It's unclear to me who provided the print-out of Jana's private messages. Obviously it seems much more likely that Jana provided the messages, not Homeland Security.
I hired a Canadian once under a TN NAFTA "visa" and he had to bring some correspondence from me to the border. We had to be very careful to word things correctly and not to use specific words that could prevent him from coming to the US. It seems that this is similar to what this young woman experienced.
> Obviously it seems much more likely that Jana provided the messages, not Homeland Security.
No, according to the article the printouts were provided by the US immigration officials. In fact, the article draws the inference that the US authorities may have been reading her private Facebook messages for weeks.
I'm a native speaker of German; there really isn't any ambiguity here.
Never has there been any dispute that the NSA can freely read what non Americans are doing without any sort of legal authorization. One would assume that access is given to Customs & Dept of Homeland Security too. Some of the NSA leakers think this is wrong, but I have not heard any elected government official state otherwise.
Too some extent, this NSA story should be of equal or greater disturbance to non-Americans.
Using Facebook's private messaging, with or without NSA spying, is very stupid because we know Facebook stores all of this forever, including after you "delete" your account. That could make it accessible even in a non-criminal civil dispute.
> Never has there been any dispute that the NSA can freely read what non Americans are doing without any sort of legal authorization. One would assume that access is given to Customs & Dept of Homeland Security too.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
Even if PRISM allowed at-will searches across the FB accounts of would-be au-pairs, there is frankly no way the NSA would be sharing this with low level customs officials. At most there would be a simple flag on her record, at which point she would be shipped back without explanation.
Frankly, the fact that a significant number of commenters in this thread are taking this non-story at face value is bewildering. BS alarms should be going off left right and center, here.
So let me get this straight... you know that at least two agencies (FBI & NSA) have total access to your Facebook data. We don't know what their exact method is or who they may pass the data along to, but we know they do this with no warrant.
Now you're questioning whether Homeland Security, an agency originally created to pool information from all intelligence agencies to screen for terrorists, has access to the same information?
It makes sense to read private communications to find out if she's a threat to the homeland. What doesn't make sense is your disbelief in the face of clear evidence that this kind of thing has been going on for years - just with a different agency name.
> So let me get this straight... you know that at least two agencies (FBI & NSA) have total access to your Facebook data. We don't know what their exact method is or who they may pass the data along to, but we know they do this with no warrant.
"They [NSA] could get most of it, but they couldn't get it all. So in order to get all the data, they had to go to the service providers to fill in the blanks. That's what the PRISM program is for—to fill in the blanks. It also gives the FBI basis for introducing evidence into court."
"PRISM was first publicly revealed on June 6, 2013 [...] The documents identified several technology companies as participants in the PRISM program, including (date of joining PRISM in parentheses) Microsoft (2007), Yahoo! (2008), Google (2009), Facebook (2009), Paltalk (2009), YouTube (2010), AOL (2011), Skype (2011), and Apple (2012)."
Oh jesus christ. Fine, i'll do the reading for you. I'll just skip to sections with the word "Facebook" to make it easier.
Facebook provides data:
"Facebook: "We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers. When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we carefully scrutinize any such request for compliance with all applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by law."[23]"
Facebook has met with a US General on how to make data collection and reporting more efficient:
"The other companies held discussions with national security personnel on how to make available data more efficiently and securely.[29] In some cases, these companies made modifications to their systems in support of the intelligence collection effort.[29] The dialogues have continued in recent months, as General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has met with executives including those at Facebook"
Facebook custom built a system for delivering data to the government:
"the companies were effectively asked to construct a locked mailbox and provide the key to the government, people briefed on the negotiations said.[29] Facebook, for instance, built such a system for requesting and sharing the information.[29]"
The Director of National Intelligence says they have been using Facebook to collect information on foreigners for six years. I THINK THIS IS KIND OF A SMOKING GUN, BUT I COULD BE WRONG.
" Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, on June 7 released a statement confirming that for nearly six years the government of the United States had been using large internet services companies such as Google and Facebook to collect information on foreigners outside the United States as a defense against national security threats."
In the future, please just read the page instead of trolling me to do the research for you.
