see this working is that

1) The UK tourist posts his message on Twitter.

2) The DHS has some sort of system that searches for messages by keyword, which is ludicrous in and of itself.

3) Based on this "evidence", the DHS then demands of Twitter the account details and is thus able to pin the message to the man.

4) They alert Customs to watch out for this man and basically proceed to refuse him entry, based on nothing more than the single tweet .

[† Mute point]

First amendment only applies to American citizens since it is... You know... The US Constitution.

Now to go through eac point you made..

1) The UK Tourist was an idiot for posting this sort of thing in the first place.

2) The DHS Should have a system that searches for threats to the country, that's their job. I don't care if it's Twitter, Facebook or Imabloodyterrorist.org (Which would be hilarious if it's a real website) Don't say stupid shit, you won't get in trouble for it.

3) In the investigation of a threat, step one is identify. You can't stop something if you don't know what it is.

4) Again, you don't know that this was the only evidence. He could have been researching how to make bombs from dental floss or something and bought a copy of "Terrorism for Dummies" to read on the flight over. And even if that one Tweet is all they had, isn't a spoken threat enough to act on? They use it as evidence of intent in criminal cases if someone overheard them say it, and in this case, the whole internet "heard" him say it.

So in conclusion, Van Bryan is a stupid wanker, and I hope he learned something from all of this.

[Alegend1994]

I agree with some of your points and the ones that I don't agree with I can still understand where your coming from. But here's my opinion on some of your points:

First amendment only applies to American citizens since it is... You know... The US Constitution.

Now to go through eac point you made..

1) The UK Tourist was an idiot for posting this sort of thing in the first place.

Yeah it was stupid but it was a joke and really from what I've seen it was misinterpreted because what he meant was go wild, but if he had actually been related to blowing something up or learning to blow something up then yeah act on it quickly on it. But I'm on the fence on this point since posting about this then going to the country is a bit much.

2) The DHS Should have a system that searches for threats to the country, that's their job. I don't care if it's Twitter, Facebook or Imabloodyterrorist.org (Which would be hilarious if it's a real website) Don't say stupid shit, you won't get in trouble for it.

I looked for this website when I saw the name, but sadly no results.

But it makes me think that terrorists are in a way succeeding in making most of people fear terrorists and becoming overly paranoid about life.

4) Again, you don't know that this was the only evidence. He could have been researching how to make bombs from dental floss or something and bought a copy of "Terrorism for Dummies" to read on the flight over. And even if that one Tweet is all they had, isn't a spoken threat enough to act on? They use it as evidence of intent in criminal cases if someone overheard them say it, and in this case, the whole internet "heard" him say it.

The problem with this is that if the DHS had evidence that connected him to bomb making or anything that definitely puts America in danger than they probably would have given a much harsher punishment than just barring him from the country.

So in conclusion, Van Bryan is a stupid wanker, and I hope he learned something from all of this.

I wouldn't say this because he just wanted to have some fun and boast about it, like most of us like to do, and ended up getting his message misinterpreted and now unable to enter America, really in my view I thought he should be allowed in the country after his story was cleared up but maybe he was still a potential risk. But I will say that the DHS did the job they were told to do so we can't blame them for doing their jobs.

So in conclusion I agree, kind of, that DHS had the right to do as they did, but not that the person was stupid.

[RikuoAmero]

First amendment only applies to American citizens since it is... You know... The US Constitution.

Now to go through eac point you made..

1) The UK Tourist was an idiot for posting this sort of thing in the first place.

2) The DHS Should have a system that searches for threats to the country, that's their job. I don't care if it's Twitter, Facebook or Imabloodyterrorist.org (Which would be hilarious if it's a real website) Don't say stupid shit, you won't get in trouble for it.

3) In the investigation of a threat, step one is identify. You can't stop something if you don't know what it is.

4) Again, you don't know that this was the only evidence. He could have been researching how to make bombs from dental floss or something and bought a copy of "Terrorism for Dummies" to read on the flight over. And even if that one Tweet is all they had, isn't a spoken threat enough to act on? They use it as evidence of intent in criminal cases if someone overheard them say it, and in this case, the whole internet "heard" him say it.

So in conclusion, Van Bryan is a stupid wanker, and I hope he learned something from all of this.

Yeah, the only possible thing he could learn to do differently (given all the information we have) is not to put the words "Destroy" and "America" in the same sentence and put it online where someone paranoid can read them.

To counter your points, Mute Point, with some logic

1) How was he an idiot? When he posted was before he tried to enter the US. At that point in time, he was just having a laugh with his friends. I'm sure you at some point have used Facebook or Twitter or something similar at some point in time to say something along the lines of "We're gonna destroy this place!" Common slang here in Ireland is to say of someone sexually desirable "I would just ruin her/destroy her [in the act of sexual intercourse]", to emphasise how aroused you are. Now, imagine if I were to go see an attractive US politician's Facebook page and I typed just that in, in no way intending to mean I would murder her? Do I actually expect US law enforcement to understand colloquialisms from all over the world? No, but I expect them to use some common sense.

