Doesn’t matter. If there’s truly no way to verify, there’s nothing they can do in a scalable way to determine people are lying about their main accounts.

The only thing they can do is use fear to get you to comply, or make you doubt your deniable encryption scheme is truly secure.

If they really wanted to could they find out? Perhaps. Maybe if they use CCTV footage and extract your phones screen and do comparisons or something. If you are an individual though who has done something to warrant that level of scrutiny, perhaps the additional crime of lying to a Fed isn’t a big deal compared to whatever crime you have done.

> Doesn’t matter. If there’s truly no way to verify, there’s nothing they can do in a scalable way to determine people are lying about their main accounts.

It doesn't have to be scalable; border control already isn't scalable and relies on uniformed officers making decisions on the spot. It's not hard to add additional point in training that says, "if a person has suspiciously empty phone and the phone is a model X, ask them to unlock the second account; if they refuse or pretend they don't have one, apply 3-30 hours of pressure". This would probably cover 99% of cases.

You’re literally describing a way to make it scalable.

INAL but I don't think that legally it would be lying. I believe lying requires more than not complying. Plus, we always have the right to remain silent.

Even if true, border officials will start asking everyone "is this your main profile". I guess you could refuse to answer, but that will make the answer obvious.

Any time you say to the officer something you know is not true is lying. It may not necessarily be immediately grounds to detaining or turning you from the border but it may cause further escalation. Never tell a lie to the police and never offer any information unless directly asked for it.

The right to remain silent isn’t the right to intentionally lie.

> Plus, we always have the right to remain silent.

No you don't. Not at the border.

Untrue. People who crack jokes about "constitution free zones" at the border are just uninformed. There are some obvious broad waivers on searches to enable the enforcement of import/export and immigration laws, but other rights that don't relate to the particulars of border enforcement are not impacted.

> There are some obvious broad waivers on searches to enable the enforcement of import/export and immigration laws

Except those searches can be done at the behest of other law enforcement agencies and any information found can be shared with them.

Incorrect. CBP has a policy to destroy any digital data collected during a search unless it is relevant to an investigation of customs/immigration crimes or is related to terrorism, which can be broadly construed as related to immigration law insomuch as one of the primary purposes of a border is to keep out unwanted persons.

I recommend reading through this document assembled by the EFF about various kinds of border searches and the constitutionality thereof.

https://www.eff.org/wp/digital-privacy-us-border-2017

I fail to see anything in your link to back up your claim.

Here's what the EFF does say about the CPB doing exactly what I described.

> The evidence includes ICE and CBP policies and practices that authorize border officers to conduct warrantless and suspicionless device searches for purposes beyond the enforcement of immigration and customs laws. Officials can search devices for general law enforcement purposes, such as enforcing bankruptcy, environmental, and consumer protection laws, and for intelligence gathering or to advance pre-existing investigations. Officers also consider requests from other government agencies to search devices. In addition, the agencies assert the authority to search electronic devices when the subject of interest is someone other than the traveler—such as when the traveler is a journalist or scholar with foreign sources who are of interest to the U.S. government, or even when the traveler is the business partner of someone under investigation. Both agencies further allow officers to retain information from travelers’ electronic devices and share it with other government entities, including state, local, and foreign law enforcement agencies.

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/new-documents-reveal-dhs-...

You absolutely do have the right to remain silent at the border.

Your statement is untrue. You have the right to remain silent at the border as well.