Nitpick: in Catholic dogma purgatory is a place of purification, those in purgatory know that they are there for a reason and only for a certain time, afterwards they enter heaven. Hell on the other hand, is for eternity and ugly. That's why the two are easily distinguished in their iconography, both involve imagery of flames, but souls in purgatory look joyful and those in hell look despondent.
In a few short years, you are the ones who will be justifying any of the following on grounds that "they already do the less-invasive thing, why not one step more?"
- Mandatory fingerprinting (USA does this for foreigners in some airports)
- Declare all cash, declare all crypto (with addresses / xpubs)
- Bank account logins
- Register electronic devices / install software trackers
- Hair sample for drug testing
- Cheek swab for DNA
- Blood draw to check for diseases / drugs / DNA
They've long had your bank account information (thanks to the PATRIOT Act). They probably have trackers installed on the chipsets of devices, but ignoring that, we know they are capable of intercepting most internet traffic.
Most people have their fingerprints taken, either as the result of a run-in with the law, legitimate or otherwise (clerical error). Or because they were incentivized in some manner (TSA Precheck). Federal IDs are rolling out now too.
> I see sudden spike in the market for burner phones. ANd a long-term opportunity for a company that can create a "burner" social media profile.
Then, your online profile is going to get mined along with everyone else's, continuously, by multiple state-level organizations who cooperate with each other-- whether you've booked travel or not.
By the time folks get to a border it will just matter of diverting anyone with a "red X" next to their name.
At least they banned software patents.
That hardly seems like totalitarian overreach. In fact it seems quite restrained and pretty reasonable - and presumably must be intelligence led, since I rather doubt they are doing this at random...!
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_i...
Searching for the 540 figure it appears to be mobile phones only, there was another 300 computers. So ~840 searches for 2 million people.
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/to...
https://fyi.org.nz/request/1119-how-many-digital-devices-are...
/* I guess adding mobile and computer searches is wrong though, since some sizable fraction of computer owners have a mobile and would thus have had both searched. So maybe 650-700 searches? Doesn't change the magnitude of the resulting figures much, I suppose. */
But yeah there wouldn't be many searches.
But if you're _actually_ crossing a border into a country where there's internet access, why would you risk carrying any data that you wouldn't put on a postcard across that border? If you need it, download it after you've got there.
https://www.computerworld.com.au/article/647615/
https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/consultations/assistanc...
They are clearly clutching at straws using the story about the rapist as a reason to want no judicial oversight for the ability to spy on all citizens. Why can't they get the messages from the teenagers phones, if they know they were sent?
...anybody wanna sell insurance?
At all.
EDIT: I do this all the time and it’s not even remotely difficult or a big deal.
Now it will only bother and waste time of people who are serious about their privacy to apply this workaround as well.
It’s easy to scoff at blunt-tool laws because you can think of a way to undermine them. But law and society are built on a patchwork of imperfect systems which can individually be broken, undermined, manipulated or worked around. In aggregate, they do achieve some semblance of a result, because they are layered together - even if each one alone provides only a marginal element of security.
I guess that helps the country's well being but hardly a violent target.
Login to a cloud server that has your backups / restores / setup scripts / data. Preferably encrypt those backups before you upload them to the cloud server.
Only reason why I don't do it more frequently is it's a pain in the ass. I've been fairly impressed with iOS's backup restoration system recently.
Only had to log in to a specific set of services for everything to be back to normal.
This system is definitely a great way to test your backup restores!
Also: Don't use email for any semblance of secure communications.
>Only reason why I don't do it more frequently is it's a pain in the ass. I've been fairly impressed with iOS's backup restoration system recently.
Interesting! My gripe is I haven't found a way to do a cloud backup of an iPhone w/o putting the data in iCloud, which I do not trust.
I'd prefer to make my own backup which I store/pull down manually... is that possible?
My assumption is that if a country is nosy enough to want access to a device, encryption is irrelevant since they'll just demand a PW, so ideally I'd like to wipe the device then pull a backup down later.
You can also use some sort of E2E backup software like arq or restic, dig through it's archives and download your iphone backup that way.
That is all a major pain in the ass and, as others have pointed out here, those that want to do harm are likely already doing this. I wouldn't expect normal folks to be able to do this, nor should they have to in order to preserve privacy.
Or are you suggesting I should camp out in the airport for a few hours to restore my phone before I can figure out where I'm going and get ahold of my contacts?
Oh let me guess. Your solution so to print those contacts and maps (oh, no GPS to figure out where I am on that map) and use a pay phone (because I still need to re-install the apps I'd normally be using to contact people). Heck, I don't actually have phone numbers for > 90% of my friends. I just have them on Facebook, Line, WhatsApp. The only people I have phone numbers for are for people who've been friends longer than about 15 years, in other words before messaging
It's absolutely possible traveling without a smartphone. I've done it plenty of times before smartphones became a thing. But smartphones make it so much easier.