I think you're the one who's trolling, and are also frankly acting like an ass. More to the point, none of the passages you cited even support your original claim. You're making unsubstantiated claims about the scope of the surveillance, and obfuscating away the barriers between the federal agencies and the data being collected.
Specifically, you have made and defended the claim that the NSA & FBI have total access to joe anybody's Facebook account. You then went on to cite passages from Wikipedia detailing the PRISM mailbox put in place by [FB / Google]. What you did not mention is how the mailbox is actually populated.
> The data shared in these ways, the people said, is shared after company lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. [1]
> FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms, lawyers who work with the orders said. There were 1,856 such requests last year, an increase of 6 percent from the year before. [1]
This is from the NYT article cited in the Wikipedia page, which you indirectly cited twice. These requests are routed through a FISA court and limited in number, which is a far cry from "total" access. Your claim is incorrect.
Either way, this is a pretty unproductive discussion and I doubt we'll see eye to eye on this. You're also being belligerent and rude. Have a nice day.
Are you suggesting that the TSA agent interviewing this woman called up some TSA hotline who called up someone at Facebook who just gave it to them, sans warrant, all within the span of a couple hours? Words fail me for an adjective to describe how unlikely that sounds.
The far, far, far simpler explanation would that she had a printout of the conversations because it had an address or directions or that she voluntarily handed over a device (or, possibly, was bullied into doing so, which is in the rights of border control to do).
> Are you suggesting that the TSA agent interviewing this woman called up some TSA hotline who called up someone at Facebook who just gave it to them, sans warrant, all within the span of a couple hours?
Pretty much, only "filled in a form on a web page" not "called up someone", "made a request to the api" not "called up someone at Facebook" and "the software ran" not "just gave it to them". Get with the times.
> Words fail me for an adjective to describe how unlikely that sounds.
Indeed. A friend of mine was sent home after customs searched her luggage, read her diary and noticed she was planning on working in the US under the table, in a bar.
I think Germany is part of the Visa Waiver Program, so she would have had to apply via ESTA before she flew out.
It wouldn't surprise me now if there was a system in place that used the ESTA information to query the NSA/CIA/etc for anything that might be an issue for immigration control.
If she's been talking about working in the USA and hasn't got a visa (ESTA is only for personal visits, not business IIRC), that's enough for the TSA to refuse her entrance for lying to them.
As far as I'm aware, there is a big difference between travelling to the US (and many other countries) to conduct business, and seeking employment. I think it's the first one that is covered by ESTA...
One would assume that access is given to Customs & Dept of Homeland Security too. Some of the NSA leakers think this is wrong, but I have not heard any elected government official state otherwise.
Someone leaks information about PRISM, and the primary response is TREASON! TREASON! ARREST THE TRAITOR AND DEAL WITH HIM!
Given that, do you really expect that A) random border agents are in on it, and B) feel free to just randomly disclose that sort of surveillance to someone who has no need to know about it?
Snowden had proof and plenty of it. A random border agent that finds some documents on his desk in the morning, to be used that day, does not have much proof.
Secondly, a lot of people knew, but kept quiet. I see no reason to expect a random border agent from talking, given it took years and someone like Snowden to finally talk.
One would assume that access is given to Customs & Dept of Homeland Security too.
Maybe, but even so, from giving access to the department, to allowing border officers to prove to foreign citizens that they can read their PMs goes a long way.
Using Facebook's private messaging, with or without NSA spying, is very stupid because we know Facebook stores all of this forever, including after you "delete" your account. That could make it accessible even in a non-criminal civil dispute.
She lives in Germany, which has a widely different fact gathering process, being much more restrictive and protective of the defendant's privacy.
Moreover, she's 18 and from a country which is probably much less lawsuit-happy than the US. It doesn't seem stupid to me at all that she didn't consider being sued when sending PMs to her host.
Never has there been any dispute that the NSA can freely read what non Americans are doing without any sort of legal authorization. One would assume that access is given to Customs & Dept of Homeland Security too.
Even if that were true, she was exchanging messages with the father of the American family she was planning to stay with. I doubt they only read the messages sent by the German girl.
