[HN Gopher] US border forces are seizing Americans' phone data a...
___________________________________________________________________
US border forces are seizing Americans' phone data and storing it
for 15 years
Author : jaarse
Score : 657 points
Date : 2022-09-16 12:07 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.engadget.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.engadget.com)
| quantum_state wrote:
| Lawless in the name of security... this is what an authoritarian
| regime would use.
| macrolime wrote:
| Even if you are a person who will never in your life end up as
| any kind of person of interest for the government, handing over
| data in this way could still be quite dangerous.
|
| Phones will often contain data that can facilitate theft and
| fraud if ending up in the wrong hands. If they're able to copy
| everything, including private data from all apps that could be
| quite bad. For example many countries now use apps to login to
| online banking, with private keys for the login stored in the
| app. Will that be copied? Will it ever be found out if one of the
| 3000 government officials with access to this data sold it on
| darknet markets?
|
| Maybe some months after your travel you suddenly wake up one day
| to find all your money transferred from your bank account to some
| account in Nigeria.
| dr-detroit wrote:
| they are also tracking if women are pregnant when they travel
| so if you miscarry you go to jail
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > Even if you are a person who will never in your life end up
| as any kind of person of interest for the government
|
| Literally no way to ensure that.
| godelski wrote:
| yosito wrote:
| The chances of becoming a person of interest will always be
| non-zero, but I think I a lot of people can be reasonably
| confident that they are not likely to become a person of
| interest.
| lambdasquirrel wrote:
| It doesn't even have to be the government itself. Let's say
| the sheriff in your town takes interest in your partner. Or
| his kid gets in a spat with your mom because the kid was DUI.
| [deleted]
| YeBanKo wrote:
| Things like secured enclave should make it hard to extract
| private key from a device even if you have full access.
| bongobingo1 wrote:
| Which assumes the keys are stored in there and not
| `bundle/user-data/please-dont-read`...
| nilespotter wrote:
| For my part I don't trust PRISM partner Apple to secure
| anything from the government, enclave or not.
| nerbert wrote:
| It's certainly not a good option. It's also one of the best
| options available on the market, save completely opting out
| of tech.
| jrockway wrote:
| Were any of the companies listed on the PRISM slide
| consensual partners? My understanding is that the NSA
| tapped the internal network in an era where mTLS wasn't
| rolled out. Everyone then saw the slides and rolled out
| mTLS.
| bashinator wrote:
| I believe that some companies making layer two network
| encryption gear also got a big boost around the same
| time.
| bornfreddy wrote:
| I'm quite sure NSA had at least one backup plan, provably
| more. It is also impossible to know how much of Apple's
| stance is just for show.
| jrockway wrote:
| Sure. I would think that the NSA had plenty of insiders.
| So do other security agencies, probably. Background
| checks aren't that thorough against a state-level
| adversary. (This is one reason why big companies can't
| trust insiders. I guess small companies should be
| cautious as well, but sometimes you don't have the
| funding to protect against insiders and still do your
| actual work.)
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| read "when google met wikileaks", tech giants are more
| than happy to help with national security
| LightG wrote:
| You're giving way too much credit to reality...
| Grimburger wrote:
| To me the lack of checks/balances before handing over your
| device for an hour or so is the worst part.
|
| The chain of custody in these instances is basically one guy
| going into a back room by himself and hooking it up to a
| computer.
|
| At the very least you should be able to have the contents of
| your phone independently hashed before handing it over to a
| potentially corrupt individual. They can put anything they want
| on there in that time and what recourse do you really have?
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| > to some account in Nigeria.
|
| It must be awkward to be an honest Nigerian on Hacker News,
| since the country is famous for obvious online scams.
| buildsjets wrote:
| Looks like Dare@MSFT does have an account on HN, altho unused
| for many years. He's a genuine Nigerian Prince! Well, at
| least he's the son of a genuine Nigerian warlord/dictator.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Carnage4Life
| elliekelly wrote:
| I once sat through a "Pending Regulation of Cryptocurrency"
| CLE and one of the panelists was a real crypto-fanatic. He
| put up a slide about how quickly bitcoin was being adopted
| around the world and he kept excitedly saying how Nigeria was
| the fastest-growing crypto market in Africa! Another of the
| panelists was an FBI agent who investigates crypto-related
| crimes and when it was his turn he was quick to point out
| that rapid adoption of crypto in a country famous for
| internet scams isn't exactly a selling point...
| rjbwork wrote:
| I worked with a great Nigerian dev some years ago. He
| contracted for us to do our frontend work. The stories this
| dude told were insane. He lived in Lagos, notorious for
| traffic jams. He would frequently get stuck in multi-hour
| long traffic jams just trying to get fuel for his electric
| generator. He had to do this to keep his power on during the
| routine black/brown outs that plagued the city, so that he
| could continue to work. He eventually, thanks to his work,
| was able to move to a nicer part of the city where the
| electricity was more reliable.
|
| Last I heard he and his GF/wife (I don't recall which) were
| able to immigrate to Dubai, where he's continuing to work as
| a contractor for western clients, with an eye to eventually
| immigrating to Europe or the US.
|
| I wish him well, but it is a damn shame that the best option
| for Nigerians who wish to engage in this type of work is
| to...leave.
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| UAE imposed visa sanctions on Nigeria recently, afaik right
| now it would be impossible to immigrate there from Nigeria.
| churchill wrote:
| Nigerian here. At some point it gets old and you just get
| used to it.
| rrauenza wrote:
| Have you seen the YouTube channel "Pleasant Green"? He is a
| scam baiter but has been working with some of the Nigerian
| scammers to turn their lives around.
| afarrell wrote:
| A Nigerian and a Florida Man walk into a bar. They order
| drinks and nachos and have a reasonable conversation that
| concludes in a legitimate business deal.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Why the hell would anybody sane, especially with all knowledge
| average HN user has about government overreach and greed,
| hacks, 0days, bugs etc. ever put such a critical item as
| banking app on their phone?
|
| Apple vs Android is irrelevant in this, there is no truly safe
| mainstream phone in 2022, period. Are people really that lazy?
|
| I do manage quite a few financial things but for none of those
| phone apps is crucial and I use exactly 0 of them. There is
| ebanking login app, but on its own its useless, another 3
| factors are required for login. There is always desktop browser
| variant for everything, with firefox with ublock origin and few
| other plugins making internet a bit more as it was intended to
| be.
|
| So yes US government can hack my phone if they havent already,
| they will see what kind of photography and travelling I do,
| which family members I write to, and some online shopping
| history. Thats it.
|
| Phones are not secure and probably never will be for anything
| more. Anybody telling you otherwise is either dangerously
| clueless or worse
| jjcm wrote:
| Because accounts are insured and so need to transfer money on
| the go.
|
| How do you transfer money to friends when you go out to
| dinner? At least in Australia, this is done via your banking
| app.
|
| How do you withdraw money from an ATM? Again, this is moving
| primarily app based.
|
| Your definition of sane may be security at all costs, but for
| most convenience and social norms trump this.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| 100% agree.
|
| Wth the various stories about what data apps seem able to
| access despite being totally unrelated to their core
| function, they appear to be a goldmine for privacy invaders
| (advertising companies) and scammers, hence why even semi-
| popular apps are targeted for purchase by unethicals to turn
| into personal data feeds.
|
| I don't have banking apps on my phone. I don't need to move
| money immediately in any situation. And I still have more
| apps on my phone than I'm comfortable with.
|
| It's all a personal choice about risk appetite, but for most
| people (not really the HN crowd) the risks are downplayed or
| unknown.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _Why the hell would anybody sane, especially with all
| knowledge average HN user has about government overreach and
| greed, hacks, 0days, bugs etc. ever put such a critical item
| as banking app on their phone?_
|
| Because it's convenient, and security is a trade off with
| convenience. I use banking apps on my phone, and I suspect
| many (most, even) people here on HN (and who are technically
| savvy in general) do as well. That doesn't make it smart or
| good or correct, but I suspect that is the status quo.
|
| I haven't traveled outside the US since before the pandemic,
| but these days I may only travel with a burner phone the next
| time I do so.
|
| > _Phones are not secure_
|
| Neither are laptops or desktops, or anything, really.
| Everyone needs to decide for themselves what level of
| security they're willing to accept, and what their threat
| model is.
| vkou wrote:
| >ever put such a critical item as banking app on their phone?
|
| Because my PC isn't meaningfully more secure.
|
| Because in the overwhelming majority of situations, if that
| security is compromised, my bank will eventually cough up my
| money.
|
| Also because I also expect neither Google, Apple, my carrier,
| nor the dab gum gubment is likely to rob me by...
|
| * _checks notes_ *
|
| Compromising the banking app on my phone. Or my PC. Or my
| router. Or any of the other non-100% secure devices and
| processes I use to get through my life.
|
| There's basic security precautions, and there's living in
| fear and paranoia, brought on by a misunderstanding of the
| threats you are facing.
| jlokier wrote:
| > ever put such a critical item as banking app on their
| phone?
|
| Laziness has nothing to do with it.
|
| Why? Three of my bank accounts cannot be accessed without a
| phone app, and some of my credit cards will not authorise
| payments without a phone app. It's not a choice.
|
| Two of the bank accounts do have web banking too, i.e. from a
| desktop browser. But you have to use the phone app to
| authenticate the browser login! I found this out the hard
| way, when my phone screen died so I couldn't login to web
| banking on my laptop.
|
| I called customer support, hoping to use phone banking to
| make some payments. They told me they could not do anything
| until I obtained a new working phone, moved my SIM or phone
| number over, and then they could transfer the authentication
| to the new device. Other than that, they had no options for
| logging in. It was fine to borrow someone else's phone if I
| wanted, installing the bank app on there, but I couldn't
| login without a phone.
|
| I had to go through this again when the second phone died a
| few months later.
|
| Now, I'm guessing you're thinking "use a different bank,
| duh!". Turns out I didn't have a choice of non-app banks when
| I needed to open a business account during the pandemic, in
| order to accept a contract, which I needed. My credit rating
| was not rosy either, greatly limiting which card services I
| could choose. Things are easier now, thanks.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Some banks certainly don't help themselves when it comes to
| security practises they foist on their customers.
|
| My bank supports 2FA, but only via SMS...
| nopenopenopeno wrote:
| It always blows my mind that the same people who insist they
| don't trust the government are the first in line to hand over
| all their personal data to the government, whether by way of
| Google, Facebook, or otherwise.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Will it ever be found out if one of the 3000 government
| officials with access to this data sold it on darknet markets?_
|
| It's not just government officials with access, but government
| contractors and anyone that works for them, as well.
| xyst wrote:
| we need to end this useless security theater. only a matter of
| time until a bad actor gets ahold of this massive database and
| sells it off to the highest bidder
| colordrops wrote:
| It's useless for us but not the ruling class.
| xtracto wrote:
| As a foreigner to the US I see this as a simple display of
| power: See how powerful we are over you, we can and will
| exert control over you, your data and your belongings. If you
| want to enter our Empire you will belong to us and will allow
| us to plug all your orifices.
|
| No way I felt like that when travelling to the UK or to
| continental Europe.
|
| The real answer is to avoid traveling there. Empires crumble
| when they become irrelevant. And for US citizens, they should
| definitely strive to create a society with more freedom and
| privacy for them. But only if they want that, which doesn't
| seem that way nowadays.
| colordrops wrote:
| There's a social stigma here about being too vocal about
| this sort of thing, at least in the circles I encounter in
| California. You are either wasting your time or are a bit
| of a paranoid if you worry too much about these sorts of
| things. You even still see it here on HN, where people will
| pull out Hanlon's razor as some sort of proof that this
| sort of malfeasance doesn't exist.
| thingification wrote:
| Unless this sort of thing gets corrected, it will be used in
| corrupt ways and to enforce tyrannical laws / regimes.
|
| Did much of the progress in the past that led us to today's
| democratic institutions involve law-breaking, strictly
| interpreted, of the law of the day? Would too-effective, too-
| cheap enforcement have prevented that progress? I know little
| about history, but I suspect so.
| sbussard wrote:
| This a clear and bold violation of the fourth amendment. Let the
| lawsuits begin!
| rhacker wrote:
| there should be an unlock code, that if entered, wipes and writes
| over all dram bits with random data, including the OS and a big
| fuck you to gov types that want this data
| anon291 wrote:
| Zuckerberg is illegally interfering with elections in Washington
| state and elsewhere. Honestly this is mor concerning. As we've
| learned over the past year, there's no recourse for private
| infringement of human rights. At least with the government you
| have someone to complain to
| doodlebugging wrote:
| The easiest solution to this persistent storage of private
| citizen's personal data siphoned from their phones or other
| devices is to carry a burner phone on international trips and
| weaponize the data that you store on it before you travel. Infect
| some photos and PDFs with one of those silent exploits that, once
| it gets into their data center, maps all the drives and wipes
| them or one that wipes the devices that they are using to siphon
| all the data at the border crossing. Even sticking them with
| something like a shitcoin miner would be a win.
|
| Or, target the data storage center directly. I guarantee that
| someone in their custody chain is dumb enough to click a fake
| email link or visit that hijacked site to download code that
| wipes their data center drives. You only need to be lucky once to
| put them back at square one.
|
| Or better yet, someone could create a repository of shitty memes
| that can be downloaded to your burner phone before you travel.
| Just grab a bunch of "Yo' Mama" memes and let the agency hacks
| waste all their time reviewing the same well-worn collection over
| and over. The more boring the better.
| cbpthrowaway32 wrote:
| mring33621 wrote:
| Can I ask how long it takes to 'copy' someone's phone data?
|
| The mid-level consumer tech I have access to takes a most of a
| work day to copy my wife's 80GB of iphone 7+ data to a flash
| drive.
|
| Based on this, I doubt they have some sort of magic thing that
| will just copy everything on your phone as you pass through a
| checkpoint.
|
| Do they hold you until the copy is done?
|
| Or do they have some super fast thing that works on every device?
|
| Honestly curious.
| elliekelly wrote:
| I'm also curious whether the copying device works with all
| models. If I went back to my old iPhone 3, for example, would
| they still be able to snag a copy? Might their surveillance be
| foiled by want of a dongle?
|
| Edit-- From the photos posted further down thread it seems like
| they're armed with every imaginable dongle...
| sometimeshuman wrote:
| I am planning on travel to Mexico soon. A few days ago my sister
| in-law sent photos and videos of my nephew in bed with his 7 year
| old girl friend in the family WhatsApp channel. He is only in his
| underwear and she is topless and crawling around in her underwear
| and giving him hugs. She repeatedly does this with my nephew's
| bath-time as well. Out of context it looks creepy and perhaps
| would be flagged by an AI classifying for exploitation.
|
| So if the AI has me marked as a person of interest and they seize
| my phone at the border, it won't be a good day for me. Am I just
| being paranoid and lacking perspective because I have never been
| a parent who spends a lot of time with naked children ? Is this
| so common that I shouldn't be concerned ?
| hedora wrote:
| It doesn't really matter if it is common. What matters is what
| the undertrained CBP officer thinks.
|
| Based on the fact that you are concerned, I'd say there is some
| agent out there that would flag it and ruin your / the kids'
| lives, etc.
| jollyllama wrote:
| Do they do this with laptops too? If not, the laziness of
| assuming everything is on the phone is amusing.
| Havoc wrote:
| And I'm still waiting for someone to explain how that works
| with employer gear.
|
| I'm guessing my corporate compliance team will not be pleased
| if I tell them someone made copies of all the companies
| data...even if it is uncle sam.
|
| Like what does one do in that situation? Can't really agree. At
| the same time US border staff is not known for their
| understanding nature when it comes to saying no.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Any reason why you can't ask your corporate compliance team
| for guidance on this issue, well before the date when you
| might cross the boarder?
| saratogacx wrote:
| If they are concerned they will do what many companies do
| when going to places like China. You get issued a new laptop
| for the trip who's only job is to act as a remote terminal to
| a system that doesn't travel with you.
| Grimburger wrote:
| Revoke keys and inform the person responsible for compliance.
|
| There's not much more you can do in that situation.
| Havoc wrote:
| >There's not much more you can do in that situation.
|
| Indeed - and yet that is an entirely unworkable situation.
| e.g. The stuff on my laptop is covered by three countries'
| regulators/boards of directors/jurisdictions, none of whom
| will be understanding if I tell them the border stasi
| copied all the data ably assisted by yours truly with
| decryption keys
|
| Very much doubt I'd still be employed even if innocent &
| had no choice
|
| >Revoke keys
|
| With financial data once its been duplicated it's gone /
| out in the wild.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Yes, they do, but not all people carry laptops where pretty
| much everyone will have a smartphone. There have been
| references to Cellebrite devices which target smartphones. So
| when all you have is a hammer, you focus on the nails.
|
| There are stories online of people having a "travel" laptop
| where they fill their USB/Thunderbolt ports with epoxy or
| similar to prevent device connections by anyone not just at
| border crossings.
| jollyllama wrote:
| So they just don't scan your laptop or phone if you gum up
| all the ports? They wouldn't pop out your hard drive?
|
| An alternative solution might be to backup to microsds.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Pulling out the hard drive might be effective if it's 2002
| or something. If you have a modern laptop like a MBP, then
| the drive isn't really removable. If you were to remove it,
| the use of encryption linked to the T2 chip makes the thing
| useless.
| jollyllama wrote:
| Good point. I don't travel a lot and I use old hardware.
| Bakary wrote:
| If the border guards see that your laptop has epoxy in the
| ports, and that by definition you are using this technique
| for privacy-averse countries, sounds like you won't be making
| the flight any time soon.
| gambiting wrote:
| What border guards have you seen that would inspect a
| laptop that closely in the first place? I fly relatively
| frequently and all they care about is that it's kept in a
| separate bin to the rest of your luggage, no one looks at
| it upclose(also you can damage ports in a way that isn't
| visible on the outside).
| Bakary wrote:
| 99% of my flights have been exactly like this with no
| device inspection, and I've been in multiple autocratic
| countries. What I meant is that if they are at the stage
| where they are looking to plug into your laptop, having
| the ports blocked like this will immediately cause
| problems for you in countries where blocking your ports
| would be useful. It's a catch-22
| gambiting wrote:
| Ah, I see - sorry I misunderstood. I thought the comment
| meant that you'd be stopped from boarding the plane in
| the first place if your laptop has glued up ports.
| kornork wrote:
| I wish the 2nd Amendment folks would care about the 4th Amendment
| just as much.
| hedora wrote:
| Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
| Sevii wrote:
| I wish the 4th amendment had as much organization around
| defending it as the 2nd does.
| Arrath wrote:
| I often buy a cheap pay-as-you-go phone in my destination country
| when I travel (mostly because I think something internal is funky
| with my phone, despite all arrangements being made and plans
| authorized with my carrier for international travel/service, the
| damn thing never finds signal), I may just start leaving my own
| phone at home when I do so.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| I think at this point, if I were to travel internationally, I
| would not bring my EDC. I'd buy a cheap phone when I arrived at
| my destination and just chalk it up to travel expenses. I would
| tell everyone I'll email them my phone number when I get to my
| destination in case of emergency.
|
| I'd rather that complication than have some 'roid-redneck at the
| border capturing data that's really none of their business.
| arc-in-space wrote:
| Uh, ok, sure, don't cross borders with devices with unencrypted
| sensitive data on them, got it.
| hedora wrote:
| ... and then physically destroy any device border agents touch.
|
| Also, make sure the device doesn't have any credentials
| (especially avoid work SSO, Google and Apple credentials) on
| it, or things like signal, iMessage or RCS installed.
| cr555 wrote:
| "That's when they can plug in the traveler's phone, tablet or PC
| to a device that copies their information, ...". would really
| like to know which "devices" they are talking about. fkn hard to
| do a full android backup these days.. this world. im tellin ya.
|
| on another note: lets talk about how one would go about keeping
| ones privacy intact aka having a party in the capitol.
|
| 1. will they be able to get into my cryptrooted pinephone / hdd
| in those 5 days? 2. if not will this only make them more angry
| and privacy penetrating?
| JohnFen wrote:
| > fkn hard to do a full android backup these days.
|
| No it's not. It's very easy. I do it all the time using adb.
|
| > will they be able to get into my cryptrooted pinephone / hdd
| in those 5 days?
|
| They don't need to. They can take a binary image of your
| encrypted partition(s) and take all the time they want to break
| into it later. Assuming they're sufficiently motivated.
| ysleepy wrote:
| have you tried restoring your adb backup? Most apps set the
| backup=false flag in thr android manifest and adb will sput
| out an empty backup. This is what grandparents meant.
