My mistake, I hadn't heard of this until recently (and clearly didn't read the article properly) and assumed it was a new policy under Trump.
At a rate of around 0.0012%, and assuming it's more targeted than random, my actual chance of being asked is much lower, yes sure, that probably is worth the risk of being turned around.
The really great thing about having a Republican (even if only technically) president is that the news media suddenly rediscover the virtues of small government, and the dangers of an unbalanced power structure (a similar phenomenon holds with Democratic presidents & conservatives). It'd be awesome if people would just be principled, but apparently that is too much to ask.
> At a rate of around 0.0012%, and assuming it's more targeted than random, my actual chance of being asked is much lower, yes sure, that probably is worth the risk of being turned around.
Yes, but I just carry a clean device with no access to my accounts. I can honestly and without deception say that I cannot do what is asked.
I'm amazed at all the many ways people will give up their rights, and yet folks continue to advocate for their rights to be taken away.
> Here on HN where one might expect it to be most opposed, we're merely discussing how to mitigate the effects (you can't, don't go - or be prepared to be turned around).
I can't change the law, but I can change my behaviour.
> I wouldn't pay for my own travel to the USA (while I've been before, and enjoyed my trips, etc.) because I'm not an idiot - and handing over a password is idiotic - and I can't really afford a wasted trip. Sure, sunk cost, whatever - the cost/risk isn't worth it, at least for now until it's shown that they rarely do it, and really it's only x,y,z countries from where I do not hail.
a) they rarely do it (roughly 4,500 times last year, IIRC)
b) any country might do it, and many do; this is not a U.S.-only thing