I don't believe any of the technical solutions mentioned in this thread; using a dumb phone, multiple identities and/or false data for plausible deniability, wiping the phone before passing the border, is viable for a larger number of people. They also fail once a border agent insists on accessing an email account for which they know you have the password.
The only protection is through protecting people legally. Once the border agencies can insist on accessing your email and cloud storage before letting you enter the country it seems like any arbitrary thought crime can deny you access.
"Sorry, sir, I use a password keeper and left the password file at home. I do not have any passwords with me."
That's not a lie, and I would love for them to explain to the judge if they did ever choose to detain you as to how this is not a valid and legal excuse and non-cooperation in any way.
And if you are in doubt about saying something like this, actually use a password keeper, it's a good security practice.
Further, do not bring any electronic device with you.
In fact you're not automatically entitled to a hearing at all, but that was the working compromise established last time this ended up in court. Given the new administration's adversarial posture towards the judicial branch on the question of immigration reviewability, this is likely to change for the worse.
. https://www.law360.com/articles/720066/2nd-circ-sets-6-month...
And to think that there are actually still people attracted to such a system and wanting to immigrate. It is amazing.
1. They need a warrant to search your phone if you don't voluntary give them access.
2. Even if they have a warrant, you can plead 5th and just not give them the pin.
The American way is all about not trusting the government, believing in conspiracy theories, and stocking up on ammo.
The moment you step outside the US, you can be killed by US a drone strike, or the CPB agent can simply shoot you if they wish.
It's a broken hole in our system that needs to change, but don't expect any change for at least 2-4 years.
Responding to the above, Obama did do something: he presided over the first extrajudicial assassination of a US citizen by drone strike.
I fail to see the problem
Even if everyone has perfect intentions (doubtful), you need checks and balances to prevent human error.
This is for better or worse.
Extra-judicial killings happen a lot. In the case of self-defense for example. "Cop thought the suspect had a gun" is a mistake that happens often, but it can be legitimate as well.
As for your other point, self defense is a long established affirmative defense for murder, yes. However that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
If the government has a case to kill a citizen, that case needs to be made in court and evaluated by a jury of peers.
Well, the constitution is the rules and limits that apply to the US Government mainly (for the benefit of not only the US citizens).
However the Constitution is pretty much defined as the Law of the Land (Article VI https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St... )
And if the case is as you describe then it seems it's a case for a federal prosecutor to make in Court.
> "Where high-level government officials have determined that a capture operation is infeasible and that the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and is engaged in activities that pose a continued and imminent threat to US persons or interests."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justificati...
Why didn't Obama do anything about it?
I didn't vote for President in the last election, because he became a clown with his antics and she (IMO) is a crook. I'm not partial to one side or the other: I hate all politicians equally.
I'd like to hear facts about what is happening in the new administration, but have had to stop listening to all media because it is so incredibly lopsided it's infuriating and only gets me agitated.
Whereas the media used to report primarily facts, it seems to me that now they primarily report opinions, speculations, and prophecies. We're not able to form our own opinions on issues based on facts, because we don't hear many facts, and the facts we do hear are definitely not in any kind of balance on the many sides of complex issues.
In general, I'd love to see us reduce our foreign military presence by 85%, and cut military spending by over 50%. Not counting other areas of the govt I'd love to see deep cuts into. End the war on drugs. End privatized prisons. The list goes on.
Sorry for the bit of a rant... I'm just kind of sick of it all, and that's only loosely following anything.
https://www.wired.com/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
In this case, the ACLU article on this topic is weasel worded and needs to be read carefully so you can seperate implication from fact.
But the 3rd bullet, which is key to the notion of the 100 mile "constitution free zone", is more mysterious. It states that Customs has "broad—though not limitless—powers" without detailing them.
Many readers of this ACLU post and coverage of it have come away with a false idea that Customs and Border Protection has some magic wand. The facts are very different.
Here are the referenced sections, forgive any formatting issues.
> - According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.
> -Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."
> -In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain extra-Constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints.
> - Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).
Technically they should probably have been formatted as subbullets of the third point, but other than that I don't see anything wrong.
Also, your para "Many readers … The facts are very different." — not apparently backed up by any details — is exactly the kind of weasel wording you decry. In fact, I think I'm being trolled here.