Well, only 15% of profiles are by Americans, so if you have an FB profile there is an 85% chance you are not an American. That's a bit above the 51% confidence the NSA requires ;-)
The unlikely part is not that the US government agencies could get the private messages, it's that they'd jeopardize the whole system by letting regular border officers use it directly (instead of, for example, data-mining and send out no-entry-lists) and show proof of its existence to (foreign!) citizens.
I mean, I don't know why Snowden bothered to leak the info, if they're just telling any 18-year-old German girl about it.
To be fair, the NSA outcry was largely over the scale of the monitoring and the lack of warrants. However that doesn't mean that (other) government organisations couldn't approach Facebook with a warrant and request specific data, such as private messages from a suspect.
Assuming for the moment that this story did happen exactly as we're lead to believe (and I'm only making that assumption for the sake of playing devils advocate - I'm firmly on the fence with this story due to how sketchy the details are), then it would be very easy for the NSA to cover up how they had such data: "We'd been investigating her for a few weeks - here's a warrant"
I doubt they would even need a warrant, I expect facebook will roll over for even an administrative subpoena (which are signed by clerks of the court rather than judges and are essentially pro forma).
The real reason it seems unlikely is not about whether they were able to access Facebook messages (though the scope of PRISM is still unclear). It is more that it seems unlikely the NSA or other groups who may be able to get access to private messages care about German teenagers attempting to work in America. Alternative explanations (they got it from the host family, it was actually public, etc.) + vague reporting is just much more probable.
> It is more that it seems unlikely the NSA or other groups who may be able to get access to private messages care about German teenagers attempting to work in America.
Playing devils advocate here; there maybe more to this teenager than we're aware of. She might be an active protester or have left vocal remarks on other locations online that triggered closer inspection.
I'm not trying to say that your explanations are wrong or less plausible though, just that assumptions are being made on both sides of the argument.
Certainly a possibility. But the assumption that she was a person of interest to intelligence agencies is much greater than the assumption that the newspaper report is either misleading or being misinterpreted.
I expect we will learn that the NSA turned their eye of sauron on occupy protestors, if not within the US then certainly on protestors outside of the US. If this young woman had any involvement with the protests she could well have ended up on a list of those that are regularly monitored.
I'm not saying that is what happened, there are other plausible explanations too. I am just saying that such a scenario is entirely plausible.
We already know that the NSA has access to information specifically requested by an individual either by showing probable cause if they are a U.S. citizen or using some other specific request if they aren't.
It doesn't seem likely a low level border agent would have access to this. If this is standard operating procedure, don't you think we would have heard about it from other people who were presented with printouts of their facebook messages when arriving at the border?
Or more likely, this is FUD that leaves out specific facts (border agents don't have broad access to facebook messages) to give the impression it is linked to a big trending news story.
they didn't have access to all private messages from Facebook and I doubt the turnaround time would have been fast enough to retrieve messages at customs.
It's common for US immigration and border control agents (and Canadian agents) to do Google and other internet searches. This has been disclosed and acknowledged in the US media several times. While the messages were not likely Facebook "chat" messages, they could have been "friends only" posts (or even public posts that the woman considered "private" from a foreign government). My understanding is that US law enforcement has access to Facebook "God view" where they can see all your Facebook posts. They don't need a warrant because Facebook owns the data and is the one giving them permission to view it. It's a different class of data than a "chat/email" in that it's posted, not directly communicated, so there's no reasonable legal expectation of "privacy".
As for personal experience with this, I had a musician friend that posted on his website that he was going to be performing a series of shows in Canada. He was asked at the border if he planned to work while in Canada. He said no and did not have a visa that allows it. The border agent showed him his website, which was found with google, showing that he was planning to work. He was denied entry and banned from Canada for 1 year for lying to a border agent.
> I think the point is that the facts provided by the article don't seem very likely.
Exactly! How would the US gov't have access to someone's private correspondences on Facebook? They'd having to be spying on FB's users for that to be the case...
And have real time access to the Facebook database for each border agent? to check every single foreign teenager that are attempting to land in USA? To read at the moment of landing every single message of their facebook story?
