The point is really that a lot of people are intimidated and compliant and will hand a device over when requested. This is never a good thing. Even if you’re legitimately a victim, you shouldn’t even let them at your stuff.
That's addressed by the OP
>People spoiled by western TV shows may talk about probably cause, privacy, rights etc. (which may exist on paper in these places too), but you’d be in a lot of trouble if you’re not very rich and know powerful people. These checks can also take an ethnic or other angle where only certain people are stopped.
There's a strong legal system (eg. due process, habeas corpus) that protects you in uk. No such system exists in Russia. Similarly, if you tried pulling this in china, and you're a Uyghur, that's just going to end up with you in a reeducation camp.
Sometimes the authorities appear to have the law on their side, examples included people detained under the Terrorism Act(s)[0] and those who are singled out by the police under "stop and search" powers[1]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwal...
[1] https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/analyses/no-105-u...
Did you read the parents comment? Resistance might work in the UK but in places like India, unless you’re well connected the police can make your life miserable.
Really most people don’t have the ability to defend themselves from this and the police know that.
The problem is that this is where the downward spiral starts.
and https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/documents/2620095/ico...
I’ve been there, I’ve done that, I keep a €50 in my passport when travelling in those parts, it’s acceptable identification if it’s what they’re after, if it isn’t, it was in there accidentally.
I think it’s a mistake to think that as a foreigner you can just do as the locals do when it comes to bribery. It could end very badly. Doing it to avoid some inconvenience is a bad idea.
It’s also worth noting that if you are an obvious foreigner, you will be a bribe magnet, and will be accosted only in the hope of a bribe.
It’s not so much about avoiding inconvenience, it’s about moving freely in a police state.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/schengen-borders-...
> 23(a) the exercise of police powers by the competent authorities of the Member States under national law, insofar as the exercise of those powers does not have an effect equivalent to border checks; that shall also apply in border areas. Within the meaning of the first sentence, the exercise of police powers may not, in particular, be considered equivalent to the exercise of border checks when the police measures:
> (i) do not have border control as an objective;
> (ii) are based on general police information and experience regarding possible threats to public security and aim, in particular, to combat cross-border crime;
> (iii) are devised and executed in a manner clearly distinct from systematic checks on persons at the external borders;
> (iv) are carried out on the basis of spot-checks;
This check likely broke both 23(a)(i) and 23(a)(iii), as at the first train stop past the border everyone was asked to present ID.
[1] Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)
That depends on what would have happened had you not complied. In France if you are unable to produce an acceptable ID, you're taken to a police station where you're held until your identity is established. Once established, you'd have been allowed to go your way.
It would only constitute "the exercise of border checks" if the response to your non-compliance was to escort you back to the country where you boarded the train.
I'd be surprised if that's what generally happens. One instance I observed on a train going through Switzerland involved an English-speaking student. It took a while but after some discussion and the police making a few phone calls seemingly to their satisfaction, warning her to carry appropriate ID in future.
Not true according to the regulation:
> ‘border control’ means the activity carried out at a border, in accordance with and for the purposes of this Regulation, in response exclusively to an intention to cross or the act of crossing that border, regardless of any other consideration, consisting of border checks and border surveillance;
Note, it covers "response to crossing a border" and includes "border surveillance".
edit:
For full context:
> ‘border checks’ means the checks carried out at border crossing points, to ensure that persons, including their means of transport and the objects in their possession, may be authorised to enter the territory of the Member States or authorised to leave it;
> ‘border surveillance’ means the surveillance of borders between border crossing points and the surveillance of border crossing points outside the fixed opening hours, in order to prevent persons from circumventing border checks;
EFF also have a nice guide called "Digital Privacy at the U.S. Border" (PDF): https://www.eff.org/files/2018/01/11/digital-privacy-border-...
Both of these can be found at US airports with international flights(and most countries have equivalents). Going on an international trip you will encounter both, for a domestic flight you will only deal with the TSA.
The EFF article is aimed exclusively at people crossing the border so it about the CBP, not about the TSA. If you never leave the USA or never travel to it then you will encounter none of this.
Went to secondary to get more information on my trip, then just routinely searched my bags and electric devices. I was allowed into the country after they got more information.