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| I'm guessing they're talking about Cellebrite gear:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellebrite_UFED
| flaviut wrote:
| Take a look at https://signal.org/blog/cellebrite-
| vulnerabilities/
| oneplane wrote:
| They will get a $5 wrench and beat you until you give it up
| yourself, per XKCD https://xkcd.com/538/
|
| In other words: this isn't a technical challenge, either you
| comply and give them your private stuff, or you're not going
| anywhere. Maybe you can con them into giving a 'public' part of
| the phone and pretending that's all there is, but again, that's
| social engineering and not a technical challenge.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| This!
|
| We are simply not allowed to have privacy and also live a
| meaningful life. Everything we want to do now requires us to
| surrender our privacy. Transact with money, see a medical
| professional, travel internationally, etc.
| ck2 wrote:
| Just a reminder any email you have online that is over six months
| old can be read without a warrant.
| mancerayder wrote:
| What difference does it make if EvilCorp can store the data
| (phone location data, search data, etc.) on its systems, and then
| will volunteer to hand over to authorities when requested?
|
| Sorry, I meant to say Google.
| mattwest wrote:
| As a thought experiment, what would happen if you wrote your own
| malicious payload to a burner device and handed that over? What
| if you warned the border agents that your device would deliver
| malicious code and they plugged it in anyway?
| shiftpgdn wrote:
| I believe there was a defcon talk about this but for the life
| of me I can't find it. My advice is to epoxy your lightning
| port closed (or snip the data connection inside the phone) and
| use wireless charging exclusively.
|
| edit: It was the Signal founder.
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/04/21/signal-hacks-cell...
| shabbatt wrote:
| what if its a laptop now?
| rovr138 wrote:
| Buy a laptop that has a charging port. Then same advice
| applies.
|
| But I would just format it.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| My guess is it would be like setting up a trap gun and putting
| a sign on the door warning about it. Still illegal. But I'm a
| rando on the Internet and a loooooong ways from being any kind
| of lawyer, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last
| night, either.
| beebeepka wrote:
| What do you think would happen to a regular person performing
| such an act? Would it be like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or a
| James Bond movie?
| mattwest wrote:
| Huh? I'm asking about the realistic outcome, whether that be
| denial of border crossing, criminal charges, or they choose
| to not examine the device and let you through.
| shabbatt wrote:
| now what if you bought the phone off craigslist?
| mattwest wrote:
| That's likely not relevant since during a border crossing
| your identity has already been verified.
| shabbatt wrote:
| "how was i supposed to know the phone i bought on
| craigslist had a payload?"
|
| plausible deniability.
|
| edit: please dont actually do this.
| hnbad wrote:
| What if you planted a bomb in a package on your doorstep with
| instructions on it telling people not to open it? What if the
| package thief stealing your package opens it and causes an
| explosion injuring themselves and maybe others?
|
| You're describing a (digital) booby trap. Since you're
| knowingly targeting law enforcement officers, I'm not sure
| legal theory factors into whether you could get away with it in
| practice but even theoretically the answer is probably no,
| that's a computer crime.
| flenserboy wrote:
| Treat every phone as a burner.
| josefresco wrote:
| Pretty difficult with 2FA
| silisili wrote:
| I use a cloud based TOTP(bitwarden) for exactly this reason.
| I don't store credentials there.
|
| Sure, I've made my attack surface larger, but for me beats
| having to call, email, or be screwed when I lose access to my
| phone.
| aaaaaaaaata wrote:
| Why?
|
| You'd never register a token with an actually secure 2FA
| schema (account inaccessible if token inaccessible) with just
| one device.
|
| Back up your 2FA/MFA.
| josefresco wrote:
| I print backup codes where available, but some providers
| don't offer it and instead instruct me to have two devices.
| Do you maintain 2+ devices with your 2FA codes? Do you
| carry both devices everywhere? Or just when you need to add
| a new 2FA code to Authenticator?
| upsidesinclude wrote:
| It seems there is an intentional effort to drive your digital
| identity and financial identity/history to your mobile
| device.
|
| This makes social control much less complicated
| DarthNebo wrote:
| 2FA should be TOTP not SMS
| unethical_ban wrote:
| My work-based 2FA is tied to my phone and is non-
| transferrable. If I lost my main phone without switching
| the 2FA install while logged in, I'd have to go through a
| recovery process.
|
| Culprits: RSA Authenticate and Okta Verify.
|
| My personal accounts that have 2FA are all backed up with
| Authy.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >My work-based 2FA is tied to my phone and is non-
| transferrable.
|
| If that's the case with your workplace, do they issue you
| a phone to use for work-related stuff.
|
| If not, why not?
|
| Your personal device shouldn't be required to do work-
| related stuff, IMHO.
|
| I'd add that since there's work-related stuff on your
| phone, your employer can restrict what you do/don't do
| with that phone and subject your personal device to its
| corporate policies via Mobile Device Management (MDM)[0]
| systems.
|
| Even more, if you ensure that work-related stuff isn't on
| your personal device, issues with either device won't
| impact the other one.
|
| I realize that it's out of fashion these days to keep
| one's work and personal lives separate. But IME, doing so
| is generally a good idea.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_device_management
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I don't have MDM on my phone (no alt-roots or anything).
| "Just" the 2FA, gmail and Slack. But I agree, I'm tempted
| to get the work stuff off and onto an old phone just to
| have the mental separation.
| josefresco wrote:
| 95% of my 2FA accounts are TOTP. My issue is that not all
| providers give me printable backup codes - some just say
| "get two devices!" and that's just not reasonable for a
| variety of reasons.
| disago wrote:
| To get around this I usually just store the secret (from
| the QR code) in a secure place (encrypted database with
| yubikey).
|
| This always allows me to recreate the TOTP entry.
| lasc4r wrote:
| I need to prioritize phones with SD cards way more. This is
| ridiculous.
| bobsmith432 wrote:
| Hope they have fun getting into the iOS 6 iPhone 4S I carry
| around, security by obscurity XD
|
| (And no, it's not my main phone, Pixel 5a with GrapheneOS is my
| daily driver)
| nevir wrote:
| I think you'd be surprised...
| lostgame wrote:
| Wouldn't that be _easier_ to exploit, rather than more
| difficult?
| kelnos wrote:
| I submitted this the other day but it didn't get any traction:
| the Protecting Data at the Border Act[0] is a thing, but has
| barely been touched by the relevant Senate committee since it was
| introduced nearly a year ago. As expected, it's not perfect: it
| has some carve-outs, and only applies to US citizens (and maybe
| permanent residents; I forget the exact definition of "U.S.
| person"). But it would definitely improve things. Maybe something
| to bug your Senators about.
|
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/295...
| intrasight wrote:
| I guess the oft-cited advice to travel with a burner phone even
| applies to the USA. Sad to hear. I hope Wyden is successful in
| changing this practice, but I very much doubt that it'll change.
|
| Has anyone that this happen by US border patrol? What are the
| specifics?
| hnbad wrote:
| This is tangential to the content of the article but this site's
| data protection consent pop-up (not sure if this is EU-only) is
| actually an own-goal when it comes to EU GDPR compliance:
|
| If you can revoke consent for "legitimate interest", it's not
| legitimate interest. Legitimate interest is a legal basis for
| collecting and processing data _without_ explicit consent (i.e.
| it 's an alternative mechanism to explicit consent and you can
| merely inform the user of it, not ask them to consent to it). If
| you can opt out, it's not legitimate interest. And if it's not
| actually legitimate interest, you have to make it an opt-in
| option like the other consent prompts, not an opt-out (tho at
| least this site doesn't make you select them individually).
|
| I'm not sure what marketing firm convinced publishers they could
| use "legitimate consent opt-outs" as a fallback for the consent
| many people probably don't opt in to, but their advice is flat
| out wrong at best and illegal at worst. They'd be better of not
| providing a detailed consent popup than doing this because the
| former at least allows them to claim ignorance whereas this
| clearly demonstrates an attempt to circumvent consent
| requirements. Not to mention the current state of the law
| explicitly requires them to provide both "opt in to all" and "opt
| out of all" options without additional clicks and dark pattern
| shenanigans (i.e. they have to be equally prominent and the same
| color and design).
|
| Also if you find these popups annoying keep in mind that there's
| literally no legal requirement to have a consent popup under the
| EU GDPR. You don't even need one if you use cookies. The only
| reason these sites need them is because they use third party
| embeds, resources and scripts that set non-essential (e.g.
| tracking) cookies or want to record/process user data (e.g. for
| targeted ads). It's the death pains of a failing business model
| that's making this annoying for you, not the law.
| neycoda wrote:
| I wonder if I'd get arrested for bringing a wiped phone with me
| with just a phone number on it.
| [deleted]
| O__________O wrote:
| Seems like real solution are phones that by default provided end-
| to-end-encryption for cloud backups, no local data "travel
| modes", secure wipes, multiple logins, etc. -- since trying to
| get countries to uniformly play by same rules seem highly
| unlikely.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| No because if it's standard, they will ask you to disable
| travel mode and download all the data. You can say no, but you
| can't refuse and cross the border.
|
| It's not a technical problem.
| O__________O wrote:
| It for sure is a technical issue and by "travel mode" I mean
| you:
|
| 1. end-to-end encrypt a cloud backup
|
| 2. Securely wipe the phone.
|
| 3. Install OS in travel mode, which means no local data is
| forced and at best kept until restarting phone. Hardware
| enforcement of ban of updates including firmware and OS,
| unless system wiped. With a visual unique easily recognizable
| "code" to tell if the current "travel mode" was over
| rewritten; for example, unique consistent computer generated
| recognizable human face is shown on reboot until being
| reformatted and is different every time phone is reformatted.
|
| 4. On reaching known safe point, phone wiped, OS installed in
| non-travel mode, backup installed.
|
| If there's no data or way to root the phone, it's meaningless
| effort and would no longer even be done at the border; they
| might find another route to get data, but current issue would
| no longer be a viable route.
|
| -- to be fair, I did mention multiple-logins, but to me that
| was intended to mean additional features/options, not a
| replacement for the core issue of forced access to
| devices/data at predictable chock points like border
| crossings.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Nope, if an abusive administration is committed enough, it
| will mark as suspicious any cleaned phone, especially if
| they can access freely metadata about your life without a
| judge.
|
| No need for the content, they just need to make sure the
| activity score is higher than the one on your phone. It's
| not illegal not to have you real phone, but why haven't
| you? Do you have anything to hide? And they will make you
| life annoying enough, making you miss flights, waste your
| time, cost you money and opportunities, until most of the
| population comply.
|
| It's a cat and mouse game, where you are trying to oppose
| technical solutions to people being simply abusive, which
| doesn't work on the long run, because the problem is that
| you are being ruled by the mob.
|
| It's funny, because if were it be happening in China or in
| Russia, everybody would be loosing their mind, saying how
| those dictatorships are abusive. Then they would note how
| the Russian and Chinese don't seem to notice they are being
| abused and defend their country.
| mlindner wrote:
| > You can say no, but you can't refuse and cross the border.
|
| They can't prevent Americans from entering the country.
| hnbad wrote:
| Article says they can hold onto your electronic devices
| tho. They can also probably arrest you for the legal
| maximum (which unlike proper jail probably won't result in
| you losing your living but could result in you losing money
| in addition to time).
|
| They don't have to literally prevent you from entering your
| own country in order to make refusal to cooperate extremely
| unpleasant for you. Not to mention they can do this every
| time going forward and they can do this to other people in
| your group as well. Good luck proving this is harassment
| and not due dilligence.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Right, I forgot that it was about americans.
|
| But they can, and will if the trend of abuses continue,
| make you loose your flight, make you waste time,
| opportunity, and money. And put you in a list so that they
| do that every time your travel.
| olalonde wrote:
| Border forces are not allowed to intentionally access remote
| data[0].
|
| [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/border-patrol-says-
| it-s...
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| They don't have to, they can just say the phone
| synchronized on its own when set back out of travel mode.
| They will lie, of pressure you to download the data prior
| their search.
|
| Again, it's not a technical problem. Abusive people are
| abusive.
|
| Law enforcers are not good people because of their title,
| society shape them in who their are and how they behave.
| Currently, in the US, they are not shaped to be helping
| citizen.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>. You can say no, but you can't refuse and cross the
| border.
|
| It is my understanding that if you are American and are
| trying to enter, they can't stop you from coming in
| indefinitely, is that not true?
| Bakary wrote:
| Or just a burner with plausible activity stored on it to give
| the impression that it's your main phone.
| O__________O wrote:
| If by plausible, you mean intentionally false -- then in many
| countries, if caught, that might result in being:
| blacklisted, deported, imprisoned, detained, lose of
| citizenship, etc.
| excalibur wrote:
| +1 for burner, but why bother loading it with data? Just
| throw on a few texts that say "Stop spying on me you useless
| cunts."
| dylan604 wrote:
| I don't get the plausible activity bit. Just tell them it is
| your travel phone and be done.
| Bakary wrote:
| That's not an acceptable answer in a number of countries.
| ryukafalz wrote:
| Then what is an acceptable answer if you really have not
| brought your main phone?
| Bakary wrote:
| The vast majority of flights won't include device
| searches or these awkward questions. But if you are in a
| situation where they do want to search your phone, the
| fact that it's a travel phone is not going to be received
| well. This will of course depend on the border guard in
| question. Unless you are a citizen of the country your
| capacity to enter it is now compromised because the will
| of the border guard is in practice nearly absolute and
| without recourse.
| r00fus wrote:
| So let me get this straight - if I broke/lost a phone
| before a flight (and replaced with spare) - I can expect
| to be declined entry?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| What the fuck? Are you saying I would get denied entry to
| a country if I brought no phone or a new phone?
| Bakary wrote:
| In some countries and contexts this is a possibility.
| It's not uncommon for countries to have a system where
| you essentially have to convince a human border guard
| that you are no threat with no clear guidelines. Having
| no phone or a phone with not enough data can be a problem
| in such a context.
|
| The vast majority of border crossings across the world
| don't involve any questions about phones anyway, but if
| you are at the stage where they do the characteristics of
| your phone or lack thereof can piss off the person who
| determines whether you are allowed to enter. And if you
| are at that stage entry denial will probably not be
| solely based on your phone or lack thereof because there
| was probably a reason they starting asking about it in
| the first place.
|
| These aren't purely hypothetical scenarios but real life
| examples of things that happened to people I know.
| MockObject wrote:
| It seems unrealistic to imagine being turned away from
| entry for having brought a travel phone. I'd need to see
| some citations to believe it.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _It 's not uncommon for countries to have a system
| where you essentially have to convince a human border
| guard that you are no threat with no clear guidelines._
|
| Canada is like this. I traveled to Canada with my father
| a few years ago. When we crossed the border I was
| driving; they asked both of us if we had any guns in the
| car. The answer was no and they were obviously free to
| search the car if they doubted that. But then they
| started grilling my dad about which guns he had at home,
| 500 miles away. How many shotguns do you own? What
| models? How many rifles do you own? Which models? How
| long have you owned these guns? What do you use them for?
|
| They didn't ask _me_ any of that though. I was 35, I
| could have owned as many guns as he did, but I didn 't
| and they seemed to know that already. I assume their
| system had access to some sort of database that flagged
| my father as a probable gun owner but not me. And the
| young border guard seemed intent to ask him invasive and
| utterly irrelevant questions to 'punish' him for this. I
| think the border guard was acting on individual
| initiative, because a few weeks later we entered Canada a
| second time and the border guards didn't even ask if we
| had guns in the car.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It's not like you have another phone you're trying to
| hide and pass this one off, right? So at that point, it
| is the only answer. They can not like it all they want,
| and they can spend as much time trying to find how you're
| gaming them, but if you're not actually gaming them, then
| that's their problem.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>but if you're not actually gaming them, then that's
| their problem.
|
| Is it? They have almost infinite time and money, they can
| follow false leads and accusations almost indefinitely,
| and whoever makes that decision will never be met with
| any kind of consequence for making the wrong call.
| However sitting in a cell somewhere while they wait for
| you to give them information that doesn't exist
| definitely sounds like your problem not theirs.
| nicolaslem wrote:
| "Trying to be smart? Sorry mate, no entry for you, enjoy
| your flight back home."
| JohnFen wrote:
| Why even bother with plausible activity? Just don't have your
| real phone with you at all. You can't produce what's not in
| your possession.
| notch656a wrote:
| "Oh you have no phone and nothing to search? There must be
| drugs up your asshole"
|
| <detained and search, strip-search invasively, cuffed,
| shackled, tossed in cell, taken to hospitals against my
| will (for 16 hours) where they lied to doctors. Warrant
| obtained (for external and 'internal' search). Taken (via
| prisoner van) to another hospital 60 miles away with more
| crooked doctor after first doctor refuses to go with the
| shenanigans. Finger printed, booked. Denied sleep and
| harassed every time you try to fall asleep. Forced to
| perform bodily functions in front of agents, who search
| what comes out. Eventually dumped at the border without
| apology -- hopefully if you have pets or children someone
| will take care of them because you're not entitled to a
| phone call or use of a phone in most circumstances.>
|
| My true story as a US citizen re-entering America. Enjoy!