Or for DHS to have a process of checks run on every person scheduled to arrive. I could even be part of a batch process for each flight, or for each day. Border agents know who is arriving through flight manifests.
So because you think its unlikely that US immigration officials has access to private communications on FB, that speculation is enough to dismiss the whole article about how two young girls, traveling to the US with hopes and dreams to study the language and experience the world, and then at the border was interrogated and immediately sent back.
Many countries consider whether something is a job based on what it should be paid (accounting for typical pay, minimum wage, etc), rather than what someone is paid.
This is to prevent abuses such as shipping in workers from a poorer country, giving them food, board and $10 a week for them to stack shelves, and claiming "It's not a job", so the not-workers don't require a working visa.
Similar judgements are also often made in relation to tax law, working conditions, etc.
I'm not sure it's actually a bad thing to let people work for free if there's a reason they honestly want to. As long as they're not trapped in some manner.
Plus it's tricky when it comes to something like 'watching children part of the day'. It wouldn't be considered labor if it was a family member doing it, whereas stacking shelves certainly would be. If I'm letting someone live in my house, why should it matter if they're family when it comes to having them do chores?
There are over 11 million illegals in this country. The typical reaction is to give them extensive welfare, and in certain cases, job and tuition preferences over citizens.
>" I don't even live in your country and I know this, come on - read a book."
I think that comment was uncalled. If you wanted to point out OP disinformation you could just provided the source and it would be as much effective and also would be better appreciated.
Sorry but I'm not willing to be tolerant of intolerance. The chance of actually turning around a wilfully ignorant racist on the internet is very low; broadcasting the message "these attitudes are not socially acceptable" is easier (I suppose you could consider that prevention rather than cure?)
Do you think that's the expressed intended reaction or an unintended result?
My guess is it would be difficult to find any piece of document where it states something along the lines of "The goal of this program is to make this country more appealing for illegal immigrants, by offering them extensive welfare and preferential job and tuition situations, especially over those of our citizens."
I think what's more likely is that you are citing unfortunate byproducts of an imperfect solution to a complicated problem. Not a "typical reaction."
"reading" doesn't necessarily have to be done by a human. As PRISM has shown, the government has capabilities we weren't aware (or at least sure) of. Would it be that ridiculous that they would have algorithmic scrapers running through all the FB data they have available? They say they aren't, but they've already proven we can't trust them farther than we can throw them. Even if they aren't, she's a foreign national, who they have almost no restrictions on investigating, so they may have been "reading" her messages, even if those of US citizens were left intact (which I personally doubt).
Long story short, it wouldn't necessarily waste much time to go through her records, and it would probably be completely legal.
The part that seems unlikely to me is that they would show their hand by using PRISM for such a small thing, unless there is some bigger reason they want her out of the country. It's hardly a sure argument, though.
Even if there is a bigger reason for wanting her out, there is no reason for them to expose PRISM that way. Immigration officers already have rights to deny anyone without explanation.
I just don't find anything about that article logical.
This particular case, if true, may have nothing to do with PRISM. A simple search of communications between the person and only her US contacts would probably result in a small amount of data to search, which could probably be obtained by DHS or CBP via the providers directly.
I disagree, It's already well documented how the US government follows social networks and decline people entry over comments made[1].
Where this case differs is that the comments were over private messages - which means that the intel would have been collated covertly. So the real question is whether this is another piece of the PRISM jigsaw or just a sensationalist article cashing in on the hysteria that the NSA leaks have generated.
What makes you think this is a thing that exists, aside from the rest of this conversation?
She sent a bunch of data to Facebook, with instructions to give that data to someone else. Why does she or anyone have an expectation of privacy when you hand an unsealed (read: unencrypted) piece of paper to a courrier?
If something's important, you protect it by putting it in an envelope.
They probably have a semi-automatic data collection system where you can type in a name, and it collects all sorts of public data in real time. To a non-technical person, this can look like they have a file on you, when in reality this crawler just compiled all the data in a few minutes.
There are subscription services that do all the dirty work for you. Like beenverified.com (However that explicitly "forbids" its users to use it for employment verification. Pinky promise!)
But the idea that somehow all FB messages are thoroughly searched seems .. unlikely.