Even if they have a warrant, you can plead 5th and just not give them the pin.
For example, if you were an American, white college kid crossing the Canadian border into New York at a weird time, and behave in a manner that seems nervous or evasive, You're going to attract interest. If you start heading toward the Mohawk Indian reservation, you're going to get stopped as odds are good you're smuggling something.
You're celebrating pathological thinking, especially when you claim that stocking up on ammo contributes to the functioning of a nation (in the loosest sense of "nation"). The days of militias are long gone.
That's an interesting position, considering my state is still funding an organized state militia: http://www.vdf.virginia.gov/
Nobody has an obligation to refuse to comply (and be detained and/or jailed) but if put in this situation I would refuse. I'm not willingly giving up my rights without a court compelling me.
but we already know there are nonrights at the border.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438...
I'm really having difficulty to understand how the United States got from the cradle of freedom (let's say after the civil war, the colonization was not so prestigious) to the capricious and homophobic entity that it is shaping up to be.
And what anything of this has to do with homophobia?
That's implying interstate travel. Are you claiming ICE has authority to stop someone going from Georgia to Tennessee? The analogy was EU countries to US states, and specifically did not include international US borders.
And I disagree about you saying the EU just wishes to become the United States of Europe. In almost no sense does anyone give up their "sovereignty" by joining the EU. Every country still creates it's own laws, governs how it wishes to and has full control over what happens to itself. The EU only allows free travel and trade between each of the countries within it and also a standard currency and standard regulations (to enable the free travel and trade to happen in a safe environment).
But about European countries creating their own laws, the federalist movement so prevalent in Brussels these days certainly doesn't see it that way. What you describe was the EEC or the EEA. What the EU is about is different: it is not just free trade; it's about accepting laws, devised in Brussels, regulating many aspects of life - from how taxation must be organised, how economic activity may be encouraged, whether a nation may allow its subjects to chew tobacco, how wind power must or must not be subsidized, whether and what kind of hunting is permitted and whether people may own firearms... everything. Not just trade.
Also, creating a EU army is a recurring topic.
See how the Brussels is so wound up now that Britain dared to say "no thank you" to ever closer political and monetary union. There's a huge disconnect between Brussels (and European Parliament members) and the nations they are supposed to represent.
I'd be in favour of the kind of EU you imagine it is. Unfortunately that's not what we're getting, and that's why EU is disintegrating.
Not true. certainly not "undoubtedly".
> for the country to be voting for him, to an extent a proportion of them must agree.
Even less true. Even if Trump were homophobic - which is most likely not true - that does not mean somebody who voted for him supports him in that. Elections concern a wide array of issues, and people choosing between the two (or four, but let's not pretend anybody but the two had any chance) candidates necessarily compromise and vote for the person who may hold different views in many areas.
It is true that some homophobic people voted for him - as, it is certainly true, some also voted against him - but we know exactly nothing about how many and in what proportion. It is not the base for saying US is a homophobic country because of that, and it is most certainly not true.
> In almost no sense does anyone give up their "sovereignty" by joining the EU
Not true, please read about laws and policy harmonization in EU. Also, US does have wide areas in which state and not federal laws are used. One can argue US states have less sovereignty than EU member states, that's probably true, but the large amount of similarity is still there.
> The EU only allows free travel and trade between each of the countries within it and also a standard currency and standard regulations
This is impossible without EU members surrendering part of their sovereignty - unless you want to pretend that so many countries having same laws (or, as you call it, "regulations"), same migration rules, same currency policy, same trade rules, etc. all happened because by chance they all independently passed exactly the same laws.
He's self-serving and contradictory (see Pence), but it's not nearly as open and shut as suggested.
Do you have any specific reasons he's homophobic?
Yes, actually. He's said very homophobic things and done some very transphobic things.
1. He's on record saying "marriage is between a man and a woman."
2. He's on record saying he supports Pence's "FADA" which makes it legal to discriminate against LGBT people in any way imaginable (including denying social services such as basic policing or health care services) if a person claims a sincere belief that their religion condones such discrimination. You can read more of it here, this draft is well-circulated: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802 (fun fact, this law also makes it illegal for the States or any Corporation to have any rules that might curtial these actions, so as a business owner a manager could fire a gay person and you couldn't punish them for it).