| JohnFen wrote:
| There are (still) lots of US citizens who don't own a
| cellphone and so couldn't produce one. Are all of those
| subject to a cavity search? If that were common, I'd
| think I'd heard of it by now.
|
| In any case, if the choice is between having a copy of
| the contents of my phone made, or being detained and
| cavity-searched, I'll take the detention and cavity
| search.
| notch656a wrote:
| >In any case, if the choice is between having a copy of
| the contents of my phone made, or being detained and
| cavity-searched, I'll take the detention and cavity
| search.
|
| Obviously I would too, but if you haven't experienced
| this kind of detention I think you'll find people such as
| ourselves who would rather this than that are rare. And
| don't forget, once you're on the shit-list they will mark
| you on their computer and make you experience hell _for
| life_ everytime you enter the US. Ask me how I know.
| Ready to exercise some privacy today? Great, hope 30
| years down the road when you want to take the grandkids
| to Cabo you're ready for the whole party to get the Pablo
| Escabar lock-up experience. Want to get quick lunch
| across the border? Hope you informed your boss you may
| not be back to work tomorrow.
|
| I've effectively lost for life the ability most Americans
| have to have any expectation whatsoever they may be able
| to clear customs in a matter of hours. I have to plan to
| be in complete incommunicado from my family for 24 hours
| from the time I hit the border. I have to plan that most
| likely I'll be tossed in a cold cell, and perhaps get
| more Emergency Room bills after agents take me to doctors
| against my will. I have to prepare for the lawsuits that
| may come from any unpaid medical bills for medical
| service I never asked for and for which I was brought
| involuntarily (cuffed and shackled), which CBP officers
| have weaponized. I have to plan on never scheduling a
| flight back home the same day I enter the US, because
| most likely I'm going to miss it.
|
| >Are all of those subject to a cavity search? If that
| were common, I'd think I'd heard of it by now.
|
| Yes it's extremely common. Holy Cross Hospital in
| Nogalez, AZ has a steady stream of traffic bringing
| 'patients' in to be inspected in this manner and there
| are lawsuits for forceful penetration of women without a
| warrant as part of this practice as well. While the
| agents detained me they told me many many stories of
| others put through this treatment.
| joelhaasnoot wrote:
| I believe for many companies that do business in China this
| is already standard procedure, also for laptops
| tristor wrote:
| Lot's of people fantasizing about what they'll do at the border
| with weaponizing the data on a burner phone. Let me present a
| "simpler" and actually realistic option (only for US citizens) on
| how to handle this:
|
| 1. Have a reasonable amount of emergency savings (6-8 months of
| expenses stored).
|
| 2. Have someone in-country who isn't traveling with you who can
| make sure your bills get paid (financial power of attorney).
|
| 3. Apply for Global Entry, which pre-clears you for border
| crossing.
|
| 4. Turn your phone /off/ when you land (usually a 15-20 minute
| walk to passport control in most airports). Powering off is
| important.
|
| 5. Refuse to provide the password, refuse to unlock. Provide all
| relevant travel documents and customs declarations, and allow
| free inspection of your baggage.
|
| 6. Wait... depends on the agent. Longest I've been detained was 2
| days, most of the time they hem and haw for an hour or so and let
| you go.
|
| 7. Go on with your life.
|
| Step #1 and #2 is in case you get arrested, which will almost
| guarantee losing your job, at least for right then. Since you can
| clearly establish no priors and that you aren't a flight risk,
| getting bail and then finding another job should be relatively
| easy to do within 6-8 months for most of the HN crowd. Also,
| invest in pre-paid legal.
|
| Obviously, this is assuming things go mostly okay and you don't
| get murdered at the airport, however the realistic probability of
| this occurring is fantastically low (these types of crimes are
| almost always committed in the US by local law enforcement, not
| federal law enforcement, as feds undergo much more stringent
| requirements and aren't just your high school bully drunk on
| power with a gun).
|
| Steps #1 and #2 you should be doing anyway, just out of good
| financial sense. Step #3 you should do anyway if you're traveling
| internationally regularly just to make your life easier when
| black swan events don't happen. And Step #4 you should do EVERY
| time you are about to let your phone out of your possession,
| whether involving the government or not, because it prevents most
| forms of attacks against an encrypted device and disables
| biometric unlock (which can be coerced/forced/done when you are
| dead).
|
| The hardest step is honestly #7, because after what I've
| experienced in my travels (and let me tell you, the US CBP is
| MUCH MUCH more professional, courteous, and reasonable than many
| many other countries), nobody really believes you and there are
| way too many people that are apologists for the powerful.
| Governments, pretty much universally, suck. The only difference
| between whether you personally experience the suck or not is
| whether or not you happen to get randomly selected or fall
| outside the bounds of what the government expects of you. There
| is no requirement that you do anything "wrong" in either the
| moral or legal sense, to end up stuck in the suck. Embrace the
| suck early if you plan to exercise your rights, because doing so
| will bring the suck on to you full force, but if you're the self-
| righteous type at least you'll get some sense of satisfaction out
| of it.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| What are some of the less reasonable and courteous (but still
| first world) countries?
| MockObject wrote:
| So you've been asked to unlock your phone, and refused, but
| were eventually released and allowed to enter? Which country?
| tristor wrote:
| Yes, it's happened to me twice, both times crossing from
| Canada to the US on a land border entry. There was a short
| period of time where the CBP was doing this in droves on
| Canada land border entries. The way it's generally structured
| is they ask permission, and if you refuse, they can't really
| do anything without a court order and can only hold you at
| most 72 hours. The time I was held up for 2 days was because
| they wanted to further inspect my vehicle, which I can't
| prevent. The only thing you really have any possible way to
| control is your digital devices, anything physically on your
| person / in your possession is open to physical inspection at
| a border entry point and there's no legal means to prevent
| it, so there's no point in even arguing. Your phone you
| /must/ relinquish to them, but you can refuse to unlock it if
| it's locked with a password. The only way to get around it is
| a court order, which they're not going to bother with if
| you're not actually suspected of anything.
|
| Of course, YMMV, which is why I say the most important thing
| is realizing you could absolutely be arrested and charged for
| something stupid if you refuse, and should have 6-8 months of
| financial coverage. And of course, any non-citizen can be
| refused entry arbitrarily with no recourse.
|
| FTA "(CBP) leaders have admitted to lawmakers in a briefing
| that its officials are adding information to a database from
| as many as 10,000 devices every year" this is not a rare
| occurrence, it's rare in the grand scheme of things because
| there's so many travelers in/out of the US, but it's not
| really that rare. If you travel internationally often enough,
| especially at land borders (I don't know why, but these get
| hassled more in my experience than airports), you will likely
| eventually get asked.
| kennend3 wrote:
| This demonstrates a clear lack of understanding on the
| rules and how ports of entry are "special"
|
| > There was a short period of time where the CBP was doing
| this in droves on Canada land border entries. The way it's
| generally structured is they ask permission, and if you
| refuse, they can't really do anything without a court order
| and can only hold you at most 72 hours.
|
| They can do worse, they can :
|
| - enforce travel bans (starting at 5 years) and issue large
| fines.
|
| - Failure to grant access to your digital device may result
| in the detention of that device under section 101 of the
| Customs Act, or seizure of the device under subsection 140
| (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
|
| The Border has its own special laws, especially entering
| the US where it is a "constitutional free zone". The US
| really is an odd case as this extends 100 miles INTO the
| US.
|
| https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-
| zone
| tristor wrote:
| > enforce travel bans (starting at 5 years) and issue
| large fines.
|
| This only affects future travel and is subject to court
| oversight. You cannot be refused entry as a US citizen.
| You can however find that just on the other side of the
| border you'll be sitting in a detention holding cell.
|
| > Failure to grant access to your digital device may
| result in the detention of that device under section 101
| of the Customs Act, or seizure of the device under
| subsection 140 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee
| Protection Act.
|
| Yes, they have broad powers of search and seizure for
| anything physically in your possession when you cross the
| border. You MUST physically turn over the device, you
| have no legal recourse. You do not have to give them the
| password or unlock it for them (short of a court order
| compelling you to do so). They can absolutely just take
| your phone and laptop and essentially never give it back
| if it's considered evidence in an ongoing investigation.
| In practice, they generally return them when you are
| released, and if they hold them longer are required to
| return them within 30 days if it's not part of an ongoing
| investigation.
|
| If you are traveling internationally and want to protect
| your rights and your privacy, it's a good idea to have a
| lot of money so you can afford possible job loss due to
| detention, to pay for attorneys, and to buy new
| electronics if/when they are seized. This is kind of
| implied and somewhat explicitly said in my original
| comment.
| MockObject wrote:
| That sounds dreadful. Do you suppose there was any
| particular reason for this treatment, or was it pure random
| chance?
| tristor wrote:
| Most likely random chance, but it's possible it's due to
| how many times I crossed that border. At the time I was
| doing contract work for a company in Canada but staying
| in upstate New York so was crossing the border nearly
| daily for several months, similar situation the second
| time but on the other coast.
|
| You could say it's random chance and the frequency of my
| crossings rolled the dice enough my number came up or
| that I was singled out due to frequent crossings being
| somehow suspicious, either way nothing really came of it
| as everything I was doing was business related and above
| board.
| rexreed wrote:
| Which country(s) other than the US were the most problematic /
| worst? Personally I've had more aggravation at the Canadian
| border than any European country.
| tristor wrote:
| Many countries are worse to deal with than the US at the
| border during entry. Ironically, most of the worst ones are
| wealthy / "low corruption" countries, because they have well-
| paid, interested people at the border, who also don't like
| having their authority challenged in any way. The UK and
| Canada are both significantly worse to deal with than the US,
| probably my worst experience on entry though was Australia.
| IMO, the Australian government is maliciously incompetent at
| every level /and/ at the same time fastidiously aligned to
| their maliciously incompetent policies. A lot of folks in the
| West don't realize that Australia is closer to China than the
| US when it comes to digital freedom and privacy.
|
| All the less-wealthy and "more corrupt" places I've traveled
| were far easier to deal with at the border. It's happened so
| many times I've lost count that the border agent didn't even
| look at me /or/ my passport before stamping a random page and
| yelling "Next". This doesn't happen in countries where the
| person at the border is well-paid and engaged in their job,
| it happens when they are bored, disinterested, and just want
| to go home. With one exception, all my worst border
| experiences were in wealthy countries. The one exception I
| won't discuss in detail publicly, but it was while leaving,
| not arriving, and at any rate wasn't due to their border
| agency but rather their secret police mistaking me for a
| journalist.
|
| Another observation I have is that only foreigners really get
| the worst treatment, so this may be why I haven't felt so
| badly about the US CBP, while I hear from my non-American
| friends and acquaintances that the US is the worst one to
| deal with. I'm sure any citizens of the countries I've
| mentioned will be quick to defend them in the comments in
| reply. After all, when you're a citizen, it's generally
| pretty painless to get back into the country of your
| citizenship. As a foreigner you face more scrutiny and have
| less legal protections.
| kennend3 wrote:
| I'm Canadian and lived in the US for 5 years and crossed
| back and forth at least once a month.
|
| I agree, Canada's border crossing is worse.
|
| I've crossed the US with underage children without their
| mother present several times.
|
| US customs hauled the kids out of the car and took them to
| a secure location and asked them where they are going, if
| their mother knows where they are, etc.
|
| This makes perfect sense and I'm glad the US customs
| officers took the time to do this. They are doing their
| job, preventing child abductions, etc and it was
| outstanding to see it being done.
|
| Entering Canada it seems they only care about one thing :
| What do you have they can tax you on.
|
| I wont be surprised to see the day when Canada measures how
| much gas is in your car, and if it exceeds an arbitrary
| amount tax you on this too.
| tarunupaday wrote:
| This (and similar issues) is the main reason that I donate a non-
| trivial (10%) part of my earnings to ACLU (and 2 other)
| organization.
|
| Our rights and freedoms do not come without struggle. And they
| sure do not last without somebody constantly defending them. And
| it's only bravado to assume that we can stand against the might
| of federal agents as individuals without dedicated organizations
| fighting for us.
|
| Please donate to ACLU - as much as you can.
| thingification wrote:
| Not claiming that ACLU does nothing useful -- I certainly don't
| know enough to say -- but what do you think about this (which
| suggests to me a damaged commitment to civil liberties):
|
| https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/01/30/the-aclu-reverses-...
|
| What other organisations do you donate to along the same lines?
| hnbad wrote:
| Maybe it's just me but all unironic use of the term
| "wokeness", especially as an accusation, should be limited to
| post New Atheism era or Gamer Gate era YouTube channels by
| faceless cartoon narrators calling themselves things like
| Skeptical Panda, Truthoid or
| ${obscure_bronze_age_ruler_here}.
|
| It just instantly sinks any attempt at seriousness. The
| website might as well be called _Destroying Creationists with
| Facts and Logic_ after publishing an article with a headline
| like that.
| awofford wrote:
| ACLU is a shadow of what it once was. Their unprincipled
| wavering on free speech ensures that I will not be donating to
| them. I would, however, love some new recommendations for where
| those donations can go.
| hnbad wrote:
| If you are looking for something more right libertarian or
| conservative-supported, you probably want FIRE.
|
| If you are looking for something more consistently
| progressive or liberal-supported, you might want to give the
| EFF a try.
|
| If you specifically care about free speech above all, you're
| probably right libertarian. It's fine. There's no such thing
| as centrism in real life politics and an individual's
| political alignments can vary drastically in different issues
| rather than line up perfectly with any specific political
| movement. Especially if you consider yourself apolitical or
| haven't really reflected on the entirety of your political
| beliefs and how they interact with each other (most people
| haven't).
| throwaway12557 wrote:
| This recently happened to me earlier this year. I am a U.S.
| citizen, coming back to the states from South America. I have not
| broken any laws nor do I intend to.
|
| I put up a fuss and almost missed my flight, but they took both
| my laptop and cellphone into a back room with about 5-8 other
| people on my flight. Made me unlock of course.
|
| Here is the pamphlet they let me take... saved and documented.
| They take down hardware addresses and more, and would not allow
| lawyers on the scene or for me to witness their search. Here are
| all the pages of the pamphlet:
|
| https://imgur.com/a/qNovC83
|
| As a tech worker and privacy advocate for all I was rightfully
| not thrilled. I still need to buy new hardware, I had no idea
| this was the case as far as data storage and 15 years but figured
| they probably upload malware and all that fun stuff. Neat. I have
| been a citizen my whole life.
|
| Reading through the comments now, I am glad I learned a little.
| If they pull the stunt again I will happily deny and wait however
| long and just rebook a flight and maybe hire a lawyer. It's a
| gross abuse of power.
| MrDresden wrote:
| As a European I find it strange how the article and many comments
| here seem to focus only on it being US citizen's data being
| hovered up by the boarder control.
|
| No one's private data should be taken without a legitimate cause,
| no matter their nationality.
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| Why strange if we very much do the same at external borders?
| Especially asylum seekers who get their phones confiscated but
| all in all the system is very similar when you entry outside
| Schengen, only imo Americans are more paranoid in a good way,
| about their privacy unlike euros.
| pessimizer wrote:
| You have to reset your perspective to a US one that believes
| that US laws only protect US citizens, and even those
| protections stop 100 miles from the border.
|
| It not at all evident that it is illegal for the US to
| summarily execute US citizens without trial if they are outside
| of US borders. The data protections of Europeans are without
| question non-existent. Europe would be upset if we did it
| anyway, since Europe depends on us to bypass its own domestic
| spying restrictions.
| pdimitar wrote:
| Honestly, as a non-American this scares me. I am absolutely not
| at all important and a fairly mediocre programmer as well, I
| don't store compromising data about anyone, never stole code or
| company data in my life (and never will), etc., you get it. A
| normal law-abiding citizen.
|
| I still don't want to get my phone taken on an US airport and
| returned an hour later with God knows how many viruses that even
| Apple wouldn't be able to detect on my iPhone.
|
| It's not about having something to hide. It's about not liking it
| when people poke their noses in your business without you being a
| criminal. And no I don't think installing backdoors on each
| device "to catch the criminals more easily" is a solution at all.
| Bakary wrote:
| The elephant in the room in this case is that at a most basic
| level a State is an entity that maintains a (near) monopoly of
| violence in a given area. Being a normal law-abiding citizen
| just means that you are currently functioning in an area where
| the State's goals somewhat coincide with you living with some
| degree of freedom and comfort. Or at least they have no current
| incentive to mess with your life. But the whole system of laws
| we see as normal is just an abstraction that masks the balance
| of power which is in itself not that different from gang
| warfare at a higher scale.
|
| When you are disturbed by having your phone searched, what is
| happening is that the balance has shifted a bit against your
| favor, and you subconsciously realize that your position is not
| as safe as it once was. But it was never truly safe, just
| stable in a certain point and time. The fact that you are not a
| criminal is irrelevant, because respecting or not respecting
| the law is very relative. The mental separation between the
| criminal and the law-abider is fictional in that both are just
| on a spectrum of usefulness and loyalty to the State.
| toss1 wrote:
| True
|
| OTOH, without the state, you have anarchy, which is
| inevitably and quickly filled by warlords or criminal gangs
| controlling whatever geographic and/or economic territory
| they can. The security situation in relation tho them is even
| less good, and you don't get nearly as much good
| infrastructure.
|
| So, it's important to keep in mind the broader context and
| what really is a lesser of evils.
|
| Unless, of course, you can point me to the magical stable
| stateless advanced society where I can go live... (srsly,
| it'd be great)
| vlod wrote:
| This is a good opportunity to test your backup/restore from the
| cloud functionality.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >It's not about having something to hide. It's about not liking
| it when people poke their noses in your business without you
| being a criminal. And no I don't think installing backdoors on
| each device "to catch the criminals more easily" is a solution
| at all.
|
| As an American, I couldn't agree more.
|
| It's been a while since I've been outside the US, but given how
| so many (not least of which is the US) countries are doing
| intrusive things with mobile devices at the border, I will most
| certainly back up (nandroid, which I do anyway for backups) my
| phone and flash a stock ROM before leaving the US.
|
| Upon my return, I'll restore my backup and pick up where I left
| off.
|
| Not because I have anything very interesting (to law
| "enforcement", or anyone other than me for that matter), but
| rather because my business is my business and no one else's.