The German article says the girl 'found a nice family' and had 'a regular contact with her guest dad'.
How unlikely is it, that the guest dad - or someone with access to his account .. - notified the border control?
I refuse to believe in the Orwellian surveillance theory here and put my money on a jealous spouse.
Let me be more specific. All that is required is "reasonable suspicion" in order to require access to all the files on your computer, unencrypted. "Reasonable suspicion" is a very weak requirement, as you can see from the document linked to in the techdirt article, and is exactly the same as what is needed for an extended physical search or an extended search of non-electronic property. In other words, there are no special considerations that apply to property just because it is electronic.
I still cringe about multiple 'turn on the computer' scenes in Tel Aviv, where 'turn it on' obviously (..) wasn't satisfied by pressing the button, nor by logging in: I had to 'open a file, just any file' (the clueless guys would be impatient by now, being annoyed by my failure to understand this useless requirement). Usually I chose a default windows wallpaper -> Done.
It's fairly easy to rig a laptop display to a micro controller just clever enough to run a login screen simulator, gut out the actual computer electronics and battery, and replace them with contraband or a bomb. Tel Aviv security, which I've been through several times, want to be sure the computer is of the kind it's supposed to be.
Login screen simulators are old tech. Friends of mine used to run them on the terminals at the college I studied at in the 80s to harvest other student's account details. Nowadays they're a lot more sophisticated. If you think you know more about security than the Israelis you're sadly mistaken.
Yeah. Right. I've been through that stuff a number of times myself. More than a dozen times.
You do realize that the process I'm talking about happens after they (always.. always.. sigh) x-rayed your belongings like everywhere else and (this is special, I get that treatment every time) polished all my electronic equipment with their 'sniffer' pads for traces of whatever explosives I might've built into my laptop?
That totally ignores that both times that I had to do this weird 'proof it works' dance by .. clicking myself, doing what came to my mind (and what I considered nonsense). If your world allows for a cramped micro controller that kind of simulates an OS booting, plus the login screen: Hey, let me raise you a Raspberry Pi in a laptop case, that __actually_ runs a full operating system.
It's bullshit, there's no way to make it better.
Disclaimer: I like the country, love Tel Aviv and certainly don't claim to be an expert on terrorism. But I can recognize IT related crap when I see it.
I mean, if you were willing to invest that sort of effort, it might even be easier just to put the innards from a modern slim "ultrabook" laptop into the case of a 2000 era thinkpad monster. Throw on a "third party extended battery" for good measure... Actually, don't bother with that. There is plenty of air-space in many older laptops that you could pack with explosives if you don't worry about being able to run the computer for more than several minutes without it overheating...
The entire "turn on the computer" check is idiotic security theater. Either they can tell if there is a bomb in the computer anyway through other means (in which case why are they bothering to do that check?) or they cannot (in which case, how can they possibly hope to catch anything?). My money is obviously on the first.
Which is why the security agent is spending a lot more attention on you while you're powering stuff up and entering passwords than they are on what's happening on the screen. In TSA checks the chefs themselves, imperfect as they may be, are the point. At Tel Aviv its the responses and behaviour of the people being checked that's the real focus. Not that the checks are totally pointless, they are perfectly capable of catching amateurs or the incompetent, but don't imagine for a second that Israeli border guards are just as clueless as the average TSA agent.
Depends how smart the "average terrorist" would be. Because you would catch the ones stupid enough to just gut out the laptop, rendering it inoperative (unless of course for that last one blaze of glory… hem).
Presumably these terrorists would also be caught by the system that catches the slightly smarter terrorists that only gutted the battery, or swapped out the CD drive, or just shoved a bunch of explosives under the palm rest. I mean, those things would be picked up, right?
Asking people to turn on their computers is like a doctor taking your temperature with the back of his hand on your forehead.. right before actually using the digital thermometer anyway.
Once I was looking for the number of the person I was going to stay with in the USA and they asked to have my phone. I said it's okay, I'll find it for you.
> 100. NSA data that requires TS/SAP + full-scope poly to access.
