1) You are there on a holiday. Telling them you are self employed and going to work in an office you are renting there is only asking for trouble. It confuses the hell out of them. You think where you do the work from doesn't matter, they think you need a visa. You lose.
2) If you are going for a conference, print the badge off before your flight and have it with you.
3) Email or upload all your files to dropbox/some server in a TrueCrypt container, and wipe all devices you will be crossing with, including your phone. What do you need them searching through your stuff for? Who knows what they will do with it. It's just asking for it.
It is absurd, but I think it's also common sense. I think it's a good assumption that airport security is not going to be that technically knowledgeable.
I wouldn't touch the topic of Bitcoin with a 10 foot pole around strangers, let alone people with the authority to deport me. I still can't explain it to my friends in a way without making it sound suspicious.
This is pretty much true of clearing customs in any other country. The reason we hear so much about the US is because it's a really big country.
(As an American, I hate crossing the UK border just as much as crossing the US border. What's the point of being in the EU if you aren't going to act like it? :)
But that's pretty much only because of the UK. There are a few countries that are supposed to be in the schengen area but aren't, a few countries that got in because it would have been impractical to keep them out, and the EU countries except the UK and Ireland (who are only out because of the UK).
What is absurd is that whether you can enter or not isn't down to any rule - it's down to the particular low paid moron on the particular desk.
I've been told my visa wasn't valid because there should be a blue copy instead of a red copy (he was wrong - as the INS eventually told me) I have been told that I'm only allowed so many visa waiver visits (wrong), that I can't visit my companies US office under visa waiver (wrong)
It's as if every time an airbus landed at a US airport it was upto the baggage handler to decide if it met FAA requirements
He was on a visa waiver - if he is British that allows him to do anything you can do on a B1 business visa. In fact the only reason you have to get a B1 visa is because you can't use the visa waiver if you are, say a convicted criminal!
You can work for your outside-the-US employer, you can collaborate with US customers, suppliers, partners, you can train them,you can sell, demonstrate and install products. About the only thing you can't do is work for a US company.
Picture if he was an engineer from Rolls Royce aero engines going to Boeing - everything that engineer might need to do you can do on a visa waiver.
Indeed, but if you're self-employed, then you should either say you're coming from (your own) Foo Corp. in Australia to have business meetings with Bar Corp (in US); or follow GP's advice and say you're on vacation.
Despite your visa waiver, you still have customs forms to fill out and they do ask whether or not you are on business or not.
They're very clear that having a waiver, or even a visa, is not a guarantee of entry into the US and that ultimately it's up to the CBP agents.
Yeah, right. Social Engineering is much easier than gaining access through some 0-day attack you have devised yourself, or even finding some working skiddie method (when dealing with a specific target). For one thing, you don't actually need any actual skill, you just need to be a good liar and have a good story. That's not skills, it's just a sociopathic trait some people are born with.
You're so glad, really? This guy was apparently Christian, so I hope that makes you feel better about the religious aspect of it. Extremists and fundamentalists are all the same, regardless of what they're worshiping.
Also, given that Islamic extremists would be the most obvious conclusion, how is it unreasonable to draw such assumptions, especially when a supposed Islamic group claimed responsibility?
> Extremists and fundamentalists are all the same,
> regardless of what they're worshiping
Wouldn't this make it less likely to be Islamic extremists vs fundamentalists from <insert religion>?
> given that Islamic extremists would be the
> most obvious conclusion
Because Muslims are more prone to being crazy and/or extreme than Christians (or people of <insert religion>)? Because Islamic extremists are the only people that use guerrilla tactics and explosive devices to get their point across?
>> Because Islamic extremists are the only people that use
>> guerrilla tactics and explosive devices to get their point
>> across?
Until July 1997, the IRA carried out several bombing and
shooting attacks. These included the Docklands bombing
and the Manchester bombing, which together killed 2
civilians, injured 212 more and caused around £500
million in damage.
They're going after these people to make an example of them, not because they did anything actually harmful.