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| Also, I'm sure the US isn't the only country that does this. So
| if you travel internationally at all, you're essentially boned
| when it comes to personal privacy.
| browningstreet wrote:
| On my last trip back from Europe in June, when I re-entered the
| US, US Customs & Border Control didn't ask for my passport. No
| one did. They did wave a webcam connected to a computer in front
| of my face, and then a moment later, called out my name and said
| I could enter. Same with everyone coming through the
| international border area.
|
| I think that's just as weird a development and worthy of "WTH?"
| as this topic.
| [deleted]
| pradn wrote:
| At the passport control kiosks, they can just scan your face
| and give you an exit ticket. It was super quick, and
| surprising. I was able to skip talking to an immigration agent
| completely. They can do this because they have photos of me
| from previous kiosk visits, and because they can restrict the
| universe of photos they need to check to just those who were on
| recent flights. I wonder how well it works for twins traveling
| together or something. For any level of uncertainty, they can
| just have you go talk to a human instead.
| Grimburger wrote:
| Pretty much all passports have biometrics now. I assume they
| can work out who you are from that.
|
| In Australia it's an autogate with a face scan for citizens and
| PR's, you only deal with a person if it can't identify you,
| which is rare.
| kube-system wrote:
| All US passports issued in the past 15 years are biometric
| passports.
| markus92 wrote:
| Do you have global entry?
| browningstreet wrote:
| No, but I do have TSA Pre, and this was the open entry point
| for all US citizens.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Were you on the illusion that they didn't have your biometric
| data? Or that they didn't have the passenger list with your
| name in it? Those two are pretty transparent (and honestly, not
| a big deal).
| dc-programmer wrote:
| Does biometric here mean your passport photo? I totally
| believe this is the official name, but the nomenclature
| definitely opens up the possibility of concept creep so that
| biometric data can mean anything from the mundane to the
| terrifying
| marcosdumay wrote:
| A set of high quality photos, from a few different angles,
| a set of fingerprints, and quite possibly a sample of your
| writing gait. Also, very likely, some measurement of your
| height.
|
| Those are pretty standard for most countries.
| dc-programmer wrote:
| Thanks for the info, I was wondering what all was
| involved. I still think that falls under the mundane
| Grimburger wrote:
| > Does biometric here mean your passport photo?
|
| Yes, in my country it also is updated with the most recent
| driver license photos.
| browningstreet wrote:
| I think federal facial recognition feels like a pretty big
| deal. But I also realize the egg's been cracked.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| BOS got unstaffed camera kiosks some years back, and being the
| wise-ass I am, I made a funny face for the camera, figuring the
| picture would end up stored for all eternity on a computer,
| never having been seen by human eyes.
|
| At that point in time, they were still having humans in the
| loop, and I got a different kind of funny look from the customs
| or immigration person I spoke to some minutes later.
|
| I got a third kind of funny look once we were allowed back into
| the country from my highly unamused wife...
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Never have fun with border control. Know your audience.
| pigtailgirl wrote:
| -- dad only had two hard fast rules with us growing up -
| never ever ride a motorbike - never ever joke around at
| border control --
| technothrasher wrote:
| I took a bus many years ago from Rochester, NY to Toronto,
| ON. As ID for crossing the border, I only had my driver's
| license, not my passport, as this was allowed at the time.
| But the border agent was a bit grumpy about it for some
| reason. He asked if I had a birth certificate, and I
| thought I'd be cute about it and responded, "Sure, of
| course I've got one... but not with me! :D" He stared at me
| dead faced and just said, "Go over there and wait in line
| J". Line J felt kind of like "The group W bench" from the
| song Alice's Restaurant. I waited in that line for about 45
| minutes for the new border agent to give me a tired look
| and then wave me through. The rest of the passengers on the
| bus waiting for me were not amused.
| trident5000 wrote:
| The reasons stuff like this happens is because there are no
| punitive repercussions such as jail time for the officials that
| oversee the programs. All that happens is a judge eventually
| strikes it down. This needs to change.
| bigbacaloa wrote:
| How is this constitutional?
|
| If it is, why the hell hasn't the broken constitution been fixed?
|
| This is fascism.
| eriknj99 wrote:
| I wonder how much trouble I would get in if I broke my phone in
| half before handing it over to the agents. I can't imagine it
| would go over well, especially with the damaged lithium ion
| battery and broken glass involved.
| vageli wrote:
| I'm not sure I missed something, the title says "Americans" but I
| couldn't find an elaboration on exactly _who_ is subject to these
| searches. The ACLU [0] seems to contend that, at least, US
| citizens are not subject to these measures.
|
| [0]: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-
| encounter...
| laweijfmvo wrote:
| Also relevant/interesting is this "exception" the US government
| claims to the Constitution: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-
| rights/border-zone
|
| I've heard of "border" being applied to anywhere 100 miles from
| an _airport_, but can't find the reference, which would cover
| like 99% of the country.
| JohnFen wrote:
| From international airports. International airports
| themselves count as "the border", for obvious reasons.
| jaarse wrote:
| From reading the directive it appears as though they don't have
| an exemption for Americans:
| https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/PIA-CBP...
|
| Of course the official response is what you would expect:
|
| "CBP officials declined, however, to answer questions about how
| many Americans' phone records are in the database, how many
| searches have been run or how long the practice has gone on,
| saying it has made no additional statistics available "due to
| law enforcement sensitivities and national security
| implications.""
| KMnO4 wrote:
| > national security implications
|
| There's nothing more American than spying on your own people
| and blaming it on terrorists.
| freeflight wrote:
| Or make them spy on each other to find even more
| "terrorists" [0]
|
| [0] https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something
| londons_explore wrote:
| A government that doesn't keep good enough control if it's
| people will soon be overthrown.
|
| When you give the people more freedom to protest, organise,
| mass communicate easily etc, you also have to add equal
| amounts of monitoring and restrictions to make sure that
| next movement to overthrow the government can't pick up
| speed without you catching it.
| thesuitonym wrote:
| A government controlled by its people, instead of
| controlling its people, doesn't need to worry about being
| overthrown.
| lazyier wrote:
| Yeah, but that defeats the purpose of creating the state
| in the first place.
|
| The entire point is being able to tell people what to do
| for your own profit.
|
| It's a lot easier if you pretend you are doing it for the
| subject's benefit as it reduces the resistance to rule
| immensely. But you don't want to let that go too far or
| they start getting a big head and start thinking that
| paying you billions of dollars is optional.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| There are legitimate reasons for a State to exist.
| throwawayacc2 wrote:
| We wouldn't want those pesky commies, ahh sorry, that was
| the 50s and 60s, those darn uppity negroes, ahh sorry
| again, my bad, that was civil rights era, those blasted
| ... err, commies again? They made a comeback in the 80s
| it seems. Ahh there it is. We don't want those crazy
| islamist terrorists harming our people. We need to
| protect your freedom ... by curtailing it, of course.
|
| Sorry, sorry, I've just been informed, the boogieman is
| no longer islamic terrorists. Now, it's called radical
| white supremacist qanon Jan 6 anti vax conspiracy incel
| nationalist. My bad. I apologise.
|
| But the curtailing of freedom will continue and the
| surveillance will increase. In order to safeguard our
| freedom and privacy, of course.
| toss1 wrote:
| If you cannot see the difference between civil rights
| movements attempting to change governing to be more even-
| handed vs expansionist authoritarian governments or
| movements attempting to destroy democratic governments
| altogether, you need serious help (and should at least
| stop broadcasting your ignorance).
| tristor wrote:
| It's less about the difference between these groups and
| more about the response to these groups. It is your
| politics showing in your response rather than the person
| you are replying to... do you think they don't believe
| that Islamic terrorists exist (which they mentioned)? At
| no point in the history of the government national
| security apparatus has the target and its veracity made
| any difference in the trend line of the government doing
| more surveillance and curtailing more freedoms. Don't
| believe me? Do some research on COINTELPRO.
| toss1 wrote:
| Your argument, and that of many others here, seems to be
| that any govt surveillance is illegitimate, and that govt
| cannot have any legitimate reason to capture information
| on anyone.
|
| There couldn't be any actual reason for intelligence
| operations. "It is your politics showing".
|
| Any such view is hopelessly ignorant and naive, yet it
| pops up here often.
|
| The person to whom I'm replying is blatantly implying
| that it is nothing but a variety of illegitimate excuses
| that form a false justification for intelligence
| operations.
|
| This is even more ignorant than usual, as none of those
| are the source of intelligence gathering, which predates
| all of them.
|
| Yes, I'm familiar with COINTELPRO, a horde of illegal FBI
| operations, and many other excesses among the 17
| intelligence agencies. I also note that these were
| ILLEGAL and shut down. I also note that intelligence has
| been twisted and abused by politicians, including bogh
| Bush presidents (Bush Sr. let exaggerated estimates of
| Soviet mil funding drive our mil funding, which did have
| the good result of collapsing the SU, and Jr abused intel
| to wrongly justify the Iraq invasion on WMD grounds).
|
| I'm know enough to see that while the excesses and even
| abuses do matter a lot, they are not a justification for
| ending all intelligence, whether domestic or
| international. If you want to do that, we might as well
| simply declare anarchy, and let everyone deal with the
| criminals and warlords who will take over, and that's no
| exaggeration.
| throwawayacc2 wrote:
| > If you want to do that, we might as well simply declare
| anarchy, and let everyone deal with the criminals and
| warlords who will take over, and that's no exaggeration.
|
| Bruv ...
|
| Honestly I can't tell if you're for real or no. You
| already did that! California. People robbing stores in
| broad daylight, nothing happens to them. Chicago. Do I
| need to say anything about that third world enclave?
| Bloody hell man, chaz. A literal warlord took over!
|
| What are you doing to yourselves? Snap out of it America!
| toss1 wrote:
| Ha -- right you are!
|
| It has already been tried, both the ages before govt,
| every time govt fell down, and in the case of San
| Francisco, just got way too lax.
|
| The idea that we can somehow get away without governance
| (or intelligence ops, or policing) is born completely of
| very high privilege -- it completely assumes that all the
| things that the govt does just happen automatically.
|
| It is just like the idiot new manager who arrives and
| sees that the halls and offices are clean so fires the
| janitorial staff as excess cost or because they are
| inconvenient.
|
| Of course there are overreaches and abuses of
| intelligence, and the very concept of policing and
| everything about it's training, practice, accountability,
| and results needs to be burnt to the ground and
| overhauled.
|
| But that does NOT mean that we can get away without it.
| Because, as you noted, even a little time without it
| becomes a disaster.
|
| The key is not to abandon intelligence. The key is to
| strengthen democracy, make sure that the institutions of
| democracy, lawmaking, executive, judicial, press,
| academia, industry, ngos, and individual people all have
| their own separate power base and independence.
|
| In autocracies, all of these are bent to the service of
| the leader/oligarch.
|
| In democracies, there are all kinds of visible flaws, but
| they tend to be self-correcting, because there is
| oversight and balance of power. That alone does not
| prevent overreach or abuses, but it does lead to them
| being eventually corrected.
|
| As Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of
| government, except for all others."
| notch656a wrote:
| Believing government acts on your behalf reeks of 'very
| high privilege.' If you think shop-keeps won't protect
| their stores once the chains of SF/Cali government come
| off, I have a bridge to sell you.
|
| Edit: thank you for spelling correction. Wreaks changed
| to reeks
| toss1 wrote:
| Of course the shop-keeps will attmpt to protect their
| stores. That is completely beside the point.
|
| The point is that without a democratic government that is
| at least attempting to self-govern, the alternative is
| either a new autocracy comes in (see Russia, CCP,
| Venezuela, Myanmar, etc.), or it starts with anarchy, and
| quickly falls to the first crimelord/warlord.
|
| Every one of those options is far worse than a flawed
| democracy.
|
| Unless, of course, you can point me to the magical stable
| stateless advanced society where I can go live... (srsly,
| it'd be great)
|
| And no, believing government acts on your behalf does not
| "wreaks of 'very high privilege.'". Aside from the fact
| that the word you want is "reeks" (as in smells bad, not
| inflicting punishment of vengeance), thinking that an
| attempt at democratic govt is less bad than being ruled
| by a crimelord, warlord, or fascist autocrat is not high
| privilege, it is simply a fact. Being able to live in
| such a democratic govt is, sadly, a bit of a privilege,
| as many are not so fortunate.
| [deleted]
| xoa wrote:
| There is a split here between law and practicality for many
| people I guess. As a matter of law for US Citizens it doesn't
| matter whether there is an "exemption" or not: a US Citizen
| may not be denied entry at a land port of entry, period.
| Their property can potentially be taken but only with legal
| process and it can't be kept indefinitely without violation
| of law. If they're wanted for a crime they can of course be
| arrested from which the normal legal process within the US
| plays out, but all the normal requirements are there too.
| They can be asked additional questions and put through more
| inspection, but with citizenship established that's it. So if
| someone simply refuses to answer any questions or unlock
| their phone and there is no further reasonable cause there is
| nothing the CBP can legally do to keep them out.
|
| But as a practical matter most people don't want to spend an
| extra hour or hours or even extra minutes going through a
| more detailed search for contraband or whatever else. Most
| don't want to, aren't ready for and/or can't afford having
| electronic devices held for days/weeks before getting them
| back. A lot of people simply don't know their rights. So
| without an explicit exemption a lot of Americans undoubtedly
| would submit "voluntarily".
|
| So the ACLU isn't wrong (and their actual page is
| appropriately more nuanced [0]): Americans aren't "subject"
| in the legal sense to this, or to any other questions beyond
| what's needed to establish citizenship. Having done so they
| may politely insist on entry and refuse anything else, demand
| to see a supervisor if an agent persists in unconstitutional
| questioning, submit any property required while in response
| demanding receipts and pursuing complaints or legal action
| afterwards (or both), and at the end of the day the CBP must
| put up or shut up: let them through or arrest them, and for
| the latter will have to meet the legal standard and it'll all
| play out domestically. But at the same time the financial and
| other burdens this imposes are very real and serious.
|
| Best practice would be to go as "clean" through the border as
| possible, preferably with a dedicated phone that only has
| minimum necessary travel and navigation data on it and
| nothing else, no logging into any personal accounts of any
| kind, no bookmarks or the like, and cheap enough to not care
| about losing it. Then one can just let border agents look
| through whatever as much as they'd like, or let them take it
| and just write it off. Not everyone can or knows to even
| consider that possibility though. And of course the vast
| majority never have a problem, so it's insurance against a
| "black swan event" for the average person (those who suspect
| they'll be subject to heightened scrutiny legally or not may
| already do this). It's valuable to note both the exact state
| of the law _and_ when the practical effect is different.
|
| ----
|
| 0: ACLU: "If you are a U.S. citizen, you need only answer
| questions establishing your identity and citizenship,
| _although refusing to answer routine questions about the
| nature and purpose of your travel could result in delay and
| /or further inspection_." Or later "U.S. citizens have the
| right to enter the United States, so if you are a U.S.
| citizen and the officers' questions become intrusive, you can
| decline to answer those questions, _but you should be aware
| that doing so may result in delay and /or further
| inspection_".
|
| So the ACLU does acknowledge a practical cost to insisting on
| your rights, they aren't merely blindly saying "not subject".
| jameshart wrote:
| And of course non-Citizens presenting for entry at the
| border _are_ subject to the coercion that refusal to comply
| will likely result in entry being refused. Noncitizens do
| actually still have human rights (something Americans often
| seem to forget - 'I can't believe they used a dronestrike
| on a US citizen', etc)
|
| But take the example of a person who has been issued a
| visa, looking to enter the US with the intent to immigrate
| legally, doing everything by the book. On their phone they
| likely have all the privileged communications with their
| immigration attorney - all the conversations about which
| visa strategy to pursue, etc. now they're at the border,
| they can be pressured by an agent into handing that data
| over 'voluntarily'. What protections does that person have
| as to how that information is used in respect of their
| future immigration application? Are they entitled to due
| process protections? Have they waived attorney client
| privilege? Once they later become a citizen, is that data
| still on file and searchable by DHS?
|
| Or a green-card holding US resident, returning home from a
| business trip, with corporate data on their phone - can
| they refuse to hand it over, and risk being refused entry
| and heap or fixing their US residency? If they can't, does
| that mean some employers might refuse to hire green card
| holders to mitigate such risks?
|
| This data collection is egregious even when applied to
| noncitizens.
| xoa wrote:
| Sorry, 5 comments in a few hours triggered HN's rate
| limiting, "sorry you are posting too fast", so I couldn't
| reply earlier. Not sure if you'll still see this but
| since I wrote it anyway:
|
| > _And of course non-Citizens presenting for entry at the
| border are subject to the coercion that refusal to comply
| will likely result in entry being refused. Noncitizens do
| actually still have human rights_
|
| Certainly, but this sub-thread is specifically about
| Americans, so that's what I was sticking to. That said
| yes, non-citizens do not have any right of entry.
| However, that is the norm worldwide not the exception.
| There is no universal "human right" to enter any country
| except as a refugee or someone seeking asylum per
| ratified treaties or domestic law. The basic idea of a
| "sovereign nation" is somewhat bound up with the
| capability of border control and distinguishing the
| nation from the world. There are lots and lots of very
| reasonable disagreements on what said controls should be,
| what exceptions, and so on. But "completely open borders"
| is a fairly niche position. This at least isn't merely a
| US thing, I would exercise some level of caution for
| international travel anywhere on the planet when it comes
| to personal property and devices, or even just my own
| liberty. Different countries can have radically different
| legal regimes. If any of us are traveling somewhere we
| don't have any inherent legal right to be, then naturally
| there is some leverage there in terms of what conditions
| might be set for our entry.
|
| > _This data collection is egregious even when applied to
| noncitizens._
|
| I do agree (and I think it's generally agreed upon in
| civil liberties circles) that the global increase in data
| collection, storage, and processing capabilities is not
| merely "worrisome" but prone to abuse and in fact
| actively abused. It's a bad thing. I'd personally go
| farther in that I lean towards the idea that a lot of
| modern electronic devices should be considered almost as
| "exo cortexes", extensions of our minds that should have
| the same kind of protection as the contents of our minds
| (and that protection should be total). This is another
| area where tech has raced ahead of societal reckoning.
|
| As far as individual reactions though I'd say the same
| thing as for business secrets or whatever else: the best
| thing to do is to just not have it on you, have no
| ability to get it either, have other humans who know your
| travel plans and can check on you, know what rights you
| do have, where to make complaints, and most of all have
| fallbacks if things don't work out. That alone is very
| empowering. If some data is vitally important and private
| to the level you describe, perhaps stick it onto an
| encrypted image on a USB stick and mail it separately or
| something along those lines. Or via private online
| transfer of which there are many, but something
| completely out of band from your own physical person.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| CBP will happily dismantle your car and give it back to you
| in pieces.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| It's tiring that "national security" is thrown around to
| justify stonewalling. Does anyone audit the "national
| security" excuse? An Ombudsman?
|
| Where does policing end and national security begin?
|
| Oh well, I'll buy a thin-blue-line flag for my lawn and sleep
| easy, trust the good-guys.
| pydry wrote:
| Did this ever not happen?
|
| To fight these people you have to be some combination of
| powerful, morally spotless and willing to make great
| personal sacrifices - like Chelsea Manning.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| The last 3 words were so unexpected...
| Spooky23 wrote:
| They cannot deny a US citizen entry, but they can still mess
| with you.
| ep103 wrote:
| I mean, that's great and all, but IIRC this Supreme Court has
| been instituting a policy of Absolute Immunity related to
| immigration issues via Egbert v. Boule. If one has absolute
| immunity, the law simply isn't a concern for federal border
| security.
| giantg2 wrote:
| If I remember correctly, it's not complete immunity, but they
| require a compensation mechanism approved by congress for any
| issue that doesn't have prior history of being compensated
| explicitly similar to the situation at hand. It's like 99%
| immunity.
| ep103 wrote:
| Right, so federal agents receive absolute immunity by
| default, and this is guaranteed to continue for every new
| issue, unless Congress magically becomes un-gridlocked in
| the meanwhile AND chooses to solve this issue AND chooses
| to do so every time a new unprecedent issue occurs
| involving a federal agent.
| giantg2 wrote:
| It's not _absolute_. It 's just the default. There are
| specific scenarios where it doesn't apply.
| nomdep wrote:
| They are searching anybody who they please, _even_ Americans
| mercy_dude wrote:
| ACLU has turned into a joke, I wouldn't be surprised at this
| point if they work with those nation state apparatus.
| pigtailgirl wrote:
| https://legalservicesincorporated.com/immigration/border-pho...
