Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Border Search of Electronic Devices – CBP Directive [pdf]

cbp.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 110 posts

Re: Border Search of Electronic Devices – CBP Directive [pdf]

#31

Post by paulsutter »

yborg wrote: post #26

Ignorant question for those who have had to transit the US border (it has been many years for me) - are these device searches now routine? I.e. do they automatically request access to any locked smartphone, etc?

From https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-rele...:

> In FY17, ... Approximately 0.007 percent of arriving international travelers processed by CBP officers (more than 397 million) had their electronic devices searched

I would guess devices are searched at the border for parallel reconstruction (to find information they already know without disclosing details about surveillance)

Re: Border Search of Electronic Devices – CBP Directive [pdf]

#32

Post by dang »

carapace wrote: post #17
jsjohnst wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But is it ethical? Oh, the e-word! The word that has an entirely different meaning to every person you ask and more often than not, when it’s drug out in an Internet debate it turns into a pseudo-Gotwin’s Law alternative. I’ll spin is back to you to prove the point. Is it ethical the work environment that the device you are using to reply to me with was built in? Is it ethical that it was built with environmentally…

You're doing it, do you think it's ethical? If so, why? (I actually don't care, but your response was ridiculous and I noticed you avoided answering.)

Would you please stop posting uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments to HN? You've done this a fair bit, and it violates the spirit of this site, as described at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html.

Your comment would be fine with just the first sentence.

Re: Border Search of Electronic Devices – CBP Directive [pdf]

#33

Post by rrix2 »

illirik wrote: post #25

One thing to note: "This directive governs border searches of electronic devices -- including... at the extended border." The "extended border" extends a hundred miles from what we normally consider the border; the authorization for customs agents to conduct warrantless searches in the Immigration and Naturalization Act allows them "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," and th…

At some point weren’t they also trying to argue that an international airport constituted an extended border for these purposes?

Re: Border Search of Electronic Devices – CBP Directive [pdf]

#35

Post by username223 »

qrbLPHiKpiux wrote: post #8

The best way is not to travel with anything that is not needed. Use cloud services and a disposable OS. The best way to play their (CBP) game is not to play. Don’t have anything available for them.

This seems like a no-brainer. If you don't want CBP digging through your data, it's not hard to backup and wipe your phone before a trip. Or just buy a cheap burner for travel purposes.

Re: Border Search of Electronic Devices – CBP Directive [pdf]

#36

Post by mindslight »

robbiet480 wrote: post #24
OliverJones wrote: post #22

Are there any devices offering a silent panic passcode? It would be convenient for travelers if "123456" unlocked the device and "987654" erased local information and unlocked the device. That way a properly backed up device could be carried across a border with risk only of inconvenience, not of data loss. (The passcodes I showed are my passcodes. :-) Nobody else use them, OK?)

IANAL but previously when I have heard that question the common response is "this can later be considered intentional destruction of evidence and/or obstructing justice and can also be used as grounds for further detention because you must have something to hide" EDIT: Also a commenter below reminded me that not obeying any order given to you by CBP/law enforcement is a direct violation of previously agreed to rules…

If you are opting into these "programs", you are already part of the problem.

Re: Border Search of Electronic Devices – CBP Directive [pdf]

#37

Post by meri_dian »

krapp wrote: post #20
meri_dian wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except finding terrorists isn't a "political purpose" it's a matter of life and death.

It is a political purpose, because "terrorist" is a politically charged definition whose application changes with the political climate.

The definition of 'criminal' changes over time too but that doesn't prevent us from prosecuting those who we determine to be criminals today.

Regardless of how the subtleties of politics shift over time, someone who enters a country seeking to kill and destroy should not be a allowed inside regardless of what they're called.

Re: Border Search of Electronic Devices – CBP Directive [pdf]

#38

Post by moonka »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #29
illirik wrote: post #25

One thing to note: "This directive governs border searches of electronic devices -- including... at the extended border." The "extended border" extends a hundred miles from what we normally consider the border; the authorization for customs agents to conduct warrantless searches in the Immigration and Naturalization Act allows them "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," and th…

Yes, it’s indeed over the top. Here’s a map by the ACLU: https://goo.gl/images/HpPYby

"Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the 100-mile zone."* That's incredibly disturbing.

* https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

Re: Border Search of Electronic Devices – CBP Directive [pdf]

#39

Post by paulie_a »

natch wrote: post #14

Never is there any mention that by accessing the device of person A, the officer may be violating the rights of all people (say persons B, C, and D) who have shared information in confidence with person A. This includes getting access to my family photos. I don’t want an officer, who self selected by applying for a job that he knows will give him access to family photos, to get access to my family photos, because wha…

Do you believe those stupid disclaimers at the bottom of emails hold any water? Same principle here.
Post reply on HN