Not really? In the same guide it says
>If you later want to remove this restriction you can Remove -> Profiles... in Configurator, analogous to step 15.
Basically, you're just hoping that the minimum wage employee at the TSA doesn't know about removing the profile.
Earlier the article says
> This setting controls when someone can remove the profile from within the phone itself. If it’s left as the default value of “Always” then anyone with access to your unlocked phone could remove the pair lock (which would defeat the entire purpose). You can either set it to Never to never allow removing the profile, or With Authorization and set a password to allow removing the profile with the given password (this might be useful to remove the pairing restriction if you do lose access to your laptop).
So if you don't plan to commit crimes or otherwise confront the authorities, you can leave that blank, or use throwaways. Just don't give your real info, because they will use it to analyse you for real.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/foreign-travelers-soc...
Whether it was actual policy or not, I'll leave to you to work out.
As for the format of my response, I was genuinely not 100% sure, so felt it respectful to post thusly. Does that satisfy your needless suspicion?
been there. done that.
you simply cannot refuse. i have tried that and have marks on my back to prove it. you hold your head down while a dumb illiterate Sepoy goes through your phone and there is absolutely nothing you can do. don't try to act smart because they will see that as a sign that your are their enemy and by that point, your goose is cooked. they label you a terrorist and jail you sans recourse.
there are 12 year olds who are in jail for "waging war against india" and the circumstances are not much different. there is a concept of "preventive detention" whereby the police and the security aparatus is authorised to arrest and hold you behind bars BEFORE you commit a crime or even if they think you might or had but they have no evidence of it and they can still get you. no habeas corpus, no hearings, no chargesheets, no trial. you are condemned unheard and the judiciary can all but cheer for the police.
Simpler would be a 2nd way to unlock the phone into a fake user account...
The main thing is it is nice to get away from the main phone on a trip and enjoy the trip. Losing it would not be the end of the world.
All these other aspects you get for free.
Are you just living in the "second OS"? Meaning you don't actually use your phone while you are outside? Or are you going to just casually reboot your phone and boot into the "second OS" while the officer is standing there demanding your phone?
Would this not be the case in the US?
Since checking phones is legal, when you try to complain about it, it's like trying to find someone who cares that a cop made rude remarks when he pulled you over.
It's a great system.
This second account could have an innocuous looking call history and social media profile.
This is at least profiling or a discriminatory style of policing. They go to areas that have "those people" (whatever that means for this context) and do their policing there, avoiding the rich & powerful.
It's also a digital strip search in the street. If this is a valid style of policing, why not just digitally search everyone's phones NSA-style? Could it be that NSA-style wouldn't be discriminatory enough (a rich person might get caught)? Could it be that the psychological effects on the policed population are one of the motivations?
Individual privacy, to start. The concept of probable cause to search someone is a concept found in most modern governments. Your communications to other parties privately are none of the government's business. It's an authoritarian measure that assumes guilt without suspicion. As others say, it will often have a racial or cultural component too, and at the very least a class one. People that look and act like the police would tend to be less subject to searches.
You would in the short term, if you're a coward and unable to stand up to this kind of abuse. In the long term, if everyone stood up to this abhorrent behavior, it would stop.
Yeah in a better world we could all just not be "cowards" and stand up against unjust searches, but most of us don't want to spend couple nights in lock up over this kind of shit.
Just a few months ago, the police in the city of Hyderabad, India (where companies like Google and Microsoft have a large presence) were stopping and searching people’s phones to check for messages related to drugs on WhatsApp. This was their way of addressing drug trades, and even one of the top officials said that it’s not illegal when people cooperate and hand over their phones. [1]
If you’re on the streets and the police stop you in such places, you’d be better off unlocking and handing over your phone. People spoiled by western TV shows may talk about probably cause, privacy, rights etc. (which may exist on paper in these places too), but you’d be in a lot of trouble if you’re not very rich and know powerful people. These checks can also take an ethnic or other angle where only certain people are stopped.
I’m not saying that everybody should turn over their phones and that it’s futile to fight, but there are no instant solutions for such issues for many people.
[1]: https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/hyderabad-cops-are-ill...