And then this week, we saw Trump's admin immediately pull back protections put in place to keep trans children safe and provide them life-saving medical interventions.
The White House hasn't been this overtly homophobic since Reagan's pressec and the press pit laughed at gay men dying of AIDS.
I'm not sure why the guy waves a rainbow flag once and suddenly we're all supposed to ignore his policy promises. He said he'd sign FADA and unless something dramatic changes, he's going to get the opportunity to. Claims of an anti-LGBT stance and homophobia seem fairly well founded at this point.
Not to nitpick, but the UK opted out of the EU entirely, not just the Schengen Zone.
There was a brief blip in the 19th century, as railways started to cross Europe and passport checks seemed pointless [2], but that aside, passports seem to have been more common than not.
Given how much was controlled by monarchy-issued licenses and charters, I doubt it was that easy to rock up and enter a foreign country without any papers, but I'd certainly be interested to learn more.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport#History
[2] http://www.wanderlust.co.uk/magazine/articles/destinations/a...
Customs duties were a bigger source of revenue. Ships didn't just travel freely.
People were less of a problem, as most people didn't stray more than a few miles from where they were born.
In practice they may not always exist, but I think Schengen member states have the authority to perform border controls in all cases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area#Border_checks does not talk about distinctions depending on the mode of entry). In the current political climate, even as a citizen of a Schengen country, I would not cross borders within Schengen space without ID: I would not be surprised if states decided to perform border checks, and they would probably have the right to deny me passage if I do not have suitable ID.
This ended up in a huge mess, but as far as I know very few were actually turned away. Mostly people ended up being fined for not being able to provide a valid ID and let back in after a manual verification. There were some controversy around this, as citizens are not legally required to carry IDs.
Individually? It's extremely difficult other than "try not to appear suspicious" and bring a dumbphone when crossing borders.
The real protection is collective. Stopping the current administration is only the beginning; the Democrats are merely "not as bad" on this kind of issue. Broader anti-racism and anti-racist-media action is needed, because otherwise this kind of arbitary brutal border policy will win votes.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151002/15583732429/homel...
https://courthousenews.com/stockton-mayor-charged-in-youth-c...
STOCKTON, Calif. (CN) — Stockton, Calif. Mayor Anthony Silva was arrested at his summer camp for underprivileged youth Thursday and faces multiple charges over his suspected involvement in an underage strip poker game. Silva was arrested at his camp by agents from the FBI, Stockton Police Department and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s office. The incumbent mayor’s bail was set at $20,000. The FBI also recovered evidence of Silva secretly taping a conversation with a Stockton city employee, while another witness told investigators that Silva has cameras in his bedroom and at the Stockton Kid’s Club, Riebe said. The charges come amid recent revelations from the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office that a gun owned by Silva was used in the 2015 killing of a 13-year old. Investigators say a semi-automatic pistol that was stolen from Silva was used in two separate Stockton shootings. Silva says he informed authorities his gun was missing in March 2015, a month after the gun was used in the fatal shooting of Rayshawn Harris. Officers recovered the weapon during a domestic disturbance unrelated to the mayor.
Silva is no longer mayor(lost re-election for some reason), trial proceedings are still going on.
This is an issue much bigger than race and as soon as we stop compartmentalizing it into that it will be better for us all.
You turn it into another about race thing and people will tune out. You make people realize they are at risk no matter who they are and they might pay attention. That might sound tone deaf but the reality is people first and foremost care about themselves and their in-group before anything else. It's hard not to.
Now, they might think in terms of it being for thugs and terrorists, instead of black people and Muslims, but they 'know' they themselves can't possibly be mistaken for either because they 'don't look like a thug/terrorist'. While the searches are indeed applied along racial lines, it will be hard to convince them otherwise, because they are mostly right.
So, sure, this is about liberty, about forestalling totalitarianism, about our human right to privacy and our political right to protection from unreasonable search, but it is also about race and about xenophobia. I am not sure failing to acknowledge that does us any favors strategically. At risk of going full Godwin's Law, there were a lot of things wrong with Nazism besides anti-semitism, but analyzing why people allowed the rise of Nazism without talking about anti-semitism is foolish.