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/10/22276183/us-appeals-court...
|
| "The court held that the government's policy, described above,
| does not violate the Constitution. Border officers can continue
| to perform advanced searches without a warrant or probable
| cause and can perform basic searches without reasonable
| suspicion that there may be a violation of law or a national
| security concern."
| throwoutway wrote:
| The ACLU is wrong. The border does it all the time. Here is the
| one that sticks out in my mind as the most popular case:
|
| https://gizmodo.com/border-agent-demands-nasa-scientist-unlo...
| xoa wrote:
| > _The ACLU is wrong. The border does it all the time. Here
| is the one that sticks out in my mind as the most popular
| case:_
|
| The ACLU is _not_ wrong, if you actually read their actual
| words. Your case doesn 't say what you think it does. From
| your own article:
|
| > _Bikkannavar insisted that he wasn't allowed to do that
| because the phone belonged to NASA's JPL and he's required to
| protect access. Agents insisted and he finally relented._
|
| As far as the law is concerned, he voluntarily let them look
| at it. It doesn't matter if they "insisted", he could have
| told them to pound sand. They could have kept the phone, but
| in its locked state it presumably wouldn't be that useful,
| and particularly since it wasn't merely a personal device
| JPL's legal department then could have easily gone right
| after them for it and won. Just because we have the legal
| right to something doesn't mean there is some magic barrier
| preventing LEOs from attempting to violating them, or
| implying the right doesn't exist. They have to be defended by
| people exercising them and potentially going to court. The
| very next paragraph states:
|
| > _Hassan Shibly, chief executive director of CAIR Florida,
| tells The Verge that most people who are shown the form
| giving CBP authority to search their device believe that they
| have an obligation to help the agents. "They're not obligated
| to unlock the phone," she says._
|
| Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look
| around" or "ask a few questions". They may certainly _ask_
| that. You may choose to cooperate. But in general you 'd be a
| fool to do so, and you also may say "no". If they arrest you
| they were almost certainly going to do so anyway but now they
| have less to go on and with more avenues to challenge it, and
| if they arrest you over exercising your rights you have a
| strong cause of action right there. CBP agents may well ask
| people this sort of thing all the time, but that doesn't mean
| citizens must comply.
| oneplane wrote:
| That sounds great when typing it up on the internet in a
| comfortable chair, but when a few power hungry workers with
| guns are breathing down your neck in a small room you can't
| get out of, the rules aren't going to make you feel 'safe'.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Eh, right are only rights if they are enforced and/or
| asserted. If neither is done, at best, they are forgotten
| and wither and at worst become a quaint memory of things
| that were.
|
| The rules exist for a reason. They also exist for people
| with guns; especially for people that do it on behalf of
| government. If you are afraid of guns from people in
| uniform, you are already doing it wrong. I will tell you
| this as an interesting little factoid.
|
| In Israel guns are everywhere, but you are responsible
| for every single bullet.
| oneplane wrote:
| It's not the guns that are the problem in this scenario,
| it's the person holding it. If they feel like they can
| get away with anything, no rule will help you. And even
| if down the line you get your day in court, you'll still
| be the one shot.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| You might be onto something. Being able to gauge the
| person behind gun is probably helpful.
|
| Long time ago in country far away, we was traveling
| through a soon to be former Soviet satellite country. My
| brother got really sick. We were worried he would die.
| GPS does not exist yet. Foreign country. We miraculously
| stumbled upon a hospital. It happened to have armed
| guards. They blocked the entrance. My mom got pissed and
| started walking towards them with my brother in her arms.
| Rifle was raised, but guard ended flat on the floor as my
| mom pushed him out of the way. My dad followed with an
| embarrassed hand gestures that he hoped meant 'sorry, she
| is a little preoccupied now'. Nothing happened. Brother
| didn't die either. We drove forth.
|
| How you handle yourself matters; doubly so in a time of
| actual crisis.
|
| edit: Don't be an idiot rule applies. Sensible person
| will not storm armed guards just because you read a
| testimonial on the net.
|
| << no rule will help you.
|
| What do you propose then, because I assure you the world
| without rules will not be a world people will want to
| exist in for long?
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I have often wondered why gun control advocates in the US
| haven't taken the ammunition approach. Is there some
| precedent in the courts that limitations on ammunition
| are equivalent to those on the firearms themselves? I.E.
| ammunition commonly used for legal purposes cannot be
| banned?
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| In a sense, steps have been taken to do just that, but
| not in courts. I am not a proponent of those efforts, but
| it is important to understand what is going on. Various
| payment systems are currently trying coordinate in a way
| to track those purchases. Naturally, once they are
| tracked, they eventually will be marked as risky and, in
| banks anyway, derisked in a typical bank fashion. The
| same approach is taken for porn.
|
| And to all that cheer this one, because you happen to
| align with those values, remember that a tool is just a
| tool and can be used by anyone for anything.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| So that means ammunition must be purchased by bank wire
| or something? Or of course cash if in person. They
| already do this for pornography? Yeah, that sounds super
| scary. Maybe cryptocurrencies are a good thing... I don't
| want to have to buy a ladder with BTC because I might
| fall off of it and sue visa.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| They have. New York doesn't allow free purchase of pistol
| ammunition. That also includes small caliber rifle
| ammunition that has been used in handgun applications.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| What restrictions are placed? Quantity or do you just
| sign for it, or show a carry permit?
| JohnFen wrote:
| > If you are afraid of guns from people in uniform, you
| are already doing it wrong.
|
| There is ample evidence in the US that fear of people in
| uniform carrying guns is a very rational thing.
| Test0129 wrote:
| That's why in fields where this isn't uncommon you drill
| and drill and drill your response until it becomes second
| nature. If you don't comply you are still an American
| citizen. CBP cannot deny you entry for any reason (yet).
| However, they can make your life hell for as long as
| legally possible.
|
| If you are prepared for that then you absolute can and
| should tell them to pound sand. Just like you should to
| the police. But standing up for yourself has consequences
| you may not be prepared for. In both cases, CBP and
| police, you may be isolated from your loved ones,
| harassed, interrogated, etc in an attempt to make you
| crack. The difference, in a "border zone"[1] 100 miles
| from any border you effectively lose several important
| rights so the stakes are far, far higher. But, if you are
| truly innocent, it is worth the time to exercise your
| fourth and fifth amendment. As long as you present the
| correct paperwork the officer can't do much. However,
| they CAN lie. So it's imperative you know your rights to
| not talk yourself into probable cause.
|
| [1] https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
| notch656a wrote:
| >If you are prepared for that then you absolute can and
| should tell them to pound sand. Just like you should to
| the police. But standing up for yourself has consequences
| you may not be prepared for. In both cases, CBP and
| police, you may be isolated from your loved ones,
| harassed, interrogated, etc in an attempt to make you
| crack.
|
| I went through the border without a phone or anything of
| interest for them to search. They cuffed and shackled me,
| finger printed me, booked me, tossed me in a cell. Then
| held me for 16 hours while driving me to hospitals and
| told doctors there was drugs up my ass. Towards the end
| they got a warrant to cover their ass, where they woke a
| federal judge and and the US assistant attorney in the
| middle of the night and told them vicious lies that a dog
| had 'alerted' on my asshole and that during a (real)
| invasive strip search they found (fake) evidence of
| smuggling.
|
| [note: am US citizen]
| xoa wrote:
| As sibling comments have said already, rights must be
| defended, and clear eyed prep is a big part of the answer
| for individuals. Even just thinking it through a bit,
| while you have time.
|
| > _That sounds great_
|
| How does having your property confiscated for days/weeks
| and being arrested sound "great" to you? It's not great,
| it stinks. For some people it could even be ruinous. But
| it's also legal reality. Every single "right" your or I
| or anyone has came out of blood. Lots of blood. Blood,
| sweat, tears, money, activism, _power_ both soft and
| hard. The entire reason the ACLU exists at all is
| precisely that rights don 't auto-enforce and must be
| defended, that's literally their raison d'etre. When they
| say US Citizens have an absolute legal right of entry but
| that exercising it may result in significant
| inconvenience or cost they aren't wrong. All of society
| as well as individuals need to work with that tailored to
| their own situations.
|
| > _but when a few power hungry workers with guns are
| breathing down your neck in a small room you can 't get
| out of, the rules aren't going to make you feel 'safe'._
|
| And? What does "feeling safe" have to do with this? And
| it's precisely because we're "in comfortable chairs" that
| it's the best time to go over our rights and consider
| ways to protect them both at the overall political level
| and individual level, rather then once we're in the hot
| seat. Preparation is worth a huge amount. If you know
| both your rights and the practical risks, you can do
| things like simply carry a minimal phone/computer, load
| and reload with a VPN at your destination. Make sure
| trusted contacts know all your travel plans and status.
| If you're carrying sensitive data for a corporation or
| government, check in with your legal department, HR etc.
| That's literally a core strength of a big organization,
| that they can have powerful specialists of their own vs
| leaving it all on their employees. At the political
| level, when was the last time you actually _wrote_ your
| Senators and House Rep? If you 're outraged and feel at
| risk, the bare minimum is _telling_ them that. It adds
| up. Even if one gets a canned reply they absolutely pay
| attention to volume on an issue, and on a sliding scale.
| People who are angry enough to actually go to the trouble
| of writing or even calling are presumed to represent some
| number of people angry enough to maybe vote in opposition
| or stay home on election day but can 't be bothered to
| write or don't know to.
| oneplane wrote:
| Not everyone wants to spend their time on any of this.
| Some people want to go about their day as they please
| without having to deal with any of this. That's the
| entire goal of having a society.
| xoa wrote:
| > _Not everyone wants to spend their time on any of this.
| Some people want to go about their day as they please
| without having to deal with any of this._
|
| That's nice? They can choose to try to do that, and in
| turn they may well get stepped on. There is a rest of the
| world out there, not just us as individuals. It doesn't
| always conform on its own to our wishes.
|
| > _That 's the entire goal of having a society._
|
| "Society" isn't magic that just happens on its own. It's
| made up of its people and their actions. If enough of its
| people don't actually _take_ action, then "society" is
| going to reflect that too. Society creates more slack and
| wiggle room, and collective action can help shield
| individuals. You see that right here, society and law is
| why there is even an absolute right to return, why
| someone cannot simply be jailed indefinitely on a whim,
| etc, which in turn are foundational in making it much
| less costly to try to work for more. But if you merely
| want to free ride, well, it may or may not work out.
| throwoutway wrote:
| Let me know how successful you are crossing the border and
| getting home when you tell CBP to "pound sand". They'll
| just deny you entry and you're left with very little
| recourse. Effectively they are the judge and jury and
| you're stuck in the waiting area if you're lucky, a holding
| cell if you're not
|
| If you think you're immune just because you're a US
| citizen, you're not.
| xoa wrote:
| > _Let me know how successful you are crossing the border
| and getting home when you tell CBP to "pound sand".
| They'll just deny you entry and you're left with very
| little recourse._
|
| How about instead of this handwave-y impossible ask BS
| you cite any actual cases at all since _Lyttle v. US_ (10
| years ago) where the CBP denied a US Citizen entry or
| deported them? There is plenty of case law here. In
| _Nguyen v. INS_ the Supreme Court stated that (emphasis
| added) "[...]a citizen entitled as of birth to the full
| protection of the United States, _to the absolute right
| to enter its borders_ , and to full participation in the
| political process." And that's not even tied to a
| passport. In _Worthy v. US_ the 5th Circuit found the
| government could not impose a penalty on returning
| without a passport: "We think it is inherent in the
| concept of citizenship that the citizen, when absent from
| the country to which he owes allegiance, has a right to
| return, again to set foot on its soil. . . . We do not
| think that a citizen, absent from his country, can have
| his fundamental right to have free ingress thereto
| subject to a criminal penalty if he does not have a
| passport."
|
| Lower courts have since cited all this, even when the
| practical result was a mixed bag or a loss for the
| plaintiff. _Fikre v. FBI_ was about the no-fly list, and
| the court didn 't hold that the absolute right to return
| meant the US couldn't prevent getting on an airplane in
| another country, and that Fikre hadn't asserted enough
| facts to support that the No-Fly list and boarding denial
| were enough to violate his right to get to a port of
| entry a different way. I think that's unfortunate, saying
| essentially "well take a boat or figure out a flight to
| Canada/Mexico" isn't ok and I think the whole no-fly list
| is flagrantly bad, but the court did uphold a citizen's
| right to enter borders on getting to them.
|
| Finally in _Lyttle v. US_ [0] there was indeed a case
| where a US citizen with mental challenges was detained by
| ICE and deported, after being allegedly coerced into
| signing a document falsely stating he was Mexican
| citizen. This set off a saga that eventually resulted in
| the DHS terminating deportation efforts "on the basis
| that "it was determined that [Lyttle] was not a Mexican
| citizen and is, in fact, a citizen of the United
| States."" The court refused to dismiss all damages
| claims, and at all times ICE/CBP proceeded on the basis
| of fraud that he in fact wasn't a US citizen. Court found
| that the government is simply not authorized to detain or
| deport US citizens, and thus may not ignore any credible
| assertion of citizenship.
|
| So again, if you have a newer example to share where
| someone was denied entry at all, let alone "with very
| little recourse", _you_ share it. Otherwise you 're just
| posting FUD.
|
| ----
|
| 0: https://casetext.com/case/lyttle-v-united-states-3
| notch656a wrote:
| If someone's family/connections had the wherewithal and
| resources to get picked up by the ACLU and go to the
| federal court once in a decade I wonder how often it
| actually happens. I was subjected to some abuse by CBP,
| and found out there were a steady stream of people
| getting the same treatment ('internal' examination of
| their body without their consent by a nearby hospital,
| often without a warrant). The last federal lawsuit is
| practically a decade old, but I can assure you based on
| the bragging by CBP officers themselves the shit was
| happening daily. So a decade old court case doesn't mean
| it isn't happening more frequently.
| refurb wrote:
| This is false.
|
| A friend came back to the US after 3 years. A time period
| you typically lose your green card.
|
| However friend was smart to ask a lawyer and the lawyer
| said "agree to nothing, sign nothing, only a judge can
| take your green card".
|
| So she did just that. Put up with about an hour of shit.
| "No, im not signing anything", "No, I don't agree that
| I'm no longer a permanent resident of the US".
|
| Was eventually let in and nothing came of it.
|
| Know your rights and stand firm. If some non-us citizen
| minority woman can do it, I'm sure you can too.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > If you think you're immune just because you're a US
| citizen, you're not.
|
| That's a pretty big claim, do you have a particular
| example in mind? You might have your phone seized, sure,
| but denying a citizen entry to the country? Even CBP
| understands they can't do that and it would make the
| evening news if they did it.
| phpthrowaway99 wrote:
| This thread is confusing. Are you implying that Canada
| can't deny entry to Canada to an American?
|
| Canada denies entry to tons of Americans. Americans with
| a DUI on their record have trouble visiting Canada.
| justrudd wrote:
| I believe what is being said is:
|
| If you are a citizen of the United States of America, and
| you are returning to the United States from a foreign
| country, Customs and Border Patrol are not allowed to
| deny you entry to the United States of America.
|
| Of course the caveats - if you, as the citizen, have an
| outstanding warrant, they can arrest you. They can take
| your electronics. They can delay you. They can put you in
| a room by yourself for some period of time. But they
| can't deny you entry without some kind of legal reason.
| They can't hold you indefinitely.
|
| It just comes down to how much the citizen is willing to
| be inconvenienced.
|
| And I believe any American with any felony on their
| record will have trouble visiting Canada. I once traveled
| with a guy who had a felony assault conviction from a
| college bar fight 15 years prior. They wouldn't let him
| in.
| notch656a wrote:
| They (US CBP for US ciizen) have to let you in.
|
| But they will lie to you and tell you they won't let you
| in.
|
| They will also lie to you and tell you they have the
| power to cancel your passport.
|
| I've had them pull both 'tricks' on me. Not a lot of
| people are well versed on their rights and without access
| to a lawyer it would be easy to believe a federal officer
| when they tell you these things. If you believe what a
| federal officer tells you, which is probably most
| Americans, being told you won't be let in unless you do X
| is going to be taken literally as 'unless I do X, I am
| denied entry to the country.' They will simply comply on
| the basis of a fraudulent lie, which I might add a
| material lie like this is a felony if a normal citizen
| says it to a federal agent.
| aaaaaaaaata wrote:
| Constitution is suspended within 100 miles of the border.
|
| Worst day of Google Mapping ever.
| mindslight wrote:
| > _Just because we have the legal right to something doesn
| 't mean there is some magic barrier preventing LEOs from
| attempting to violating them, or implying the right doesn't
| exist. They have to be defended by people exercising them
| and potentially going to court_
|
| This is a major flaw in our system, and desperately needs
| legal reform. LEOs should only be allowed to _ask_ people
| to do things that they can be legally _compelled_ to do.
| Acting outside of that authority to coerce other actions
| should be charged equivalent to impersonating a police
| officer, kidnapping, or logically similar - the same as if
| a non-police dressed up in a police costume to coerce
| someone.
|
| This is of course in addition to the need to make
| longstanding laws like the ones against murder apply to
| LEOs as well.
|
| Not that I expect much to ever change. I've got to wonder
| what our society would be like if Hollywood hadn't leaned
| into "police procedural" for its cheap production cost. How
| many hours per week does the average American watch people
| pointing guns at one another and barking orders? It nowhere
| reflects real life, yet we've all been primed to think
| that's how the world operates.
| xnyan wrote:
| >Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look
| around" or "ask a few questions". ...But in general you'd
| be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no"
|
| This is not only a very naive take, its a dangerous one -
| people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what
| you are suggesting. Law Enforcement Officers in the US has
| what is known as qualified immunity. In practice qualified
| immunity means as long as the LEO says they _believed_ they
| were following rules (even if they were not), then they can
| do anything they want to you (including kill you) with
| little to no personal consequences.
|
| In other words, you can say "No officer, you can't look
| around without a warrant", to which they can say "I see an
| object that may be a gun, and you're moving your hand in
| the direction of your pocket. Stop. I'm afraid for my life,
| I need to break your car windows and throw you on the
| street"
|
| It's common enough that a LEO can publicly and slowly
| strangle George Floyd on the street, recorded and in front
| of others, and the only notable/unusual aspect is that the
| police officer was convicted of a crime.
|
| Your rights don't mean shit to cops.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| > people have been killed by law enforcement for doing
| what you are suggesting.
|
| Can you cite any examples of this happening? I'm a pretty
| big policing reform person and follow this stuff closely
| and can't think of a single case like this.
| xtracto wrote:
| > I'm a pretty big policing reform person and follow this
| stuff closely and can't think of a single case like this.
|
| I live in Mexico and even I know about the Floyd case ...
| it seems you don't really follow that kind of thing at
| all.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| That incident doesn't really relate to refusing a search
| without a warrant. While a horrible injustice, the
| particulars are quite different.
| nemothekid wrote:
| Wasn't this essentially what happened to Philando
| Castile? In his case he was even complying before he was
| shot, and the officer who shot him was acquitted.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I believe that was a traffic stop and the officer freaked
| out after Castile mentioned that he had a CC handgun.
| Clearly the officer fucked up and murdered an innocent
| man. However, I think that's different in kind and
| circumstances from what I was asking about.
| lisper wrote:
| He did cite an example: George Floyd. You really ought to
| read the comment you are replying to more carefully. (And
| you have to be pretty profoundly ignorant of current
| events not to already be aware of this.)