It's honestly kind of lazy not to take precautions, particularly when it's that easy - you've already listed out exactly what I'd suggest, and it's how people muddled along for decades in the before-times, more or less successfully.
I would suggest learning how to read maps. It's really easy, especially in urban areas. Find the nearest intersection, and look where it is on the map. There you are.
There are plenty of backup tools available on the internet, this isn't really a problem with Android. Personally that's what I do each time I travel abroad. Both because I might loose my phone/laptop and because on can never be sure what software/content is legal(or not) in this or that country.
Some people got jailed abroad for content/software that would be deemed legal in my home country, on their computer.
Name one and describe the process. So far everything I have tried takes hours and often loses a bunch of settings that need to be restored manually. It requires significant amounts of work. Also it seems most tools need a rooted phone
A minor inconvenience given the legal risks. If you don't want to deal with that just get yourself cheap used gear dedicated to travel purposes.
I have used the built in backup to Google and noticed that restore takes many hours and a lot of apps lost data and settings. It took considerable effort to get back to normal. Definitely too much work to spend on my first day of vacation.
A burner phone may work but then you don't have access to all your data.
If you install TWRP recovery (root is only required for the installation, not the maintenance), you can do a full-phone backup.
I just picked up a new one for a work project at the local supermarket yesterday - $1NZD.
When I registered my last SIM, I did it online and they wanted Drivers Licence number and a lot of other info that I felt was quite a lot just so I could use a phone.
Both here and in the US, I've found that airports usually are not good places to get SIMs - there seems to be some agreement whereby the expensive ones aimed at tourists are all that's available. Supermarkets or department stores tend to be my go-to.
It automatically renews though, so I had to remember to cancel it when I left.
Are you asking which countries do demand it?
Your sovereignty argument is such an extreme interpretation of the question that it's almost certainly not what plg had in mind - if plg did have it in mind, then I find it hard to believe that question would have been asked in the first place.
Consider the question "what countries on border entry can draw and quarter entering citizens?" Your viewpoint seems to be that the correct answer is "all of them", yes?
What are you, the individual, going to do when a border agent takes your device and demands your password? “We’re just going to take this for a few minutes, what’s your password? Oh you won’t tell us? Sit in this room for 400hrs. Ok, thank you, you’re free to go, enjoy your stay.”
Nothing. There’s nothing you can do.
Lodging complaints after the fact doesn’t unviolate you.
You can be a renown children’s author and the best you can hope for is an apology.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-25/mem-fox-detained-at-lo...
And that from an ally. Not just any ally, Australia is the US’s best friend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civi...
Room Temperature IQ Goon (RTG): Give me your facebook password
Me: I don't know my facebook password
RTG: How do you login?
Me: I have a service to hold all my passwords
RTG: What is that service and what is the password
Me: Lastpass, but I don't have the second password
RTG: Second password?
Me: Yes, it requires me to use a U2F token to generate a second password
RTG: What is a U2F token and give it to me
Me: I leave it at home for security
RTG: Give me your phone
Me: Hands over 3310
RTG: Your real phone
Me: I don't travel internationally with a phone that have any data on it that I care about.
Of course the real solution is that I don't travel anywhere.
> Of course the real solution is that I don't travel anywhere.
That is considerably more realistic, sadly.
"Sovereign" is a fancy word that boils down to, we have enough police- and/or military power at our disposal that we can force you to do it.
America has de facto exile due to the No Fly List:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/ju... https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/02/2013241659...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/one-womans-case-proves-its-bas... https://www.courthousenews.com/en-banc-9th-circuit-takes-up-... https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/01/who-can-challenge-the-n...
Snowden is arguably in exile, as his passport was cancelled, but he wouldn't be refused entry :-)
PoTAYto, poTAHto
Is being searched before you get on a plane or enter a customs checkpoint some kind of hideous infringement of your civil liberties? No!
There’s no problem with this in principle. The problem is that it’s silly, and it causes a privacy and security violation while not accomplishing anything.
It's not a problem for you, fine. I'd ask you to let me search you but that'd only be to prove a point, so by all means keep accepting it. But when you say it's not a problem, you do not speak for me.
It's pointless, degrading, and above all it's sad that you and many others accept it without questioning it.
I’m not thrilled by the social contract, but it’s a good deal more convenient than driving across country.
Positive example: I use Google Drive. I know full well Google could read and analyze all my shit if they wanted to. I surrender to that possibility in exchange for the very cheap and convenient online storage I get.
Negative example: Fuck the TSA and all its theatrics. Those aren't useful. Please do convince me they are; I don't see anyone even trying to pretend they are.