For example japan or poland are fairly xenophobic and isolationist, but they don't practice a surveillance state or ask for your social media accounts at the border. Foreigners are free to enter as long as they don't overstay their welcome.
I would say that xenophobia is the natural state of homogeneous populations. Everything different is treated with suspicioun, but not necessarily overt opposition or hatred. Xenophobia only gets used as leverage by politicians to amplify and deflect other issues (such as income inequality) onto other groups. Fix those issues and some latent xenophobia isn't going to turn into problems.
Does that mean Muslims should be discriminated against? Obviously not. However, this is a very blunt way of people trying to protect themselves (even if it's not effective or overreaching).
To wave that off as "racism" isn't really fair.
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/27/14412420/terrorism-muslim... : "The study found that only 46 Muslim Americans (defined as “Muslims who lived in the US for an extended period”) were linked to violent extremism at home or abroad in 2016. The total Muslim American population is 3.3 million."
and, from https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2017/01/Kurzman_Muslim-Am... : "The 54 fatalities caused by Muslim-American extremists in 2016 brought the total since 9/11 to 123. More than 240,000 Americans were murdered over the same period."
So, to prevent 46 or so crimes, affecting 54 or so people (say 300 if you think there are large numbers of wounded), we are de facto abrogating the rights of 3.3 million people, plus visitors. Nevermind that terrorism represents only 0.05% of violent crime, that violent crime itself is at its lowest in decades and that we never felt the need to become a surveillance state over said amount of crime. The only reason why people think it reasonable to do so now is that they associate Muslim with terrorist at a visceral irrational level, not because it makes sound logical sense. Hence, racism and xenophobia is a perfectly reasonable explanation.
Also keep in mind that, over time, treating any group better both at home and abroad reduces incidence of terrorism from that group. But the point is that the current incidence itself is not anywhere near the point where putting millions under surveillance is worth it.
Wikipedia: "Mateen was born Omar Mir Seddique[6] on November 16, 1986,[7] in New Hyde Park, New York, to Afghan parents"
(Similarly, the Bataclan attack was carried out by French/Belgian nationals)
So he was a US-born US national. Not an immigrant or green card holder.
> Does that mean Muslims should be discriminated against? Obviously not.
Yes! Exactly!
> To wave that off as "racism" isn't really fair
.. what? It's discrimination against a group of people by religion-inferred-from-ethnic-origin-or-skin-colour. That's exactly what racism is. It's not "waving it off" at all.
Well, race or nationality. I don't think Trump voters think American citizens will be subjected to authoritarian measures, or should be. They think their in-group is safe.
By making it clear that these issues harm everyone, we can prevent these actions from happening to anyone. People are willing to take away the rights of others, but generally are not willing to sacrifice their own.
I've observed this pattern: 'bad guy' is part of another group? That whole group is bad. 'bad guy' is part of the group of the person speaking: That's just an individual rotten apple, but it does not say anything about all of us.
Or sometimes I think about ditching my GUI Linux for something really basic - same reason why some people stick with dumb phones - now what happens if I hand over full control over my neat z-shell to the TSA? Will he grep around or just consider me dangerous?
It would not surprisee if at some point, if we leave this tyranny unchecked, we will all be forced to hand over our devices while deboarding so they can be scanned while we wait in line for initial interrogation.
Disclaimer: this is all being speculative, of course. I'm not suggesting to lie to or misdirect a border guard in a real-life situation.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/us-customs-is-req...
For the sake of this discussion, replace porn with old passport scans and unimportant banking documents, for example.
Trying to outsmart the border guards essentially makes you a smuggler. Sure you're trying to smuggle your own personal data rather anything nefarious, but either way - you're trying to beat them at their own game, on their own turf, where they have every advantage, constant practice, and effectively get to write their own rules.
Every fantastic example you dream up, you have to pray no-one's thought of it before. The game's rigged.
The only real way to win is to double down on the legal position of such searches.
Combine that with a phone that lets you have multiple users where you use one for banal activity which you can then show to Big Brother when he comes knocking. And others for anything important.
To me having several pseudonyms and also using throwaways is part of standard information hygiene. I also have multiple email addresses, some are set to forward to others (one-way of course), others aren't. I don't know why people aren't teaching that to their children.