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I did read it. Floyd wasn't killed while refusing an
| unlawful search, which is specifically what I'm asking
| about.
| lisper wrote:
| Do you really think the details of the pretext matter?
| ch4s3 wrote:
| We'll I was specifically asking if there are examples of
| people being killed by police for refusing a search
| without a warrant, so it matters insofar as it's the
| question I asked.
|
| I'm not here to defend policing as it stands in the US or
| dismiss any wrongful killing. I just disagree with a
| particular narrow assertion.
| lisper wrote:
| > I was specifically asking if there are examples of
| people being killed by police for refusing a search
| without a warrant
|
| No, you weren't. You asked:
|
| "Can you cite any examples of *this* happening? I'm a
| pretty big policing reform person and follow this stuff
| closely and can't think of a single case *like this*."
| [Emphasis added]
|
| The semantics of that question turn entirely on the
| antecedent of "this", which is pretty ambiguous in this
| (!) context.
|
| So I'll revise my criticism of your original remark: you
| need to be clearer about the scope of what you are asking
| about. Personally, I don't think it is at all
| unreasonable to extrapolate the circumstances of the GF
| case to the potential for the same thing to happen during
| a border search, but I suppose reasonable people could
| disagree.
| MockObject wrote:
| No, it was clear that he was asking about
|
| >>> you also may say "no"
|
| >> people have been killed by law enforcement for doing
| what you are suggesting.
|
| > Can you cite any examples of this happening?
|
| and not George Floyd.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| At this point it should be clear that no such examples
| exist.
| lisper wrote:
| It seems clear when you selectively edit the transcript
| the way you did. But add a little more context:
|
| > Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can
| "look around" or "ask a few questions". ...But in general
| you'd be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no"
|
| and it becomes a lot less clear.
| MockObject wrote:
| But I didn't have any problem understanding it at all,
| when I first read it.
| lisper wrote:
| So? Just because one person professes to have no trouble
| understanding something doesn't mean it was clear. Maybe
| you have unusual powers of comprehension. Maybe you
| understood it because the tacit assumptions happened to
| align with your prejudices. Maybe you are rewriting the
| past [1] to save face. Your testimony in this regard
| doesn't really inform the discussion.
|
| [1] https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2014/02/how-
| your-memor...
| MockObject wrote:
| The prejudice that it's unlikely that an HN poster
| doesn't know George Floyd's story? Not only should you
| have that prejudice too, but simply assuming good faith
| would have helped you as well.
| lisper wrote:
| My prejudice is that if ch4c3 had noticed that the parent
| comment did provide an example (and it did) he would have
| said something like: the example you gave is not
| applicable because... do you have any other examples that
| are more on point?
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I thought it was clear what I meant, but could see how
| there might be ambiguity.
|
| To be perfectly clear I do not think qualified immunity
| should exist and that courts are too quick to rubber
| stamp warrants. Also most non-violent crimes shouldn't be
| crimes IMO. That said, in many year of following the
| topic I don't know of anyone being killed while refusing
| a search in a Terry Stop or an officer requesting entry
| to a home. Most police killings conform to a few narrow
| sets of common circumstances, that deserve a LOT of
| scrutiny but never seem to involve a warrantless search.
| andrewprock wrote:
| Yes, the pretext matters. Border searches is the topic of
| the article.
| LWIRVoltage wrote:
| Did some thinking about this- Here's something no one has every
| ...thought of it seems-
|
| Right now, from a steganography standpoint, there's no real way
| to be secure from this sort of thing. US Customs, or another
| country , from a tech standpoint. Yes, the cloud, though not
| everyone will have resources to access enough space online to
| keep their data secure - or be able to properly make a usable
| copy or image of their device that includes every aspect of their
| device, for a complete , fully restore later
|
| -Why aren't there more plausible deniable, or just, stealthy
| encryption options? It appears, there's nearly NONE today for
| these advanced used cases.
|
| Veracrypt is known for it's hidden features -but those are
| ...dangerously approaching obsolescence. Their Hidden OS option-
| ONLY works if you've formatted your system to MBR, not UEFI-
| otherwise you can't use the Hidden OS option. Are you telling me
| for every laptop you buy form here on out, you'll format it to
| the old MBR standard to use the Hidden OS option for your
| personal laptop that you want to take on a trip- or need to?
|
| And sure, you can just put important data in Hidden Volumes as a
| fallback- but then you come to a common fight today in the tech
| world of system vs file level encryption. And sure, just hiding
| what is most crucial, is perhaps better form a standpoint of
| sneaking by- but is it truly now impossible to hide everything
| else that's not as important, by default? Furthermore, you have
| to wipe traces of the material's location where it was BEFORE you
| copied it into the hidden volume. Did you also eliminate all
| traces? Windows Shellbags are a thing, that nearly no one knows
| will be a smoking gun..
|
| Veracrypt doesn't work on Mac or Linux with it's Hidden OS
| option, just volumes.
|
| There was a really promising advanced system being built - here,
| and it was even presented at a blackhat conference i think
| https://portswigger.net/daily-swig/russian-doll-steganograph...
|
| https://i.blackhat.com/eu-18/Thu-Dec-6/eu-18-Schaub-Perfectl...
|
| But i've heard nothing since- and right now, all your data will
| be at risk from your computers ,phones ,and tablets, when you go
| through Customs- even if it's encrypted, they'll hang on to it,
| and image and copy the data. If you refuse to provide encryption
| passwords, they'll potentially keep it and not return it to you
| in all cases. This is where the deniable systems would come into
| play- where you'd be okay, if they just unlock it. Now if they
| plug it in and image it regardless, you're at risk because
| theoretically they could be running exploits on your device(they
| won't let you watch them imaging it so you can'tverify that ever)
|
| -encrypted data will be unreadable here, but it's not as good as
| if they can't tell it's hidden, from a imaging point when they
| plug in a Cellebrite or Greykey device and have it run it's
| exploits to get everything.
|
| And i do not see the Forensic Security community often giving
| recommendations on what it takes to get around this, i think this
| leads to the public being at the mercy of officials-
|
| This will become very destructive also, as this will become a
| precedent. Imagine Southern States checking devices like to look
| for evidence of abortion information-searches, for example.
| Imagine Abortion getting federally banned, and then customs
| checking for mentions of abortion .
|
| - Technical solutions aren't a full solution, as the EFF loves to
| hamper on- but it appears everyone has given up with efforts to
| even provide them. I suppose if you want to stand a chance, you
| need to go become a expert on disks, and forensic techniques , in
| order to then even have a chance at experimenting on how to get
| around that- and if that sort of privacy ,security, and plausible
| deniability cannot be brought to the masses at large, the way
| Signal did for encrypted communications, ...
| noindiecred wrote:
| Wow can't wait until this data is all exfiltrated and sold on the
| dark web!
| modzu wrote:
| they can also search your anal cavity if they want to.
| #endborders
| notch656a wrote:
| Not sure why you're downvoted. This actually happened to me
| last time I crossed the border.
| JohnFen wrote:
| This is half of why I don't take my personal phone with me when
| travelling. I bring a burner, instead.
| lizardactivist wrote:
| Imagine having a knock on your door because you exchanged a few
| friendly text messages 15 years ago with someone who is being
| investigated for a crime committed today.
|
| Citizens are suspects. Tourists are terrorists. Everyone is a
| potential criminal in the land of the free.
| thewebcount wrote:
| Something like this happened to a friend of mine. He was using
| a work-allocated phone. He didn't directly get contacted by
| authorities, but someone at the company tipped him off that
| they had been contacted.
|
| Turns out the phone number he was assigned had previously
| belonged to a drug kingpin's burner phone or something like
| that. When my friend got a new phone and ended up with the
| number, he made calls from the US to Pakistan because he was
| going to attend a friend's wedding there. The authorities saw
| these things and at some point contacted the owner of the phone
| (the company) to try to figure out what was going on.
| elzbardico wrote:
| All way downhill since the patriot act.
|
| Don't say nobody told you so.
| btbuildem wrote:
| The real question is, can you put something on your phone that
| will root their workstation & plant a worm on it?
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| While fun to think about, you'd be giving them plenty of reason
| to put you in jail for a long time.
| [deleted]
| johndfsgdgdfg wrote:
| The way US treats the migrants is human rights violation at the
| border. Now add this to the pile of atrocities committed by the
| border patrol and ICE. It's high time we should consider open
| border.
| hackerlight wrote:
| People ask "what will our descendants think we're currently
| doing that's horrific?". The usual response is eating meat. But
| another one will be closed borders. It is one of those
| shamefully morally abhorrent violations of individual freedoms
| that is fairly widely accepted as normal.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I'd like to see a country experiment with an open-but-chargable
| border.
|
| Ie. You pay a substantial fee for permission to cross the
| border. Once the fee is paid, it's unlimited border crossings
| for life. For example the fee could be $5000 + 5% of your total
| wealth.
|
| The fee reduces immigration and limits it to the rich, who you
| probably wanted to allow in anyway. And it costs about what
| people traffickers currently charge, but the government gets to
| keep the revenue.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| We have something like that with "golden visas/golden
| passports" already here in Europe. The result was a bunch of
| Russian oligarchs with Schengen freedom of movement [1].
|
| [1] https://www.dw.com/en/eu-threatens-legal-action-over-
| maltas-...
| galangalalgol wrote:
| So maybe we don't want all the rich people? And we probably
| want some of the poor people. There is a shortage of all
| sorts of labor afterall.
|
| The real issue is that there is no good way to verify the
| identity or non-criminal nature of any of the migrants. You
| can create a solid ID at the time of entry and start
| tracking there at least.
| londons_explore wrote:
| If you have strong diplomatic ties with the country the
| migrant came from, you can totally do identity/criminal
| background checks.
|
| You can also do things like asking an existing citizen to
| sponsor an immigrant. If that immigrant commits a crime
| or doesn't pay their taxes, the sponsor is jointly
| liable.
| acuozzo wrote:
| > The real issue is that there is no good way to verify
| the identity or non-criminal nature of any of the
| migrants.
|
| Just as there was no good way for Diogenes to verify
| which bones belonged to Alexander's father.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I had to look up the reference. Are you saying it doesn't
| matter if some people entering a country are wanted for
| crimes? That seems like something we should check.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Every country asks for your criminal record and does
| background checks before issueing visas. You are trying
| to reinvent a system that existed for decades
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I was thinking if the gp really wanted open borders you
| might not even require an ID but yeah requiring an ID is
| normal at any controlled border crossing. My
| understanding is that sometimes even between schengen
| states that id is checked.
| hulitu wrote:
| Human rights violation ? In US ? /s
|
| These things are happening from some years now and besides some
| isolated reports everybody seems very happy.
| arein3 wrote:
| [deleted]
| n0tth3dro1ds wrote:
| weard_beard wrote:
| No, for some time it's been clear this is a safe space for,
| "just following orders" and future camp guards.
| coltonv wrote:
| They do indeed have established processes. And the US
| violates the shit out of them and illegally detains people
| against international law. You really think the UN
| established processes involve caging people without checking
| their credentials or asylum claims? Do you think
| international law is big on freeing up border guards to
| violate civil liberties of both citizens and immigrants? No.
| After the Holocaust, where many countries turned away fleeing
| Jews, who would then end up getting gassed, the US made sure
| the UN implemented international law that would make seeking
| asylum more human rights friendly.
|
| Then we started violating those processes and cracking down
| on immigration, which actually increased illegal overstays
| because people stopped going home after their short term visa
| jobs because they knew they couldn't come back next year to
| pick strawberries if they left. This isn't wokeism, it's just
| history.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Wow, it's almost like "human rights" are a
| cultural/political/ideological construct and not a legalistic
| one, and people might have varying differing opinions of what
| those rights are. And that there might be room in a
| democratic society for discussion of this, what is most just
| and sensible, and how we might accommodate a changing world
| situation.
|
| But no... the legal categories of border rights are immutable
| and constant. Citizenship is a fixed construct. Migrants
| fleeing starvation and war and climate crisis are criminals.
| And all these borders set and conquered by force 200-300
| years ago are inviolable.
|
| Migrant go home.
| rfrey wrote:
| > But no... the legal categories of border rights are
| immutable and constant.
|
| Except of course, they're not, since the whole concept of
| restricting movement into the US didn't really being until
| about 1917 - before that you pretty much just showed up. (I
| know you know this, I'm just re-enforcing your point.)
| [deleted]
| refurb wrote:
| Searching your phone is a humans rights violation? I mean, I
| get the hyperbole, but I'd say more like a privacy issue.
|
| But hey, just add the US to the long list of countries like
| Canada, UK, Australia, etc, etc, etc.
|
| Maybe we can come up with a positive list of countries that
| _won 't_ search your phone at the border?
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| Privacy is a human right.
|
| United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948,
| Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
| interference with his privacy, family, home or
| correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and
| reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the
| law against such interference or attacks."
|
| https://privacyinternational.org/explainer/56/what-privacy
| bigbacaloa wrote:
| Privacy is not a right under US law. The US constitution
| makes no mention of it and the interpretive framework that
| creates such a right was recently overthrown in the antiRoe
| ruling.
| refurb wrote:
| Right but clearly it's more complex than "human right"
| since you and your belonging can be searched at the border
| for every single country.
|
| Clearly searching your phone is overstepping it, but it's
| not like there is some absolute right to privacy when
| crossing borders.
| trasz wrote:
| Nobody is searching your phone on UK border. It's pretty much
| unheard of in this part of the world.
| refurb wrote:
| https://www.theverge.com/2013/7/15/4524208/uk-border-
| police-...
|
| Police in the UK have the power to seize mobile devices
| from any traveler entering the country, and can retain
| their personal data for as long as they see fit, according
| to a report from the Telegraph.
| trasz wrote:
| They might have the power to, but they don't exercise
| it[1]. Also, this is about phone as in physical device;
| it doesn't grant them the right to access the (encrypted)
| data, does it?
|
| 1. Fun fact: the Queen has the power to execute anyone at
| will.
| koheripbal wrote:
| This is like suggesting a biological cell not have a cell wall.
|
| One of the fundamental functions of a country is to regulate
| input/outputs at the border.
|
| There are so many disastrous problems that arise from the
| elimination of a border, that I question whether such a
| suggestion is ever even made seriously or made by sane people.
| DarthNebo wrote:
| Pre-modern world having no borders is what gave birth to
| immigration into the said country & other parts of the world
| which got colonized over time. Kinda hypocritical to suddenly
| have everything closed up. Who knows maybe space travel or
| resource scarcity is what unites all countries centuries down
| the line.
| hackerlight wrote:
| I advocate for almost completely open borders, for three
| reasons, freedom + economic growth + national security.
|
| (1) Freedom. Closed borders was actually one of the first
| iterations of technology being used to suppress human
| freedom. We had open borders for most of human history. Only
| with the advent of modern nation states (and the associated
| mind virus of nationalism) and recent technical capabilities
| have we both been motivated and capable of blocking people
| from travelling and moving freely.
|
| (2) Economic growth. Self-explanatory. Look at where our top
| founders, or their recent ancestors, come from. The more
| immigration, the better.
|
| (3) In the long-run steady state, geopolitical power comes
| from population size. China and India surpassing the US
| economically and militarily is a near inevitability and a
| matter of time. I'd rather a liberal democracy play the role
| of world police than an authoritarian regime. But that's only
| possible with 600 million+ Americans.
|
| TLDR, closed borders is a disgusting modern aberration with
| racist and protectionist motivations that stunts the growth
| of countries and eliminates the freedoms of humans.
| stainablesteel wrote:
| this is a bad take
|
| 1. the us had open borders because they could offer land to
| people coming in, it had economic benefits for everyone
| involved. nowadays, EVERYONE wants to get in, especially
| actors with bad intentions, and as was just shown in europe
| not even five years ago now, open borders are a terrible
| idea with long lasting consequences.
|
| 2. economic growth does not simply derive from a larger
| population, there's a balance between population size and
| the economic prosperity of each individual within that
| population, to tip the scale so absolutely in only one
| direction completely destroys the scale itself
|
| 3. geopolitics are not so black and white. it derives
| complexities in more areas than just population, and the US
| does not have a small population, nor do its allies
| hackerlight wrote:
| There's really no substance to anything you've said here.
| Just confusion and fears and basic misunderstanding of
| economics and geopolitics. Please consult any economist
| or international relations scholar on point 2 or 3.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I still think there is merit in Lifeboat Ethics. Our
| country can only support so many people before it would be
| overwhelmed by resource scarcity and further overpopulation
| that burdens other nations.
|
| Of course closed borders are protectionist. I don't think
| that's a bad thing.
| hackerlight wrote:
| We're nowhere close to the point where that argument
| would have merit.
| chimineycricket wrote:
| Correct, so the right thing to do is make sure we get to
| that point by having open borders.
| gjm11 wrote:
| That analogy may be more insightful than you meant it to be.
|
| Animal cells (e.g., the ones in your body or mine) do not
| have cell walls. They do have membranes surrounding the
| cells, but they aren't walls.
|
| In the same way, any country has borders, but there's a lot
| of scope for variation in what they allow across the border
| under what conditions. "Open borders" does not mean "no
| borders".
|
| For instance, the borders between countries in the Schengen
| Area of Europe are "open", even though those countries still
| have borders. This has been the case since 1995. Civilization
| there does not appear to have fallen so far.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| To get into the Schengen area there is a bit more
| inspection though right? We are just talking about a bigger
| cell.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| One thing I learned at Defcon 30 was how to break encryption at
| rest by just storing the encrypted data and wait for a quantum
| computer to be developed but storing it for 15 years wouldn't be
| long enough (average guess of scientists were 50 years in the
| future).
|
| It makes the NSAs Utah data center to have other applications
| like parallel reconstruction.
