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

81–90 of 110 posts

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

#81

Post by sigmaprimus »

slededit wrote: post #59
sandworm101 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't much need to argue. People traveling to/from international destinations can be easily searched under a number of different theories. Fly Vancouver>Vegas and you can be searched in Vegas despite having already been searched in Vancouver. Sometimes if they find something in Vancouver they will still put you on the plane as arresting you for a US crime in Vegas is much cheaper than in Vancouver (normally don…

It's not just cheaper they are not allowed to arrest you in Canada. They can only deny entry or detain you until the Canadian authorities make the arrest.

Actually in Vancouver, before you clear customs to get on your flight to the US, you enter a secure area where there is a sign that says welcome to the US of A, and you are in fact on US soil, just like an embassy, I'm pretty sure they could even fly you directly to a Bellingham jail and the Canadian government/RCMP couldn't do a thing about it once your cRoss that imimaginary line in the airport.

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

#82

Post by sigmaprimus »

grecy wrote: post #79
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.

While I have never had a major problem, it certainly raises a LOT of eyebrows when I say I don't have a phone. Most Officers simply don't believe me, and quite a few embassies had no idea how they would issue me a visa without a phone number on the application form.

I have an old Motorola "dumb" phone, but what I want to know is if I am asked "Do you have a Gmail/Facebook etc..account" I am required to tell the truth, am I also obligated to provide the password to access it regardless of whether or not I am carrying a device to access it?

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

#83

Post by andrewflnr »

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.

You could say the same thing about the word "murderer". While technically correct, that doesn't make it any less a matter of life and death.

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

#84

Post by mindslight »

ilkan wrote: post #77
mindslight wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

With the opt-in... 30mins to cross a border. Without it.. slowdowns, flagging, questioning, etc... could be 6 hours. If one is travelling for business, opting out is not realistic.

We all sell out every day; might as well be on the winning team!

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

#85

Post by tssva »

sigmaprimus wrote: post #82
grecy wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I have never had a major problem, it certainly raises a LOT of eyebrows when I say I don't have a phone. Most Officers simply don't believe me, and quite a few embassies had no idea how they would issue me a visa without a phone number on the application form.

I have an old Motorola "dumb" phone, but what I want to know is if I am asked "Do you have a Gmail/Facebook etc..account" I am required to tell the truth, am I also obligated to provide the password to access it regardless of whether or not I am carrying a device to access it?

I don't know if you must answer the question or provide a password, but I do know that lying to a federal agent is a crime that can land you in jail for up to 5 years.

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

#86

Post by slededit »

sigmaprimus wrote: post #81
slededit wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just cheaper they are not allowed to arrest you in Canada. They can only deny entry or detain you until the Canadian authorities make the arrest.

Actually in Vancouver, before you clear customs to get on your flight to the US, you enter a secure area where there is a sign that says welcome to the US of A, and you are in fact on US soil, just like an embassy, I'm pretty sure they could even fly you directly to a Bellingham jail and the Canadian government/RCMP couldn't do a thing about it once your cRoss that imimaginary line in the airport.

> Preclearance facilities exist because of agreements made between the U.S. federal government and the governments of the host countries. Travelers who have passed through the U.S. government checks, but whose flight or ship has not departed, remain in the legal jurisdiction of the host country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_border_precleara...

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

#87

Post by sigmaprimus »

tssva wrote: post #85
sigmaprimus wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an old Motorola "dumb" phone, but what I want to know is if I am asked "Do you have a Gmail/Facebook etc..account" I am required to tell the truth, am I also obligated to provide the password to access it regardless of whether or not I am carrying a device to access it?

I don't know if you must answer the question or provide a password, but I do know that lying to a federal agent is a crime that can land you in jail for up to 5 years.

It's really scary, say the wrong thing to a border agent and you can end up in prison, or banned from entry for life. I don't travel to the US often and unfortunately since 911, I am even less inclined to travel there due to the security measures imposed afterwards...does that mean the terrorists won?

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

#88

Post by pas »

coldcode wrote: post #7

We really need a definitive SCOTUS ruling that searches of electronic devices violate the Constitution but if course we will never get that far. The intent of border searches originally was to identify goods being brought into the country to avoid paying duties or fees or being brought in illegally. Searching an electronic device is more akin to demanding to see what words are on a piece of paper you have in your poc…

Taxes, levies, excises, duties, substance schedules and a lot of other things are just implementations of political purposes/ideas.

Of course the difference between search for economic (tax evasion) control vs search for security (written/recorded "thought crime") control is the important difference here.

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

#89

Post by sigmaprimus »

slededit wrote: post #86
sigmaprimus wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually in Vancouver, before you clear customs to get on your flight to the US, you enter a secure area where there is a sign that says welcome to the US of A, and you are in fact on US soil, just like an embassy, I'm pretty sure they could even fly you directly to a Bellingham jail and the Canadian government/RCMP couldn't do a thing about it once your cRoss that imimaginary line in the airport.

> Preclearance facilities exist because of agreements made between the U.S. federal government and the governments of the host countries. Travelers who have passed through the U.S. government checks, but whose flight or ship has not departed, remain in the legal jurisdiction of the host country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_border_precleara...

I stand corrected, thanks for the info, hopefully I will never need use that info but nice to know still! +1

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

#90

Post by tom169 »

foobarbazetc wrote: post #60
tptacek wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is fine, since you're a US citizen and can't be denied entrance. They're going to confiscate your devices, though.

Can LPR’s be denied entrance for refusing to unlock?

I believe an LPR could be paroled, pending a hearing with an immigration judge.

Saying that, the only people who cannot be denied entry to the US are indeed USC.

Post reply on HN