I also love 4chan for that reason. I can talk to people in a totally ephemeral manner. Identity only exists for the duration of a conversation.
Or I don't know, do people also share their grindr adventures by linking that account to twitter these days?
What we need to be doing is vehemently protesting these policies and rejecting them completely. If we start building tools to deny information when someone Has physical access to your unlocked device then we normalize these policies and accept the enevitibility that our privacy is gone. This is a war we cannot win. Not everyone is going to operate with the hygienic standards you use.
That said I've never actively protested a thing in my life. I am basically guilty or complicit myself, and I hate it.
Ultimately most people just simply do not place any value on their privacy.
It's easy to dismiss data retention laws because they're so far away. But if someone is literally sitting across from you going through your phone? I think (hope) that image will drive the point home a lot better than it has previously.
For aliens (people entering under ESTA, visas, etc), you are compelled to reveal any aliases or pseudonyms you operate under. There's a two page document for you to fill the details out under ESTA, presumably under under a visa as well. Lying to a border guard, or on these forms is a felony.
It's a false sense of security, is it not? It's probably best to assume your opponent isn't completely dumb.
If we're facing a surveillance state without any internal obstructions then yes, far stricter opsec will be needed.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/obama-administra...
I guess I'm wondering if border guards at any point in the future will have quick access to a database, presumably with information from a company that has either voluntarily or been forced to provide data.
Sir, we just ran your social networking accounts and according to our data you have another Facebook account that you did not provide access to...
To me those would be reasons to leave the country and facebook.
Here, now, today?
Set all your accounts up with auto-generated passwords, and store the whole lot in a password vault[1]. Don't bring the password vault file with you when you cross the border. Arrange to acquire it after you have entered the country[2].
Now you can honestly say you don't know any of your passwords. If enough people do this, then this law will be pointless.
Also, for the love of god stop bringing your smartphone with you when you travel. Get a $15 quad-band feature phone, and just bring a paper map with you. If you don't need your laptop then leave that behind as well.
[1] As much as I hate password managers and see them as a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist, you should probably be doing this by now anyway.
[2] The details of this can range from a pre-timed email to a physical handover from someone inside the country, depending on whether you think the border police might detain you and attempt to force you to acquire the password vault.
Also, for the love of god stop bringing your smartphone with you when you travel.
If you're willing to have two smartphones, or to backup and wipe your smartphone when you travel (don't forget the sim), then I guess not that much. I definitely couldn't be bothered though, hence the cheapie phone. Your mileage may vary if you're going for a 3 months sojourn I guess, I usually do 2-3 day trips.
However, back on the sliding scale of paranoia, the main risk of bringing your phone with you if you want next level protection from the US is that if they ever take your phone and remove it from your field if view, you might want to bin it. The US has proven very adept at modifying circuitry of devices to monitor them[1]. A cheap feature phone can be binned without thought.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/photos-of-an-nsa...
Wipe phone when you pass through border, restore afterwards. If you're really paranoid, if the device leaves your presence it's to be considered physically compromised.
I'm really not sure if I want to visit the US at all while Trump is in power. Not because I expect the chances of any severe problems are all that huge, but because the growing lack of predictability is just creating sufficient friction.
I don't fancy Trump anymore than the next guy, but this started long before he got elected.
This is driven by the intelligence community for their own power grab and is 100% independent. It would be pushed through no matter who sat in the presidential seat.
Let's just say that if you try to oppose it, in the current (intolerant liberal) political climate someone has enough data on you to ruin your life and career as a politician no matter who you are.
That's a massive amount of power. Seeing how the head of NSA openly and repeatadly lies under oath to no consequence what so ever, I'd be surprised if it's not a power being misused regularly.
You are right to be outraged, but you are wrong to be fearful of Trump. You need to be fearful and angry at the government, regardless of who's the President.
But don't come here telling me administrations are basically the same. And much of the surveillance state exists because of the politicians that pander to the more xenophobic demographics. Look how much of the previous 8 years they spent portraying Obama as a crypto-Muslim, bent on the the Islamicization of the United States yadda yadda. Every time he tried to dismantle or scale back any aspect of the national security state (Guantanamo being an obvious example) conservatives howled about him enabling terrorism and putting the American people in danger. To ignore those factors is to deceive yourself about the political dynamics that shape your environment.
