Aaaand this is why I don't even want to try visiting US, despite being offered to talk at conferences about my product. I'm using a false name on Facebook and HN, which makes me afraid of any agent asking "Have you ever impersonated someone" or "Have you ever committed a crime against US interest". I just dread the TSA. Plus I carry nudes on my laptop, which despite the male models probably being above 24, I can't prove aren't below 18, and even though I could clear my HDDs, I might as well do business with a freeer country.
The only limitation is, given I'm French and we've just had our "9/11"-type terrorist attacks, I'm afraid we might progressively set up the same extreme police system. If we do so, I'd like to apologize in advance in the name of the people of my country...
While I'm no fan of the TSA, this seems quite extreme. The chance they would look at your hard drives is nearly 0% and most countries have some insane policies that outsiders could harp on as a reason to not visit and to "do business with a freer country." To each their own, but avoiding a major country because their border agents hassle someone every now and then seems way too limiting to me.
Keep in mind that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has condemned France over their use of torture in pursuing marijuana convictions. France will also somewhat arbitrarily define cases as "drug use" vs "trafficking" since possession for use is ill-defined. Many consumers get tried under trafficking laws because they get caught purchasing, for example, and under trafficking laws they will get much more serious penalties including being banned from the country in many cases. Don't forget you can also be detained for four days without a lawyer while they investigate.
As he's French he broadly has no choice but to live within the laws of his state - he can campaign against them but for as long as he's there he's under them, and moving to another jurisdiction is not that easy. Whereas, he chooses to go to the USA and fall under their border controls - he's making the statement that he won't choose to do so.
While he's likely to be unnoticed by his existing state, border controls have a much higher chance of capturing interest and the outcomes are uncertain (at least in part because you're not a citizen and the way of working will feel 'foreign')
While it does sound a bit extreme, I can personally say I don't like visiting the USA any more because of the border controls. I'd probably try ad put business in Canada because of the extreme way in which the USA now treats foreigners. It can be very uncomfortable, difficult and aloof. Unless you've actually come under the purview of the TSA as a 'foreigner' it's hard to have a sense of how poorly they treat people and the general arbitrary nature of control [0].
[0] That is not to say that other countries are much better. As a UK citizen I'm pretty clear that we treat external people coming in completely differently to our citizens - and having been involved in visa applications for employees have found some of the ways in which "my government" treated people totally embarrassing.
There is no graph of speaker,conference edges that crosses an ocean in which this isn't an issue. Yes: it can be a bitch to get into the US to speak, even at serious academic conferences. I have friends who've been turned away at the border. But the same goes for US->EU, US->UK, US->JP, JP->EU, and even US->CA in one case I'm familiar with.
Major international border crossings just suck a lot.
I think you're being paranoid. Unless your product is aligned against US interests (or you're Middle Eastern), no border guard is going to care about a French national going to a conference. You're not impersonating someone by using a pseudonym, nor are you committing a crime against US interests. The TSA is obnoxious but ineffective. No one is going to detain you over your pornography unless they want to detain you anyway, and there's no clear reason why that would be the case.
I read the first link and it didn't seem entirely clear cut to me that Watts hadn't done anything to incite the episode. Even assuming he hadn't, he was convicted by a jury of ordinary civilians so apparently they empathized with the border guards.
Obviously it goes without saying that its a real shame things could escalate that quickly and I'm not saying the border patrols shouldn't be ashamed.
It seems extremely clear that Watts could have avoided this incident. While the details of the altercation are not unambiguous, Watts was not spontaneously assaulted by an officer: the most charitable possible interpretation is that he angered a border guard by behaving in a non-compliant fashion. Even if one was to accept that the border guards escalated the situation far beyond what was appropriate, it is apparent that, had Watts not inexplicably refused to comply with a legally-appointed officer, he could have almost certainly avoided this outcome.
One can certainly come away from this story with a reasonably justified degree of suspicion towards border security. But the most obvious lesson is that belligerence towards officers is almost certain to make a situation worse.
personally i'd probably prefer a liar than someone who lacks the common sense to ixnay on (regionally) legally taboo matters with a law-enforcement figure. Especially when the figure has a reputation like the TSA or border patrol.
Liars can be exposed; I don't know how to teach common sense.
I hope one day it's not like this , but treating authority like they are your buddies having a casual chat is unwise on many levels, and not just in the U.S.
I agree that in a world where authorities have such individual power over people, lying is a good idea. But there's no law of nature that says we need to have authorities like that. There are plenty of ways to limit people in positions of power. So let's focus on how we can fix the system instead of justifying why the honest people who are caught up in it deserve what they get.
It seems clear that there was no confession of a "federal crime." It is not a crime, federal or otherwise, of any jurisdiction in the United States, to have once smoked cannabis in Canada.
Which is fine - if you have a deeper understanding of the US laws than most non US citizens. As far as I (from the UK) had read in the news it was legal in a lot of states and so my understanding was it was legal and fine. I didn't realize it was illegal at a federal level.
The thing to remember is that, regardless of the views of any particular constituent of the the USA, at the federal level the country is downright hysterical about all sorts of things, including drugs.
I've been to 50+ countries and find the US is uniquely awkward about that kind of stuff. I mean using drugs outside of the US isn't a federal crime as far as I know for instance.
The only limitation is, given I'm French and we've just had our "9/11"-type terrorist attacks, I'm afraid we might progressively set up the same extreme police system. If we do so, I'd like to apologize in advance in the name of the people of my country...