Of course it is. We're simply used to it, because we're sheep and cowards. But it is. Searching everyone, without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of anything, is a violation of civil liberties, and of basic human decency. It's also pure theater and useless.
And because we have accepted this, other privacy agressions seem justified.
I'm willing to entertain arguments that it is a worthwhile trade-off, but we must acknowledge that it is an infringement on everyone's rights.
Every additional infringement should come with a justification, an analysis considering whether it will be effective, and a harm minimisation strategy.
Searching everything I've ever said or done online, my personal photos etc etc. is an entirely different proposition.
There are huge problems with this in principle!
No. But they are looking for items that would make the flight unsafe, as well as controlled substances.
If they are searching your bits, they are not looking for either of these things, they are looking for thought crimes. Not only now, but in your past.
There is a big difference.
We search things across borders for things our country does not want. We don't want drugs. We don't want fresh fruit (which will trip up more people than drugs).
We don't want child porn. And if a phone is a container for that content, we want to be able to explore the container.
Of course, there's a million different ways around this. Get burner phones. Store content in the cloud. Have seven firewalls. Whatever. But that doesn't change the concept of inspecting things across a border to make sure things we don't want, don't come in.
And if that's a totalitarian purgatory, then name a country (or external border for the EU) that isn't a totalitarian purgatory.
Entry to the US can be denied (for life even) if the customs agent suspects the traveler has involvement with Cannabis.
That includes having investments in Cannabis companies.
So if the take my phone and find any information on it connected to Cannabis I could be barred FOR LIFE from entry into the US.
That means that I am leaving a country where that is legal, and entering into a state that it is also legal some border gaourd can ban me for life - even if all I did was search for "Cannibis legal in Canada".
Where does it end?
Ultimately it's the law itself rather than the enforcement of it that you're objecting to.
However your scenario is inaccurate. Just as having a google search about murder weapons won’t bar you for life neither will search history about cannabis. They may ask why your interested in it... But learning about a crime is not equivalent to commiting the crime.
>Even though Znaimer didn’t admit to personally using pot, he was given a lifetime ban anyway because of his investments in U.S. marijuana companies, he said.
>In one case, Saunders said an Edmonton man received a lifetime ban from entering the U.S. simply because he was a part-owner in a Colorado building that leases space to a pot dispensary.
So what is stopping them from denying entry due to search history?
Just as being an accessory to murder would be considered "very bad" so too would supporting cannabis use in any way. According to US law he is investing in a criminal enterprise, similar to funding a cartel in Mexico. The law doesn't match the common person's perception of severity, but the US border guards will enforce the law as written.
Again, none of this prevents you from merely learning about cannabis. It requires action of some sort to further the use of it.
And marijuana is not legal anywhere in the US at the moment. There are simply some states that don't have state level criminal laws associated with marijuana.
I could be 100% wrong, but I feel like you could check every digital device entering the country all day with 100% accuracy and have less than a 1% impact on the amount of child porn (or any other digital contraband) being trafficked.
Worse still is it's a nonconsensual, uninformed strip search of any sexual partners that person has...
I am not criticizing what you said, I am curious.
I can't use the visa waiver program to travel to the US because I was arrested once. Not convicted of any crime, mind you, just arrested. In the rest of society it's a pretty strong principle that guilt is decided in courts, not by police officers. No matter: anything that makes you seem less than the lowest possible risk is enough to deny you something. No presumption of innocence, no visa waiver program for me.
My girlfriend's mother has applied for a family visa that would allow her to immigrate to my country (where her daughter lives) permanently. The application takes several years. In the meantime she applied for a tourist visa to visit us for Christmas later this year. It was denied. We can only speculate why, but of course I suspect that since she has demonstrated a desire to immigrate permanently, the authorities consider her at risk of overstaying the visa. A mother who has done nothing wrong can't visit her daughter for Christmas because of this, and it makes me furious. She has no intention of overstaying: if this is why they rejected the visa it is again an assumption of guilt instead of one of innocence.
I wonder if there is any way to make it an election issue in any country. Parties seem to be unanimous on the topic, and most people don't travel, so it's probably not much of a pull for votes. Influential people travel more though.
And probably have sufficient influence to sidestep most such problems.
Clearly the U.S. political system isn't interested in anything that sounds like weakening border security. I think we're all going to be suffering indefinitely.
Instead, these kinds of searches catch people who don't know they're doing something illegal, or who the government finds undesirable due to their associations or business activities that are legal in their home jurisdiction. They may also be used to map out networks of contacts.
I do not want governments doing the things in the second paragraph.
Access to physical phone/laptop is only the first step -- mark my words. Big Brother's bureaucrats are never satiated. Next, we will have demands for passwords and unrestricted access to : email, facebook, photo sharing, hacker news posts, social media, etc.
I see sudden spike in the market for burner phones. ANd a long-term opportunity for a company that can create a "burner" social media profile.