You may be over-estimating the classification level here. The government classification isn't about protecting the secrets of private citizens, only government secrets. I have some experience in this field - handling fingerprints of non-criminals which were classified at the bare minimum for the agency. It would not surprise me if any non-specific NSA drag-net data itself was not classified any higher than CUI - controlled unclassified information.
> The government classification isn't about protecting the secrets of private citizens, only government secrets.
Using that logic, Facebook private messages supplied courtesy of the NSA would be highly classified, considering their collection mechanism would be PRISM or similar closely-held programs.
> I have some experience in this field - handling fingerprints of non-criminals which were classified at the bare minimum for the agency.
Fingerprint data is available to nearly every local law enforcement organization in the country. There's no mystery about the collection method. It's a foregone conclusion that it's aggregated up the chain.
As other comments have said, if immigration officials were using NSA-supplied data, it would likely be in vague, aggregate form that did not hint at the underlying collection mechanism.
That only flies if there is no other possible way for another agency to have acquired the information. An administrative subpoena would be one way to do it -- I expect there is a term for that sort of thing, although the obvious "warrant laundering" does not seem to pull up any meaningful hits in google.
BTW, unless something has changed since I was last in west virginia, fingerprint info is not widely available in the general case. You take prints from an arrestee or latents from an object, you send them to IAFIS for matching and they return hits which may not even include a copy of the matched prints depending on the circumstances.
It shouldn't fly. That's why in my original post NSA was listed dead last as a probable data source, far below normal federal law enforcement means (such as administrative subpoenas). Even those were far less likely than simpler explanations.
As far as fingerprints, I agree the interface available to IAFIS database end-users may be restrictive. However, due to the highly aggregated nature of the data, and the fact it's maintained for law enforcement by law enforcement (namely the FBI), people expect it to be available to a myriad of government agencies (which it is).
With Facebook private messages, you expect only Facebook employees (or partners) to have access, or in special cases government via warrant or subpoena. Major tech companies took a fairly large PR hit following the news of NSA having wholesale access to their systems, precisely because of these expectations.
If the headline was instead "FBI grants NSA full unrestricted IAFIS access." nobody would bat an eye, because it's expected. The FBI is heavily involved in national security affairs themselves.
My point was, the sensitivity of the collection method is a major factor in determining the classification level of the data. The PRISM leak is a prime example of this.
What I believe is that if the NSA are already monitoring someone for whatever reason and see evidence of law-breaking that they would call up an appropriately cleared contact in the relevant agency and say, hey you should look into this person. The agency is free to run with it from there, using whatever tools with minimal oversight are available to them and no need to even mention the NSA after that point.
In fact, I believe that the number of actual terrorists is so small that such (ab)uses of the system are inevitable. In the same way that all the federal money for SWAT training of police departments has resulted in SWAT teams being deployed for all manner of low-risk situations, there just ain't enough real work for them to do so the mission creeps.
A friend of a friend (I know, I know) was stopped on the border between Canada and the US, and had her possessions searched. Inside they found her diary, which detailed her life and job in New York- which she shouldn't have had, because she was repeatedly entering the country on a tourist visa. She was rejected at the border.
This may well be the same- even if the girl did not intend to show those messages to the border control agents, they can search her suitcase for evidence to then later present to her. So, to the extent that the word "provided" does not also imply "voluntarily", I suspect you're right.
AFAIK, it wasn't an arrangement she'd been in for a long time. I doubt she'd hit the six month point, and had been hoping to secure a visa to stay in the country legitimately.
Ack.. that's just incredibly poor judgement. If you have to lie to the officials when entering the country, you really shouldn't expect that a closer look later on is going to get you a visa - as soon as they discover you lied about it you're done for.
It's pretty common to lie to border agents. Both US and Canadian agents themselves have advised me to do so in the past. Ticking the "Have you been on a farm?" check box triggers a compulsory search for seeds (both smuggled and inadvertently stuck to your shoes). It is time consuming, and they know it to be a fruitless waste of time.
Canadians don't need a visa for tourist visits to the US, and passports aren't stamped on exit. It's an incredibly BAD idea in my books, but it's still probably relatively easy for a Canadian to spend a whole lot of time in the US without getting flagged.