Obama managed to push affordable care act through despite republican howls. Perhaps there are other reasons for his change of heart on other topics.
I can deal with an authoritarian government as a visitor if I know what to avoid while visiting. Not so if the rules can change at the whim of someone who seems unstable.
> If you still think of the world as divided into good and evil, then I have to break it to you that you have been played. Brainwashed by years and years of media programming.
> One man's terrorist is another man's hero. The U.S routinely bombs other sovereign countries and this is show cased as a "hero" activity. If the bombed people retaliate, they are terrorists. The truth is not black/white. Same way U.S data surveillance is OK but same thing done by China is seen as backward regime.
The reason I find it bizarre is that I've visited the US about two dozen times over many years, and while I know there are plenty of issues for many visitors, it used to be fairly predictable who would get stopped, and I used to feel safe that I would not get pulled aside and face more invasive questioning or searches.
As I've noted elsewhere, part of what is changing is that it appears this predictability is out of the window: Things like NASA employees stopped or how a few days ago a former Norwegian Prime Minister travelling on a diplomatic passport was stopped. And so.
In a way, I suppose, I get to finally experience the uncertainty people from less favoured countries and/or darker skinned/with a muslim sounding name have dealt with for much longer. That is perhaps the only benefit of this mess: It's finally affecting groups of people that may cause it to become politically untenable over time.
But what has changed is the predictability and the extent of use of these types of powers.
I used to feel safe that I would not get taken aside and have to deal with this type of thing, but now I see no reason to any more, because there seems to be no reason to assume that the rules won't suddenly change overnight.
On entering the UK on the other hand, I still feel reasonably safe that though I know they can, the odds that they will are extremely low.
It used to be that I'd consider what to clean off my laptop before entering places like China. Now I'm not sure I'll even want to bring my regular laptop to the US.
That way you could simply put it into lockdown mode before you enter border checks and not use the phone except for minimal calling features.
Most MDMs can wipe the phone or data on it in the event you leave the country.
It strikes me that yielding to unjust approaches is fundamentally problematic on two fronts:
- The action of forcing legal citizens to unlock their personal information certainly is questionable constitutionally.
- The idea that one can perform these sorts of workarounds is likely biased with privilege.
Visiting the US now demands exactly the same measures as visiting China.
There's also the possibility of seizure -- not getting your encrypted hard drive back because you refused to co-operate.
Otherwise you get rubber hose cryptanalysis: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13629728
Bruce Shneier's advice: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/laptop_securi...
We need a "kill code" on secured devices: A separate password that silently resets the device to a saved state suggesting mild use and offering nothing of substance.
Alarm systems have these: A code you only enter under duress, that looks like a regular disarm code, but silently summons help. So where are Apple and Google on something similar for our digital privacy?
If they access it through the phone, they can only access what the OS allows.
I think an OS that would allow you to expose only a safe part of your phone, would be an excellent idea.
Not really. As soon as you know there's an investigation against you, any action to purposely destroy relevant evidence can be used against you, even if there was no formal crime charge yet. For companies, they usually get special letter that instructs them to preserve evidence due to investigation ongoing or lawsuit pending. It is also common in civil cases, where there's no crime to talk about at all.
But on a personal level CBP agent saying "we need information on your phone" can be treated as informing you about necessity to preserve evidence, and they may as well just give you a printed instruction saying you have to preserve it. Once they did that, purposely destroying evidence (which is anything they could consider relevant) is a crime.
Unfortunately, you are not likely to get off on technicality with this - they know the technicalities much better than you. The whole policy of border being "rights-free zone" needs change, not finding a loophole.
I wonder if it would help if an equal amount of US citizens have to hand over their passwords at EU borders. Maybe that would help as a wake up call?
If we've gone so far on the path towards authoritarianism that even citizens don't have rights, I'll just never come back in.
While I don't agree it's a good thing, I think they do have the right to detain you indefinitely and/or search whatever they damn well please if it's on your person. I don't think asking for a password that doesn't unlock a device in your possession would pass muster, but unlocking your phone would. Your rights (as a citizen) at the border aren't the same as when you're not there.