2) The DHS should be using a more effective tool and a more effective way of analyzing information. From what this story implies, they're using a key-word scanner on Twitter. While not illegal, given that Twitter messages are public, to simply key-word scan means you're going to drown yourself in information. They fire up their scanner, tell it to locate every message that has the words "Destroy" and "America", and somehow expect to be able to follow up on the 99 septillion messages they'll get? What made this guy's Tweet so special that they had to devote time and manpower into further investigating him? Out of the millions of results they would have gotten with their keyword scan, this guy's Tweet should have been incredibly low priority. Or are they just picking Tweets at random to investigate?

I also don't like what you say about "Don't say stupid shit, you won't get in trouble for it". What stupid shit? How do you define stupid? Who gets to decide? Does the thought of conflicting with the First Amendment come to mind? (given that that statement didn't have a qualifier that the person saying the stupid shit must be a non-citizen, and therefore, not eligible for First Amendment protections).

3) Yes, first step is identify. Identify likely perpetrators. From what I can see, the DHS is saying that anyone foreign who comes into the country who has said the words "Destroy" and "America" in the same sentence where other people can hear them is likely to be a terrorist. Yes, that's their metric.

4) You're right, I don't know if the Twitter message was the only evidence. But, in all likelihood, it most likely WAS. How do I know that? Because the TSA recently released a list

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120109/07365217342/tsa-posts-its-top-good-catches-2011-list-not-one-which-is-actual-terrorist.shtml

of things they've caught. Guess what they didn't catch? A terrorist! So, if there were was more evidence that we don't know about (chemical formulas for how to make bombs from toothpaste, a copy of "Terrorists for Dummies", as you say), they would have bragged about it, in order to show off how great, awesome, thorough and totally necessary they are.

"They use it as evidence of intent in criminal cases if someone overheard them say it, and in this case, the whole internet "heard" him say it." Yes, a single piece of evidence would be enough for a criminal trial...wait, what? You're seriously saying that if I were to go out in the street right now, say to a random stranger, I'm going to shoot the president and defecate on his corpse, then that person reports me to the police, that that alone would be enough to convict me?

Yes, the DHS should do their jobs and counter threats. The problem here is they're going about it completely the wrong way. They're taking ONE statement that one guy made and blow it all out of proportions. They haven't reported that the guy had a history of anti-US tweets (that at least would, in my opinion, be something to go on, when investigating).

In fact, Mute Point, I also refer you to this, and this is how law enforcement thinks.

http://publicintelligence.net/do-you-like-online-privacy-you-may-be-a-terrorist/

Note that that is entitled "Communities Against Terrorism". Its not intended as a guide for trained law enforcement. Its intended for the average person to lump together a series of innocent acts and then act paranoid.

What happened with this tourist was not justice, was not true law enforcement. There was no threat, there never was any appearance of a threat. To think that law enforcement actually waste their time and resources when the only piece of "evidence" is a single Twitter message that was not meant to be taken literally?

Seriously, the message I get from this is that the DHS is going to try its hardest to investigate every stupid thing said publicly and trace them back to you, and then use them to bar you from the country (too scary to let in the country, not scary enough to actually arrest/extradite). This would of course logically mean having to bar EVERYONE from entering the US.

[† Mute point]

You say you don't expect people in the US to understand slang from everywhere, and then go on to explain it in such a way that you think it should have been obvious that it's what he meant. Very condescending.

I've never said I wanted to "Destroy" a place and meant I wanted to have fun there. I've never heard anyone else say it either. So how am I supposed to know that it means "I'm going to have fun" ? Common sense dictates that people should say what they mean.

I will say that America does have some similar phrases to mean have a good time, such as "Tear this place up!" Or "Blow the roof off this joint!" But neither of them sound like a potential threat. Nor does "Paint the town red." a slightly older, but still used phrase.

As for why it was stupid.. You're going to America... You know security is still tight, though it has loosened somewhat.... And you say you're going to destroy it... I think you can see where this is going.

I would say that the keyword search tool works just fine. Though admittedly terrorists aren't very likely to tweet about it before they try to blow up another building or something. Either way, my point still stands, you want to come here? Don't say things that will make them stop you.

[RikuoAmero]

I would say that the keyword search tool works just fine. Though admittedly terrorists aren't very likely to tweet about it before they try to blow up another building or something. Either way, my point still stands, you want to come here? Don't say things that will make them stop you.

MP, in a debate/argument like this, you have to give reasons for why you say certain things. I say the keyword search doesn't work and I gave my reasons (that it would swamp you with far too my false positives). You on the other hand just said that it works fine. How? Why? Can you expand on that please?

You say you don't expect people in the US to understand slang from everywhere, and then go on to explain it in such a way that you think it should have been obvious that it's what he meant. Very condescending.

Let's take the example of Sarah Palin. She is a sexually desirable woman to many people. Now, let's say that 1,000 people went on to her Facebook page and said "I would just ruin her/destroy her", or words to that effect. Do you actually want law enforcement wasting their time and resources investigating all these comments? Do you support banning people from the country for saying something innocuous like this? Even if the comments weren't intended to be evidence of sexual arousal, it would still give the same result: law enforcement investigating pointless comments.