Having been here (legally) for 17+ years, I would concur that there is absolutely nothing that would prevent a Canadian from living/working here, other than their integrity and respect for the law (which, admittedly, Canadian have in abundance) - Well, that and a desire to return home for free medicare, more generous welfare system, ... :-)
The only evidence I have submitted to a half dozen employers of my right to work in the United States (because it's all I've ever been given) - is a cardboard I-94, filled out by me, no less, with a faint, blue stamp and date, and a (once again handwritten, this time by ICE agent) "Class: TN, Until: 07 Oct 2015". No Serial Number, no tracking number - just a stamp and visa class.
You do realize that your TN status is only for a single employer, right? You must obtain independent TN status for each employer you work for. Showing an old TN has no bearing on your eligibility to work for someone else - you must reapply.
Not trying to scare you, just noting that I have had at least one friend on TN's who tried to bridge their status without filing a proper change in status ( ie. to B-2 as soon as you quit/are let go from your old employer, to be eligible to stay without packing up your apartment) and were banned from re-entry for 2 years.
I have had several TN's over the past 16 years and the only trouble I have had was primary border guard overreach once or twice (they felt I had been in the USA long enough, arbitrarily. Secondary review fixed that.)
Yup - intimately familiar with the "Must obtain independent status with each employer". Every time I change an employer, new trip to the border to get a new TN.
I did not realize I could file a change in status if my old job concluded before I got a new one. In 2003, I finished up with a company, and my last, "Paid Day" as an employee was September 26th, but I wasn't required to come into the office for the last two weeks - so my last day in the office was around September 12th, a friday. By Sunday, September 14th, I had emptied my apartment, packed up all my possessions, and had returned to Canada.
How did she work in the US without a work visa? Every company that I have worked for (large and small) do the I-9 verification process at the start of employment. I can't see any company being so desperate for employees that they would skip that and hire someone without work authorization.
Of course, if you were working for yourself (freelance), there are no employment verification checks.
I'd say it's far more likely that the border official noticed that this girl only had a return ticket a year from entry, searched her name on Facebook, and found she was lying. They're really picky about employment vs. tourism visa status, and a lie can get you barred. This girl was pretty naive about how immigration works.
Occam's razor clearly makes this story less interesting than face value. I think we can assume that the NSA is legitimately looking for real problems, not ones that involve the illegal hiring of an au pair.
My translation would be "Officials baffled Jana with a printout of her complete Facebook correspondence with her future host. Their allegation: the young woman intended to work illegally in the US. The authorities had apparently been reading Jana's private messages on Facebook for weeks".
The key word being "apparently", i.e. bad journalism, jumping to conclusions for a more sensationalist story.
It's an automatic translation, so wording may be haphazard. I note that "offenbar" (from the original article) can also mean "obvious", as in "It was apparent that the authorities had read her correspondence."
Edit: just noticed you had written "my translation", not "the translation". My German is nowhere good enough to translate the article, I'm just working off Google's.
"offenbar" can indeed mean "obviously", but in the context of a news article it's a weasel word more close to "apparently". To a native speaker, this word sounds as though they are presenting facts, but reading closely they are only assuming, just like smartician said.
Slightly off-topic, but "obvious" would be "offensichtlich" in German. "Offenbar" implies a higher degree of uncertainty. "Scheinbar" or "anscheinend" is even more uncertain, to the point of doubt. And finally, "angeblich" is very questionable, almost an accusation of lying.
Yeah the TN wording is picky, but I can't imagine a situation where one would even think of using Facebook communications as evidence for your visa/status application. In the case of the TN, the only evidence you need to provide (beyond the letter you mentioned) are your degree, letters from previous employers (if relevant), marriage certificate (if relevant), passport (obviously), and your school grades.
Indeed. The only thing scarier than the US monitoring 95% of internet traffic is the US deciding the best use of its super-secret super-powerful internet surveillance is to keep illegal au pairs out of the country. But I doubt they're actually that foolish.
I hired a Canadian once under a TN NAFTA "visa" and he had to bring some correspondence from me to the border. We had to be very careful to word things correctly and not to use specific words that could prevent him from coming to the US. It seems that this is similar to what this young woman experienced.