Also, I think the definition of "at the border" includes anywhere with 100 miles of the physical end of jurisdiction (so effectively you sitting at home in most of the west or east coasts is "at the border").
> If we've gone so far on the path towards authoritarianism that even citizens don't have rights, I'll just never come back in.
FYI, I think they have the same right to search you or hold you indefinitely on the way out as well.
I don't think they can force me to give up my PIN. Not even a court can do that.
My rights as a citizen are indeed less, in that they can detain me in an attempt to force compliance. The thing is that it's never been fully tested. In all the cases I've reviewed, either the person relented or CBP eventually let them through.
If the detention lasted for days, their case would become harder and harder to make. Someone needs to make a stand.
> FYI, I think they have the same right to search you or hold you indefinitely on the way out as well.
Perhaps, but leaving is nowhere near as systematic. More importantly: if they were making giving up this info a condition of entry, I would refuse to enter. If they want to lock me up for that, I have a court case.
It's cool to say these things, but the system is weighted against protest. You must be ready to sacrifice everything for your principles.
Personally, I'm quite well-positioned to be able to do this. I'm a young self-employed single white man with no family to support. My net worth is probably enough to pay the legal fees (though I hope that this is the sort of case the ACLU or EFF would support).
"I don't think they can force me to give up my PIN. Not even a court can do that."
They could temporarily inconvenience you, or confiscate your belongings (or arrest you if you actually break the law)... but they would not legally be able to detain you indefinitely. A lawyer would have a field day with that.
Since there's nothing actually illegal about refusing to unlock your phone, at worst you'd lose your phone while they attempt to crack it offline.
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/supreme-court-phone-warrant-u...
And an EFF post from 2011:
https://www.eff.org/wp/defending-privacy-us-border-guide-tra...
It's also not just the US; here's one from Canada:
https://www.cnet.com/news/man-charged-for-refusing-to-give-u...
Finally, it's not a policy; the the general differences in due process at the border, as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (1997, Ramsey v. United States).
Have many accounts, some of which have a subsetof your email which is totally safe. They can even be mirrors.
Or alternatively, have all your sensitive communication on other channels which leave no trace (in browser history, for instance).
Simple!
PS: It would be cool if apps let you have steganography... like Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp wouldn't show ALL conversations until you entered a specific password. They could even have groups of hidden conversations. Even if cops know that, they will never be sure if you revealed everything. This may be good or bad for you.
I don't see this happening, in Europe at least. It seems like a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression and right to family and private life so shouldn't be possible for any of the 47 members of the Council of Europe (who are bound by the ECHR).
Not having social media account is the obvious answer, there is little that this will be implemented ever but having a multiple password account could be a workaround. a master password give access to all while another you could give to border guard would transparently limit the access to a sanitized version of the account. The other obvious answer to force the government and lawmakers to remove this policy.
Have all expected social media, with expected contacts (family, friends, colleagues, etc) and activity. But carry disposable stuff, because you can't trust it after it's been taken for inspection. If asked, just say they you're worried about theft ;) Or if you're on business, that it's your employer's policy. Which it should be.
For anything that you want kept private, be very careful to compartmentalize it from your meatspace identity.
It is time for all cloud services to provide plausible deniability by allowing for multiple passwords to access the same social account - but where all the passwords except the One allows for only a subset of the account.
E.g. logon to Facebook using password 'plausible1' and see only friend 1 and friend 2. Logon to facebook using password 'everything' and see friend 1 and 2 but friend 3 as well.
If you try and cross any border it will be relinquishing access to all accounts.
I'm assuming email also comes along with 'social media', since communication is by its definition social.
So how do you protect yourself? I think just going with "Don't have any social media" isn't a good answer because the relationship that children growing up today with the internet is almost completely different to even people 10-15 years older than them.
Someone having carte blanche access to a person's phone will find something if they want to.
Imagine you're in a few group chats, someone mentions doing some drug. And you've just entered a country where that's an instant prison sentence.
Maybe some off colour jokes about politicians? Proof to kick you out or at least detain.
I imagine we're at the cusp of something much more unsettling. The technology to reverse image search a face is available today. It's pretty easy to make you appear associated with anything, anyone, etc.