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| Terrifying for only 2 reasons:
|
| 1. Any malicious person savvy enough to pull off a crime of
| interest to the Feds is smart enough to provide a wiped or burner
| phone to DHS/ICE, and they have to know this. So, what is the
| point in doing this if not to target law abiding citizens.
|
| 2. USGOV has a spotty track record of keeping this information
| secure. A foreign actor is likely to access this info eventually.
| As one former government official once joked many years ago -
| concerning Chinese hacking - "Well, its probably more secure in
| the CCP's data center, so I wouldn't worry."
|
| This is the problem when a non-technical generation makes the
| rules and regs. Luddites ought not be permitted to ascend the GS
| ranks.
| colordrops wrote:
| Only 2?
|
| 3. How is this legal? Is it legal?
| karaterobot wrote:
| I thought of a third reason:
|
| 3. they took your phone and kept all your data
| 988747 wrote:
| Haha, just 5 minutes ago I read a story about Iranian 'hacker'
| who wrote a ransomware note in Microsoft Word, so the file
| metadata contained his full name :)
| chubot wrote:
| Similar SecOps problems happened to both John McAfee and the
| Silk Road founder.
|
| As far as I remember, McAfee shared an iPhone photo with
| location metadata when he was in Belize, so American
| authorities were able to track him down.
|
| The Silk Road founder had some sort of PHP coding error which
| led police to his San Francisco location. That is, you could
| simply visit the Silk Road home page and his location leaked.
|
| So yeah criminals aren't better at SecOps. They're just more
| reckless than most people...
| Operyl wrote:
| It was actually Vice that did the McAfee leak, with a Vice
| employee phone. [0]
|
| [0] https://www.wired.com/2012/12/oops-did-vice-just-give-
| away-j...
| chubot wrote:
| Ah OK, thanks for the source
| peteradio wrote:
| Eh? I thought silk road guy had old stack overflow
| questions with same alias or something.
| rsync wrote:
| "As far as I remember, McAfee shared an iPhone photo with
| location metadata ..."
|
| This reminds me of the workflow I use for publishing
| pictures on my website: magick convert
| IMG_2673.HEIC -strip -quality 80 -shave 10x10 -resize 91.1%
| -attenuate 1.0 +noise Uniform out.jpg ; exiftool -a -u
| -g1 out.jpg
|
| (where 80 is a random number between 75 and 85 I choose at
| the time and 91.1 is a random (real) number between 91.0
| and 91.9)
|
| You cannot exiftool purge a HEIC because it breaks it - you
| need to exiftool purge the resulting jpeg ... also,
| weirdly, -attenuate needs to come before the +noise switch
| in the command line.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >Any malicious person savvy enough to pull off a crime of
| interest...and they have to know this.
|
| You'd be amazed at how many dumb things smart criminals/people
| can do. Maintaining proper OpSec is hard. It only takes one
| mistake to give the LEOs a string to pull to unravel the whole
| sweater.
|
| Everything else, I tend to feel the same way as you. Just
| wanted to mention the OpSec part
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| Just use stationary.
| rightbyte wrote:
| One of the Pirate Bay founders, Varg, a proper hacker, stored
| unecrypted mails from the others and "framed" them when the
| police seized his computer.
| CommitSyn wrote:
| What do you mean by "framed" them?
| dhruval wrote:
| I just just reading this Bloomberg story about a Chinese spy
| who was busted. It's mind boggling how sloppy even state backed
| malicious agents are at information security.
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-09-16/chines...
| cguess wrote:
| It's hard to keep up security. You get tired, lonely, bored,
| exhausted. Everyone screws up at some point, you hope that
| those you're hiding from don't notice.
|
| It's similar to torture training in the US Military: they
| teach you that everyone breaks eventually, the trick is to
| hold out long enough the information you provide isn't that
| useful anymore.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| It's not about security, it's just another method for the
| government to use to make you feel like their bitch.
|
| Now take off your shoes and walk through the scanner.
| throwaway743 wrote:
| For only those two reasons? You best be joking
| woodruffw wrote:
| > 1. Any malicious person savvy enough to pull off a crime of
| interest to the Feds is smart enough to provide a wiped or
| burner phone to DHS/ICE, and they have to know this. So, what
| is the point in doing this if not to target law abiding
| citizens.
|
| This isn't even remotely true. See for example the recent Anom
| honeypot[1]. Criminals do more or less the same things that
| ordinary citizens do, and often have _strictly worse_ security
| practices _because_ they believe "ordinary" things are weaker.
| This makes them great targets for snake oil.
|
| That being said, I agree with (2). It's simply an unnecessary
| risk to keep this much data around for this long.
|
| [1]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7veg8/anom-app-source-
| code-...
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| >> It's simply an unnecessary risk to keep this much data
| around for this long.
|
| Statement is 3 words too long.
| nostrademons wrote:
| Criminals _who get caught_ do more or less the same things
| that ordinary citizens do, because the systems setup to catch
| them assume they 'll act like a normal person, because you
| catch the greatest number of criminals that way. By
| definition, we have no information about what criminals who
| don't get caught do, because they're never identified as
| criminals. That's the point.
|
| Selection bias is the most powerful force in the universe.
| makr17 wrote:
| Reminds me of the Stainless Steel Rat, where he is
| intentionally caught and sent to prison, hoping to further
| his criminal education. Only to find out he is now
| incarcerated with all the criminals that weren't smart
| enough to evade capture...
| godelski wrote:
| This is essentially Pareto resource efficiency for crime.
| Spending 20% of resources catches 80% of criminals. To
| catch the other 20% you have to spend exponentially more
| with exponentially diminishing returns. (This model is too
| simple though as the environment isn't static and criminals
| are able to learn and adopt strategies that make your
| efficiency decay over time)
| roenxi wrote:
| Although grandparent's logic is faulty, I think it does go to
| an important point. They don't need 15 years warrantless
| storage of phone data. On anyone, including foreigners. If it
| takes them 15 years to realise they shouldn't have let
| someone over the border it is around 14 to 14.995 years too
| late.
|
| The powers these agencies have is far in excesses of what
| they need to do their jobs, and it is going to be abused.
| These aren't particularly upstanding people, they're the sort
| who think DHS/ICE represents an ideal that they are OK with.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| It's called security theatre.
|
| And 15 years is corruption driven, because now you are
| spending X millions. of taxpayer money to store this data.
| thephyber wrote:
| There are a few reasons why government would want to keep
| data for that long. Educated guess: playing the odds that
| currently encrypted data could be broken in the near
| future.
|
| My primary argument isn't security theater, although I do
| agree it applies. My argument is that no democracy /
| republic should assume that every resident/citizen is a
| potential criminal without some probable cause /
| particularized suspicion/ significant evidence. The
| larger the percentage of citizens who experience
| unjustified searches, the lower the institutional trust
| level falls. Eventually citizens stop trusting elections,
| courts, police, etc. then people start massive social
| panics on the assumption that everything government is
| corrupt.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I agree completely.
| wombatpm wrote:
| And I'm sure they will treat your data with the same regard
| they do government personell files and applications for
| security clearance.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "If it takes them 15 years to realise they shouldn't have
| let someone over the border it is around 14 to 14.995 years
| too late."
|
| Well, hypothetically some old data could be combined with
| some new data, to not let a potentially terrorist in NOW
| (or let them in, but supervised).
|
| So more data to have is definitely useful for the agencies
| (if they can analyse it and do not drown in data).
|
| And a total surveillance state would be even more
| effective, but for some reasons people does not want it.
| Maybe because power abuse is a real thing.
| bushbaba wrote:
| I just wish government agencies used data driven decision
| making vs feelings and intuition more of the time.
|
| If there's data showing a 15 year retention rate is
| worthwhile. Great. But I have nothing in front of me
| which states this objectively
| gmadsen wrote:
| if there is data suggesting it, it would be classified.
| the Government isn't in an equal information relationship
| with the population, nor can it be, to effectively use
| intel domestically and abroad.
|
| just a counter-argument. I am not in favor of this
| obvious overreach. But I don't need data to tell me that.
| adra wrote:
| If a group had infinite budgets to actually act on this
| data effectively and if you could actually ever prove
| that this data was used for said purpose, you're still
| violating the privacy of 99.999999 of the people who
| don't commit crimes. I'm all for collecting legitimate
| warranted wide access information about people with
| legitimate patterns of criminal behaviour. I'm all about
| collecting information about financial transactions as
| one form or another the proceeds of crime are traded into
| legitimacy in regulated channels (at least for now). I'm
| not ok collecting "whatever I feel like" for the reason
| "well because we legally can".
| ROTMetro wrote:
| Ah, so criminals that get busted follow poor practices that
| lead to them getting busted. Not sure what this has to do
| with criminals at large, you know, the ones that do stuff
| like use a safe phone when traveling abroad.
| woodruffw wrote:
| This is unfalsifiable: are you saying that there's some
| unquantifiable number of perfectly competent criminals? How
| would we go about verifying that?
|
| On an individual level, I am positive that there are
| criminals that escape the (not particularly competent)
| techniques of DHS/CBP. But the GP's claim (that Federal
| criminals are, as a category, _completely_ above and beyond
| this kind of enforcement) is just not true.
| gmadsen wrote:
| its really not though. Look up estimates of dark net
| economies. Obviously there is plenty of criminals not
| getting caught
| woodruffw wrote:
| Of course there are. I said that in the last comment.
|
| There are two points here:
|
| * Estimates of "darknet" economies (and "criminal"
| economies in general) strongly express preferences for
| the mostly unfalsifiable LEO hypothesis that there's lots
| of crime _just floating around out there_ , and they
| could do _so much more_ about it if we just put up with a
| little more surveillance, etc.
|
| * There's no particular evidence that there's a bimodal
| distribution between incompetent criminals who get caught
| and competent criminals who don't. There _are_ probably
| lots of competent criminals who don 't get caught, but
| there are also probably lots of incompetent ones who
| don't (and vice versa). The strongest predictor for
| successful interdiction (especially at borders) isn't
| competence, but sheer numbers: criminals have to succeed
| every time, cops only have to succeed once.
| gmadsen wrote:
| there is without a doubt a correlation between the
| significance of criminal enterprise and the rate of
| getting caught.
|
| they may be catching some low level movers with these
| practices, but not much else above that. The evidence is
| that there is functioning enterprises in the first place.
| If captures at the border were a normal distribution of
| all criminal competency.. that would be destabilizing to
| a trillion dollar industry.
| woodruffw wrote:
| > there is without a doubt a correlation between the
| significance of criminal enterprise and the rate of
| getting caught.
|
| This is the problem with unfalsifiable claims. Why is
| that "without a doubt"?
|
| I can formulate a just as intuitive (and just as
| baseless) claim: less significant criminal enterprises
| get caught less, since they fail the "significance" test.
| loonster wrote:
| News of the compromise will cause criminals to be more
| cautious and reduce communication.
|
| The entire news article could be fake and it will still be
| effective.
| goodpoint wrote:
| > Criminals do more or less the same things that ordinary
| citizens do, and often have strictly worse security practices
| because they believe "ordinary" things are weaker
|
| This is a "survivor" bias fallacy.
| woodruffw wrote:
| The null hypothesis is that criminals are humans like us,
| except that they make money through crime instead of legal
| employment. Fallacious reasoning here would require us to
| treat criminals as uniquely invisible or otherwise unlike
| other humans, which isn't really borne out.
| pessimizer wrote:
| "Fallacious" reasoning here would require us to treat
| criminals as people who have more incentive to hide what
| they're doing.
| godelski wrote:
| > A foreign actor is likely to access this info eventually.
|
| This is one thing that has always confused me about the data
| collection in democratic countries. I understand the appeal
| from an authoritarian perspective, but it seems that people
| don't recognize that this same data can be used as a weapon
| against their own citizens.
|
| So you're left with three real options: 1) Minimize data
| collection, 2) Spend massive amounts of money on encryption,
| research, and constant audits to minimize the risk of data
| leakage (which will eventually get leaked in some form), 3)
| leave your population (and your political positions) vulnerable
| to manipulation by foreign and domestic entities that do not
| have the public's (or your) interest in mind. It seems like
| we're going with #3 but it even seems like a bad strategy for
| authoritarians. #2 seems better for that one. But #1 seems best
| for democracies and people in positions of power where power is
| not highly centralized. (Can we at least get homomorphic
| encryption and learning algorithms?) But I guess these same
| people are still under an impression that a backdoor doesn't
| work like any other door: that anyone can use a door as long as
| you can figure out how to break or crack the lock (which always
| happens).
| gambiting wrote:
| >>So, what is the point in doing this if not to target law
| abiding citizens.
|
| It's the old rule known to governments all over the world -
| there is no such thing as an innocent citizen, there is only a
| citizen who you haven't investigated enough. Call me cynical
| but storing ALL of your digital data allows the agencies to
| basically find something, anything, that will allow them to
| further blackmail you into complying. Even the most innocent
| person will have something that can be misconstrued as
| criminal, from jokes about tax evasion to pictures of your
| toddler in a pool - threaten going to trial if the person
| doesn't do X, and most people will comply, not because they
| aren't innocent, but because the might of the American justice
| system is such that you _really_ don 't want to fuck with it on
| the receiving end.
| vdqtp3 wrote:
| "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most
| honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang
| him." Cardinal Richelieu
| aaaaaaaaata wrote:
| "...give me six lines..." - Cardinal Richelieu
| marcus0x62 wrote:
| Lavrentiy Beria didn't even need six lines - "show me the
| man, and I'll find you the crime."
| thenthenthen wrote:
| This became clear when the border police checked my phone and
| ended up in my spam box... it was not pretty
| UI_at_80x24 wrote:
| To add to your point, our laws are so overly broad that it is
| impossible to exist without breaking some law. (your point
| talks of 'digital data' my comment refers to real-life)
|
| From driving 1mph over the speed limit, to skipping FBI
| warnings on DVDs, to countless other "innocent" infractions.
| If they look hard enough they will find SOMETHING. And that's
| all they need.
| vdqtp3 wrote:
| Three Felonies a Day by Silverglate (ISBN 1594035229) and
| even https://twitter.com/CrimeADay make it obvious. Every
| citizen escapes prosecution only by the grace of Federal
| law enforcement.
| sjf wrote:
| For people renting it is routine to receive mail for
| several previous tenants. Everytime you throw away a credit
| card sign-up offer for someone else, you are committing a
| felony.
| twelve40 wrote:
| why is this specific to renting? what about previous
| owners? and yes I do get stuff for people not here for
| more that 12 years now, and I toss it, and I dare them to
| do anything about that.
| Operyl wrote:
| Yup! Write "Not at this Address" and put it in the outbox
| if you have one, or back in your mailbox with flag up.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I've been routinely receiving junk mail for a person that
| I know for a fact has been dead for about a decade. I
| used to do this with that mail, but stopped a couple of
| years ago. Now I just toss it directly in the recycling
| bin.
| Operyl wrote:
| It is understandable, I just know not to fuck with the
| Postal Service. I doubt you will get convicted, but I
| don't have great luck with things lol.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| It's not that dangerous. They'll talk to you about what
| your intent was. On the other hand it could be the
| companies mailing you junk with no reply for decades have
| the ill intent because they're trying to get people into
| committing felonies (entrapment) with dogshit offers
| nobody would ever take that are littering the mail
| system. So if they accuse you, tell them that accusation
| must be redirected--like mail is--to like a middle-
| manager in the company doing mass-mailings.
|
| They didn't pay you anything to wade through their junk.
| You aren't their slave unless you sign.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Yes, this.
|
| And I don't open the mail -- that's a crime the postal
| service would take very seriously indeed. Sure, perhaps
| my practice is technically illegal, but I don't think
| it's the sort of illegal that the USPS would spend a lot
| of time and money on.
|
| I'm not opening someone else's mail, I'm not preventing
| it from being delivered to the address on it, and I'm not
| preventing the recipient from receiving it. His death
| does that.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| The criminal should have the strongest civil rights
| protections, so hands will be tied should the government try
| to go after inconvenient citizens.
| ROTMetro wrote:
| No in the USA. We have rights on paper, but the threat of
| the trial tax convinced most to waive all of their rights
| in a plea agreement. That takes away things like their
| right to appeal their sentence, challenge illegal police
| behavior, etc. What would you pick? Keep your rights but
| face the entire weight of the US Government with unlimited
| budget and risk 20-40 years, or a plea for 3-5? All you
| have to do is give up all your rights. 95% pick to give up
| their rights.
|
| Plea agreements were illegal up until the 70s for a reason.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| Richelieu said this:
|
| "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most
| honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang
| him."
| pteraspidomorph wrote:
| These systems are perpetuated on the backs of the naive or
| sanctimonious enough to believe, and loudly proclaim, that
| _they_ have nothing to hide; _they_ haven 't been targeted
| and haven't ever been in trouble; why are _you_ breaking the
| law, you criminal scum?
|
| Generations pass and everything remains the same. We're all
| on the same boat, so why are people so quick to judge against
| those targeted for violations of a contrived status quo?
| randomdata wrote:
| _> This is the problem when a non-technical generation makes
| the rules and regs._
|
| The millennials hold the power these days. If you consider them
| non-technical, I'm not sure there will ever be a technical
| generation...
|
| Which may be a fair assertion as I work with a lot of people in
| the tech industry who wouldn't even consider the issues you
| raise unless it was handed to them on a silver platter. If
| actual tech people aren't considering it, those who have other
| focuses in life certainly won't be.
| stevehawk wrote:
| the millenials do not hold the power. They are not the blue
| badgers in the intelligence community that are making
| decisions.
| randomdata wrote:
| The intelligence community only exists because those in
| power grant it so. The millennials hold the power.
| Certainly they delegate - there is only so much time in the
| day - but the outcome still rests on what lies at the top.
|
| The reality is that millennials, as a generation, don't see
| a problem with this. Select individuals may, but
| individuals don't hold power.
| gmadsen wrote:
| im not sure what definition you are using, the executive
| is nearly 80, the average age of congress is 60, average
| age of CEOs is 58. You know, the people with actual
| power.
|
| These are not millennial ages..
| randomdata wrote:
| The civil servant representatives may be older, but they
| don't hold the power. They are hired by the power to
| serve the power. Again , we are talking about the power,
| not those who the power has delegated some work to.
| gmadsen wrote:
| Again? No, you obviously have a different definition of
| power, one that is abstract and in practicality useless.
| I'm trying not to be disparaging, but your comment is so
| absurd that I can't think of any situation where it would
| be appropriate outside of a college freshman poly sci
| class.
| randomdata wrote:
| Please, let your disparagement run free. It allows us to
| understand that your motivation is to protect your
| emotional state, not to simply convey information as has
| been the nature of discussion up to this point. As I have
| no emotional attachment to the subject, I'm not bothered
| by it and am able to learn that you are not here in good
| faith.
|
| Contradictory information is welcome, encouraged even,
| but I am not sure your criticism, no matter how
| constructive, is on-topic information. The subject here
| is pretty well defined. Worrying about what I may have
| done wrong does not add value to the thread of
| information here.
|
| Bringing this back to the topic at hand to not derail it
| further, millennials hold the power. They are largely not
| concerned with it. Technical understanding to some degree
| doesn't mean one is an expert in all matters of tech.
| Security is actually not well understood by most, even
| those who are involved with tech professionally. As an
| example, "don't implement your own encryption" is common
| advice given because we realize that security and related
| matters is actually really hard to understand and really
| easy to get wrong.
| gmadsen wrote:
| You are saying millennials hold the power, like it's an
| axiom. There is no on topic when you build your premise
| on that. They do not hold the power by any reasonable
| definition.
| gmadsen wrote:
| Sure, lets start with what I can only assume is your
| premise, that since millennials are very recently the
| largest adult demographic , that somehow translates into
| any current issue being implicit agreement by the
| millennials?
|
| 1. millennials are very very marginally above boomers in
| % of population, when separating each demographic.
