61–70 of 464 posts
Conceivably, it's quite possible he had information which is subject to ITAR regulations, including data about sensors, mirrors. At the very least, he probably had sensor vendor specifications which are trade secrets and often covered under NDAs.
Conceivably, it's quite possible he had information which is subject to ITAR regulations, including data about sensors, mirrors. At the very least, he probably had sensor vendor specifications which are trade secrets and often covered under NDAs.
Are you implying they searched him for ITAR violations on the way back into the country? I'm confused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can restore using iTunes backups stored on an encrypted hard drive in a secret volume. Plausible deniability even after decryption. TrueCrypt does this.
Be sure that as such powers increase they'll obtain more sophisticated tools to help them catch smart alecks. 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...
I don't see what this has to do with Trump's travel restrictions, other than it coincidentally happened at the same time. If the author is trying to imply this correlation is causation, there is no evidence in the article. That being said, no American should have to have his phone searched at the border, even with the stated border exceptions to the Fourth Amendment.
Anyone who enforces orders of questionable legality is part of the problem (such as those executing these race or religion based searches).
Edit: formatting
Here's the Customs and Border Patrol policy in question [0] (see page 31). The EFF has a nice write-up on this topic [1]. It sounds like there's a "border search exemption" that bypasses the Fourth Amendment. The rationale was to ensure duties were paid and screen for "bad guys," drugs, weapons, diseased fruit, etc. [0] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy... [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/…
Note that this zone includes New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Seattle, etc, etc, and hence a really sizable portion of the US population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That falls apart with the simplest IP tracking. The government has all that data anyway, I see no reason they couldn't run a "background check" and figure out exactly who you are and what you've done. It's a false sense of security, is it not? It's probably best to assume your opponent isn't completely dumb.
That depends on what your threat model is. I assume we're talking about random police or border searches of your phone. Not the NSA or some surveillance apparatus which can make warrantless inquiries to your ISP and social network providers at a moments notice. If we're facing a surveillance state without any internal obstructions then yes, far stricter opsec will be needed.
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...
Their point about how other countries will take the US's stance as a cue is somewhat scary. 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 child…
How about if we reset and delete everything from the phone before crossing any international borders?
US citizens can not be prohibited re-entry into the US.
I look forward to not unlocking my phone and taking it to court if it comes down to it next month.
Without a warrant though they can seize it as contraband but they can't deny you entry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See this -^ ? It's a new pseudonymous account. Unless your social network has some kind of insane policy where they only allow you to have a single identity you can use that kind of feature to compartmentalize your activities. 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…
That falls apart with the simplest IP tracking. The government has all that data anyway, I see no reason they couldn't run a "background check" and figure out exactly who you are and what you've done. It's a false sense of security, is it not? It's probably best to assume your opponent isn't completely dumb.
I don't see what this has to do with Trump's travel restrictions, other than it coincidentally happened at the same time. If the author is trying to imply this correlation is causation, there is no evidence in the article. That being said, no American should have to have his phone searched at the border, even with the stated border exceptions to the Fourth Amendment.