Being rich and politically connected would probably do it.

But I'd never unlock my phone for US immigration. That's my whole life on there, and they don't have the right to compel me to unlock it. Even there, be polite. You can say "no" politely.

Where this guy went wrong was actively wiping his phone. That's no good. What you do is put your phone in its most secure state (generally powering it off) before you reach the immigration desk, and then if they seize it, you have to trust its security to keep them from getting into it.

Not sure what it is about Canadian border guards...

Not in US, but had my phone seized by authorities and was asked to unlock it. I'm walking free, but I think what really saved me is that I genuinely complied with investigation and the only place where I drew the line was me giving away my password.

If I used my right to remain silent AND not give away the password, I'd probably be charged with something. I'm sure its very similar in many countries, including US.

From CBP themselves:

"If a traveler being admitted as a U.S. citizen does not present their device in a condition that allows for examination, the U.S. citizen traveler will not be denied entry into the United States based on CBP’s inability to complete an inspection of their device. However, as noted above, their device may be subject to exclusion, detention, or other appropriate action or disposition."

Worst case would be losing the phone, which is a tradeoff I'm willing to make.

You will find "temporary" can be long enough to make your life extremely unpleasant, that they can do unpleasant things to your body (another lady at my point of entry was raped, sued, and lost, -- the raping was done to "probe for drugs" and held to be justified), that they can run up debt in your name (what they did to me is just travel around to different ER and tell them an emergency, then bill it to my name, and to multiple hospitals to rack up the debt), that they can put you on a list so that you have no hope of making any airport connections for many years. I don't even bother scheduling same-day international connections anymore, and I have to plan on family members and animals being taken care of for at least 72 hours in advance before I cross the US border.

You later contact a lawyer, several lawyers in fact, only to find out they've handled many of these cases, always lost, and reluctant to bother trying again.

Respectfully, you don't realize how horribly naïve you are. You are not dealing with people that follow the law, rather genuinely evil people that will do whatever they can get away with because they can get away with it and find supreme satisfaction in sadism.

Anyway, there’s wide gulf between not giving up the passcode to my life and not answering basic questions.

Except CBP harassment instead of a bobcat. Only 1-in-30 people will ever know there's a serious problem.

You may not be convicted for obstruction in the end but wow they will make things horrible for you right up until the court case is dropped at the last minute.

From that point on, every further interaction you have with any officer or official is another high-stakes situation for you where they will be looking to build up a case against you. Every word you say, every slip of the tongue in the interrogation room, the prison van, the holding cell at the station, your complaint at the cuffs being too tight, about needing to go to the bathroom, etc it's all being recorded and used by THEM to paint a picture of THEIR CHOOSING about YOU and build a case against YOU. They are actively trying to trip you up and get you to say/admit/confess to anything and they are professionals who are highly practiced at this and I assume - with respect - that you are not trained to withstand hostile interrogation and incarceration, even for short periods of time while they "straighten things out down at the station".

If you are in that situation I highly recommend you REFUSE to saying a single thing to anyone without legal representation (assuming that is even an option in the country where you decide to be a jerk) because they're out to get you for something, even if not the original thing they took you in for. Be extremely careful about what you say without legal representation.

Good luck on your next flight. Remember that there are different counties at both ends of an international flight and the laws are different in different countries - the laws you are used to at home don't apply elsewhere.

Only in theory. Yes you have "rights", but they have power.

If you're referring to the power to do illegal things, do you apply this everywhere? If a cop asks to enter my home, should I let them because they can illegally shoot me? If a beggar asks for money, should I give it to them because they might become violent?

There is also a huge space between "obeying the laws and policies in the most conservative sense" (which is what you described) and being "illegal".

> do you apply this everywhere

In fact I do.

> should I let them because they can illegally shoot me

I'm not suggesting what you should do. That's up to you. I'm just saying the government can do a lot more than you think and get away with it, including "illegally" shooting you in circumstances. It's always a balance of risks. For me personally, If a normal cop ask to enter I'll refuse. But if it's ICE? That's suddenly a much harder choice.

Actually no I'll probably die either way. Who cares.

At what point did the German people find it morally acceptable to start killing Nazis?

At what point will the US stop accepting the boot and act to remove the tyranny stamping on our collective face?

Late 1960s at the very earliest, and it's only been a tiny minority.

There's also another war where the Germans think they're the good guys because it hasn't been a decade yet.

Functionally never, after the war the Allies handed "denazification" over to the West Germans to handle themselves in 1946. They then let basically everybody off and lots of former Nazis were let back into power. By 1957, 77% of the West German justice ministry was comprised of former Nazis, which was actually a higher percentage than the amount of Nazis in the ministry during Hitler's reign. The Soviets were more strict with the denazification of East Germany, but many former Nazis were still able to retain high positions in government and society.

Absolutely astonishing seeing people try the “I’m going to be as annoying as humanly possible” to the guy with the gun with the “my YouTube lawyer says I can” defense. You don’t want to have to defend your civil rights in court.

This goes doubly when at immigration where you basically don’t have rights.

This guidance also applies to: bank tellers, call takers, baristas, waiters, other people standing in line with you, the bus driver, your mom, the neighbors upstairs, the raccoon across the street, …

Also, you do have rights, but don't seem to really care a lot about them since, in the face of unlawful and oppressive demands by overreaching authorities, your suggestion is to be courteous with the oppressors for some reason.

"Land of the free, home of the brave"

At some point, you should fight for what you consider basic human rights. Where you draw the line and how you fight is up to you.

It sounds like your attitude is to comply with whatever the authorities want.

It seems like a completely innocent person is the best one to push back on authoritarian overreach.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

And idk how people don't understand how "politeness" gets weaponized.

This video is an example

https://youtu.be/amSIcL3V5C4?is=hmlOx2t7dHg5j-lJ

Here, the only way this guy could've had a "good attitude" is if he had let the lady do whatever she wants with his service dog. This behavior is very common in situations where people feel entitled to something, but know the counterparty has the absolute right to refuse to cooperate. No matter how politely that information is conveyed, it's "rude" because they're being denied something they want.

The police don't like my attitude when I firmly say "no, sorry, I won't be unlocking my phone. I will only do what I am legally required to do."

People have a hard time understanding this because they are under the impression that they know how to be polite because they do what they think is polite. They are unaware that politeness is subjective and slippery and that people can and do use it to manipulate others into doing things they're uncomfortable with.

In a normal functioning society with law enforcement that is actually accountable to it's citizens, yes - polite pushback will likely have no horrible consequences.

In a country that is either already in the depths of fascism/authoritarianism - or rapidly heading there, fighting for rights is seen as a "red flag".

See also: "On Tyranny" (Timothy Snyder) and "Do Not Obey in Advance".

If someone jumps out at you in a dark alley and they have a weapon and they ask for your wallet, what are you going to do? Swallow your pride and give it to them, or willingly enter into a high-risk and highly-imbalanced scenario where you are at a huge disadvantage against the other person for who this is essentially zero-risk, something they do multiple times a day, and they have nothing to lose from it either way.

Sure it is legally wrong and you can stand up for your legal rights in that situation, but it's a high-risk strategy to take.

Is that particular moment, that exact moment in time, the right time to take a stand for the rule of law? Or perhaps there are other things you can do after the fact?

Up to you.

Someone stabbing you and leaving your corpse in an alley is obviously pretty bad, but getting on a no-fly list for life/prison time/beaten senseless in a backroom in some random airport in a country where you are a foreigner and don't know the language or law/etc because you wanted to prove some point to a border guard at some airport somewhere and were generally being a jerk is no joke either.