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/797321/us-population-
| by-... - this doesn't give millennials majority rule, ie
| (boomers + gen x ) is larger 2. It is not the case that
| population numbers are directly proportional to power.
| Even on paper, this has never been true in the US. It is
| a democratic republic. A million arguments could be made
| why this ideal is even barely true. 3. Political power in
| the US is so far removed from I'm guessing your
| libertarian? view of politicians. They are not servants
| of a populace power. It is also not a failing of
| millennials if politicians are in contradiction with
| "millennial" belief.
|
| 4. The US is not a vaccuum. One trillionaire would have
| more power than 99.99% of millennials combined. this
| isn't the french revolution.
|
| I feel like your reply to politicians not being
| representative of the marginally larger populace of
| millennials is a moral failing of millennials for not
| starting a revolution. Which is absurd.
| randomdata wrote:
| _> Which is absurd._
|
| Indeed, it would be quite illogical to experience
| feelings over consuming information. There is no inherit
| emotional experience found within information. The fact
| that security is hard to understand, even for tech
| professionals, equating to feeling like there is a moral
| failing of millennials being implied does not compute. If
| your feelings won't let you participate in good faith, so
| be it, but ultimately there is no value in those
| emotions.
| geoelectric wrote:
| For the most part, they're barely even Gen X ages. Still
| a boomer world in the upper ranks once you get outside
| tech.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| Millennials have less money than the generations before them,
| they do not make up the majority of voters and they aren't
| executives at large.
|
| The only power most of them have boils down to passive or
| active rebellion, and they are too busy managing excess grey
| pressure in most places while said grey pressure is actively
| voting against them.
|
| Additionally, even millennials aren't technical at large.
| They certainly aren't technology preactive enough. Not even
| most developers are.
| ransom1538 wrote:
| "USGOV has a spotty track record of keeping this information
| secure."
|
| No only problems with security. Flat out handing it out in
| forms of subpoena.
| no_time wrote:
| >This is the problem when a non-technical generation makes the
| rules and regs.
|
| If this is the doing of the "luddites" then I'm dreading the
| dawn of tech sawwy rulers.
| indymike wrote:
| > If this is the doing of the "luddites" then I'm dreading
| the dawn of tech sawwy rulers.
|
| Knowledge disparity has always been a source of power.
| tenpies wrote:
| It's not just luddites, it's also the knowledge that these
| rules will never apply to them or their children.
| kornhole wrote:
| I think I know what you mean when you say Luddites, but the
| Luddites were actually very knowledgeable about technology.
| They rebelled against technology being used against them
| without any benefit to them. If you understand that history,
| you might agree with me that we want Luddites such as Wyden in
| government.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I do think it's a shame that nobody seems to understand what
| the Luddites were actually about. They weren't ignorant of or
| against technology at all. Their beef was about economics.
| jscipione wrote:
| hedora wrote:
| This program predates Biden. The fact that the Biden
| administration is cooperating with the senator (a Democrat)
| suggests the Biden administration doesn't support the program
| very strongly.
|
| Most of this stuff was enabled by the patriot act, which was
| pushed through by George W Bush. Also, the Republican
| controlled Supreme Court recently ruled it is legal for states
| pass laws that explicitly ignore vote tallies moving forward.
|
| If you want the US to be a democracy moving forward, I suggest
| you watch Biden's Sept 1, 2022 speech. It touches on these
| issues.
| jscipione wrote:
| Joe Biden wrote the Patriot Act.
| https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4876107/user-clip-joe-
| biden-w...
| hedora wrote:
| Good to know. Thanks. Hopefully he's really mellowed out
| since then.
| CabSauce wrote:
| Fortunately we still vote for our representatives. But I'm sure
| the US Federal government is interested in your veiled calls
| for violence.
| coldcode wrote:
| Enjoy it while you can, Moore v. Harper is up for debate in
| the Supreme Court this year, and it appears to be in favor of
| this (insane) idea that voting is no longer a right.
| Bakary wrote:
| Insane? Or a logical progression of the underlying culture
| that has successfully captured the institution after
| decades of planning?
| mijoharas wrote:
| I was unaware of this, but it seems insane that that's even
| being heard[0].
|
| [0] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
| reports/moor...
| hedora wrote:
| I wonder what power they've decided they need beyond
| ignoring tallies. (Or using paperless unauditable voting
| machines.)
| hedora wrote:
| Some states don't vote for their representatives, moving
| forward.
|
| Seriously, go watch the speech, then you don't need to
| speculate about what the executive branch thinks about veiled
| threats for violence and domestic terrorism, or what I'm
| advocating for. Here's the official transcript:
|
| https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-
| remarks/20...
|
| Article describing state-level efforts to allow vote tallies
| to be overridden by partisan groups (by this tally, there
| were 10 bills in 8 states):
|
| https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dozen-state-laws-shift-
| power...
|
| This tally has it at 14 states:
|
| https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/06/14-gop-
| controll...
| jscipione wrote:
| MTG successfully argued in court that since 1776 is
| emblazoned over the threshold of the court, that references
| to the American Revolution are built into our judicial
| system.
| JonShartwell wrote:
| How is an elected representative a dictator? About half of the
| US population voted in 2020, something like 100x the proportion
| of the population who voted to elect representatives at the
| time of the constitution. By any standard the US is far more
| democratic than it was then. I do agree that things should be
| more democratic now though.
| jscipione wrote:
| arkadiyt wrote:
| Reminder for the folks using iPhones, you can prevent law
| enforcement from doing this by "pair locking" your device:
| https://arkadiyt.com/2019/10/07/pair-locking-your-iphone-wit...
| scintill76 wrote:
| iPhone users are pretty safe even without supervision and the
| special profile, right? Don't they have to authenticate
| (passcode) to allow a forensics tool to connect? Still, I
| appreciate the idea to put up another barrier.
| arkadiyt wrote:
| The premise of the article is that you are forced to unlock
| by law enforcement
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| Oof, what happens if your laptop dies and it's the pair?
| arkadiyt wrote:
| - On step 11 you can choose to allow (or disallow) removing
| the profile with a password
|
| - Alternatively you can backup the pairing records from your
| laptop somewhere to be able to put them on a new laptop
|
| - Alternatively you can configure your iPhone to e.g. backup
| photos and so on to icloud, and then if you ever lose your
| laptop you can wipe your device and restore the data you
| chose to backup
| mrtesthah wrote:
| Just a reminder that anything backed up to iCloud (besides
| iCloud Keychain) will be accessible to government
| authorities, including your iMessages.
| KMuncie wrote:
| Isn't the new Lockdown Mode also a way to prevent this?
| arkadiyt wrote:
| Yes, although if the premise is that you're being compelled
| to unlock your device by law enforcement then it seems like
| they could also compel you to disable Lockdown Mode and
| restart your device - that's not possible with Pair Locking.
| Merad wrote:
| I guess you're just SOL if you don't own a Mac?
| jliptzin wrote:
| This happened to me in 2016 crossing into Canada. Borders agents
| took my phone for no reason, demand I give them the password to
| unlock it (otherwise they would seize the phone), took it in the
| back for 45 min before returning it and letting me enter. I think
| it's obvious they took all my data.
|
| So now when I travel I just bring my "travel" phone with no
| sensitive data on it.
| pearjuice wrote:
| 45 minutes of unsupervised access to your phone? Even if it's a
| "travel" phone I wouldn't connect it to any other device after
| that.
| boring_twenties wrote:
| They took my laptop in the back for just 30 minutes or so,
| after which I refused to accept it back from them or even
| touch it, which took another 2 hours or so. Eventually they
| agreed to dispose of it themselves.
| bagels wrote:
| Why not just throw it away yourself?
| boring_twenties wrote:
| It was out of my sight for half an hour, I'm not so much
| as touching it again after that.
| bagels wrote:
| What harm would happen if you touched it long enough to
| put it in a trash can? You were concerned they may have
| poisoned it or something? I completely understand not
| wanting to operate it since they could have backdoored it
| or put tracking devices in it, etc.
| rovr138 wrote:
| He took possession. If anything is on that phone now,
| it's now a game to see who was the last one to have it
| and to put whatever is there in it.
| Wistar wrote:
| Were they surprised at your refusal?
| boring_twenties wrote:
| They had no idea how to react, lol
| philliphaydon wrote:
| Did you get reimbursed?
| boring_twenties wrote:
| Never even occurred to me
| tenpies wrote:
| Wonder if you could make a case with travel insurance.
| After all the device was technically stolen from you,
| under threat of violence.
| Arrath wrote:
| I like to share an anecdote that at a professional
| conference, some agents from the ATF came to give a
| presentation regarding updated regulations and found that
| their laptop couldn't connect to the projector.
|
| No biggie, I had just finished my presentation and offered to
| let them use my laptop. The moment they plugged in the thumb
| drive with their presentation, my virus scanner went apeshit
| about something on that drive.
|
| I kept that laptop disconnected for the rest of that trip,
| and nuked it once I was back home.
| Havoc wrote:
| What are you gonna do? Throw you new iphone in the bin?
| macrolime wrote:
| Sell it back to Apple with Apple Trade In and buy a new one
| N19PEDL2 wrote:
| Buy a 2nd-hand $40 scrap phone, erase it, save a few
| panorama pictures and a couple of selfies on it and put
| your SIM card in it every time you are about to cross a
| border. Then put the card back in your regular phone after
| that.
| Havoc wrote:
| Can't wait to post my holiday pics taken with my $40
| potato online!
|
| Ultimately the underlying privacy violation is what needs
| to change here cause all work arounds are problematic in
| some way
| JohnFen wrote:
| Why not use an actual camera?
| clankyclanker wrote:
| Nope, get a new SIM. There's some writable memory on
| them, iirc.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| Good thing the trend is toward non-removable SIMs to stop
| that sort of shady business.
| ekianjo wrote:
| Non removable sim? Who wants that?
| staringback wrote:
| It is less "sim card is tied to this phone and can't be
| moved" and more "sim card exists logically and doesn't
| require a physical presence in the phone it wants to be
| used in"
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Which really sucks for travellers. High roaming costs?
| Just go to a gasstation and buy a travel sim card, put it
| inside, use it, put it in the walled when you leave, and
| if you still have any data left, use it the next time you
| come there.
|
| eSIMs are a pain in the ass for that.
| robocat wrote:
| If any company you depend on uses your phone number for
| 2FA, then SIMless is useful. A SIM can be removed and put
| into another phone to receive authentication txts.
|
| Mostly relevant if your phone is lost or stolen, or
| perhaps even if criminals are directly threatening you.
| For example, I worry about bank accounts when I travel to
| some countries because criminals would be highly
| motivated to steal from me - the only thing protecting me
| is their ignorance. In some countries a few thousand
| dollars is a lot of motivation. Unfortunately my primary
| bank does not provide secure 2FA but only provides phone
| auth, and I am locked into my bank because of my mortgage
| (I have a mortgage, and conditions have changed which
| prevent me from getting a different mortgage from another
| bank). I could cancel revolving credit (the main
| financial risk) but that has other opportunity costs for
| me.
|
| Also SIMless helps prevent unwanted telephone charges -
| important if roaming in other countries on account. Phone
| companies do not make it easy to limit your liability, so
| if you are unlucky you could end up owing many thousands.
| 00deadbeef wrote:
| This is why you should enable the PIN code feature for
| your SIM. It will be disabled after a few incorrect
| attempts. It protects you from the scenarios you
| describe.
| bool3max wrote:
| Governments and corporations.
| [deleted]
| mindslight wrote:
| Another reason right to repair is so damn important. If all
| of a device's memory were thoroughly documented, then this
| type of attack would require hardware modification, making it
| more expensive and easier to detect. And if hardware
| revisions were documented, the community could do things like
| document visual changes to circuit boards for automated
| visual comparison. Whereas with the current state of hostile
| code like ME/PSP, I can imagine a (larger) backdoor being
| created merely as a side effect of a "search".
| jdeibele wrote:
| One approach would be to upload everything, wipe the phone,
| then log back in but not connect to iCloud (or Google).
|
| Once you've cleared the border, go to a coffee shop and
| download over their WiFi. Or not, if you're on a unlimited data
| plan.
|
| That has the advantage of requiring only one phone but would
| definitely look like you were hiding something. So your
| approach of a travel phone is better.
| MerelyMortal wrote:
| That won't prevent anything if they install malware that
| persists after a factory reset.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Is that possible with any recent phone?
| lrem wrote:
| Do we have any reason to believe to the contrary?
| pugworthy wrote:
| > Borders agents took my phone...
|
| Which countries agents? You were going from US to Canada. Were
| they Canadian or US agents?
| jliptzin wrote:
| Canadian
| synaesthesisx wrote:
| If you have theft & lost insurance on your device, I would
| rather just let them seize the device and report it as stolen.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > I give them the password to unlock it (otherwise they would
| seize the phone)
|
| IIRC, I've read they can only hold your phone for 30 days or
| something like that, then they have to return it to you. They
| can delay an American citizen, but they can't deny entry.
|
| Ever since then, I travel with a travel phone, make sure my
| photos are backed up when I cross a border, and shut it down
| before I go through border control. If they demand a password,
| I'll put up a little fuss and then let them take it.
| jung_at_heart wrote:
| I had this basic thing happen in 2014 -- I refused to give
| access. I was detained for a while, part of it in a cell, and
| Canada did explicitly deny me entry. They never gave back my
| phone or laptop, though I didn't fight too hard for the
| hardware.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Sounds like horrible experience.
| [deleted]
| mlindner wrote:
| They can't actually do that. If you just refuse to give them
| the password they'll give it back to you.
| jung_at_heart wrote:
| In 2014, I (an American) refused to give my passwords to
| Canada and they denied me entry and never gave me back my
| phone or laptop.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| How can USA deny you entry to your home country? Where are
| they going to send you?
| jung_at_heart wrote:
| Edited to make it clear I meant that Canada denied me
| entry and stole my electronics. (Context was
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32864997#32866297 )
|
| Thanks
| Canada wrote:
| Unless they have some reason to fear you, they'll just take
| it if they feel like it. Worse, if you're not Canadian they
| might send you back where you came from. And when they do it,
| they won't even tell you their names. What are you gonna do
| about it?
| makeworld wrote:
| Do you have a Canadian source on this?
| ViViDboarder wrote:
| By can't, do you mean they aren't allowed to? That doesn't
| really mean that they won't do it.
| refurb wrote:
| As a Canadian? They have to let you enter, but I believe
| they'll seize it?
|
| As anyone else? "Your request to enter Canada has been
| denied"
| [deleted]
| caseysoftware wrote:
| Read the book "Habeas Data"
|
| It's a great overview of digital privacy and protection laws _in
| the US_ , how they came about, and what protections they actually
| offer. The short answer is "very few" and the long answer is
| "never ever ever turn over your data short of a court order and
| even then try to fight it."
|
| Then with Third Party Doctrine, most of the few/limited
| privacy/warrant rules go out the window.
|
| Also, I'm not a lawyer.
| sleepdreamy wrote:
| If you don't read the 'Accept Me' On most random websites
| nowadays, most people are just openly giving up access to their
| devices/data without even knowing it.
| iamdamian wrote:
| Is there any significant effort in progress to combat this
| practice? I see that EFF has some old articles on the topic but I
| don't see anything current.
| AaronM wrote:
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/ninth-circuit-goes-ste...
| Frost1x wrote:
| From what I understand, the border is a sort of wild west in
| terms of citizens rights and lack there of. As usual with those
| seeking power and greed, boundary conditions that are not
| clearly defined are optimized around for their goals. Where do
| your rights begin and end as a US citizen? That's ignoring all
| the giant carve aways in your rights when it comes to reentry.
|
| Much of it's quite silly in the era of technology and current
| society scales anyways where most the nonsense they could be
| concerned about being on your personal phone in terms of data
| can be conducted right inside the border without ever leaving.
| So the excuses for cloning phones and archiving data outside of
| another loophole that let's them spy on US citizens are pretty
| limited. Anything on your phone they could be concerned about
| can be archived, encrypted, and tucked away somewhere on the
| internet that's far less tracable. So what information do you
| really need? Outside of the really stupid criminals (who will
| eventually learn to be more sophisticated and evade these
| approaches), what do you expect to catch?
|
| Preventing this practice should be a no brainer.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-16 23:01 UTC)