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

91–100 of 110 posts

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

#91

Post by mr_spothawk »

provost wrote: post #3

Section 5.3 pertains to requesting passcodes, and that an Officer may ask you for the passcode (I don't see anything about individuals being obligated -- though see 5.3.4, which could be interpreted by "legal remedies"). However, section 5.3.3 says: > If an officer is unable to complete an inspection of an electronic device because it is protected by a passcode or encryption, the Officer may, in accordance with secti…

> that is solely stored remotely.

"blockchain"

"blockchain"

"blockchain"

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

#92

Post by jwatte »

andrewflnr wrote: post #83
krapp wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are a number of abortion deniers whoop would disagree with you on "murder" and "death."

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

#93

Post by krapp »

andrewflnr wrote: post #83
krapp wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then let's stop talking about finding "terrorists" and call it finding "murderers" or "criminals."

"Terrorist" is a just word governments use to scare their citizens into giving up their civil liberties in exchange for security theater and authoritarianism.

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

#94

Post by pas »

tptacek wrote: post #74
paulsutter wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read your own link. Parallel reconstruction is an explicit exception to that rule. I would be thrilled if you can debunk parallel reconstruction, but that doctrine is the very reason for it. From your link: “The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if: - it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source”

We're mis-communicating. You said: Nothing prevents police or prosecutors from using inadmissible evidence, they just can’t produce it in court. That statement by itself is clearly false. The police cannot illegally search you and use that evidence as a means to find additional evidence, and then present that evidence in court as if it was untainted. What I gather you meant now was that parallel construction allows t…

> The police cannot illegally search you and use that evidence as a means to find additional evidence, and then present that evidence in court as if it was untainted.

Isn't the problem that illegal (dragnet) searches still happen?

Police only need one warrant or one instance of probable cause to "deploy Stingray" in a city block, and then flag suspicious things, and then use the legal search conducted by the border patrol, to check what was suspicious.

Of course, the practicality of flagging a lot of people for minor things (that somehow are or become a crime when crossing a border) and then keeping those records somehow shared with the CBP in secret for all these years is simply not there.

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

#95

Post by jsjohnst »

mysterypie wrote: post #19
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…

Sorry if I started the discussion provocatively. I'm thinking that there should be an alternative to throwing a $1000+ device in the garbage or passing the (potential) problem onto someone else. I don't know if there are any other alternatives, but I wanted to have a discussion from that angle.

Sorry, I probably was too sensitive to the reply. Mea culpa.

> I don't know if there are any other alternatives

In my opinion, there will likely never be anything to ensure nothing was done, hence why (well that plus the example you gave) I incorrectly assumed you were backhandedly making an insult rather than asking for a real discussion on it.

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

#96

Post by sandworm101 »

forapurpose wrote: post #61
smoyer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My employer made me sign an agreement that states (among other things) sharing passwords/passcodes is not allowed and that termination is a potential result of a violation of this policy. I'm going to keep my job and not unlock the whole-disk crypto protecting the data on my drive. Since I work for an educational institution, there is potentially FERPA protected data on my drive. In some instance we also deal with HI…

(IANAL.) Employment agreements generally are not enforceable when they conflict with the law, AFAIK. The security guard might be required to never open the door, but when a police officer or court gives them a lawful order to open it, they open it or go to jail. I doubt they could be fired for opening it in that circumstance; your employer cannot require to you violate the law. Another way of looking at it: You can w…

Not scrap. They do evidence an intention to pay. They are an acknowledgement of the debt. The individual clauses may be struck as illegal, but the documemt and signatures are still a thing.

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

#97

Post by DrJokepu »

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?

No, an LPR can only be denied entrance if:

(a) They are regarded as seeking admission and they are found inadmissible. Refusing to unlock their device will not make an LPR regarded as seeking admission as it’s not a reason listed in INA 101 (a)(13)(C): https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0...

(b) They are deportable. Simply refusing to unlock a device in itself will not make someone deportable as it’s not listed in INA 237 “General Classes of Deportable Aliens”: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0...

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

#98

Post by jsjohnst »

shiftpgdn wrote: post #23
jsjohnst wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you a US Citizen? Are you willing to temporarily (temporarily in this case is not implying a short duration, btw) lose your device? Are you able to waste time (as in hours or unlikely but possibly days) at CBP defending your rights without negative repercussions (as in missed flights, possibly missed work, missed family obligations, etc)? If the answer is yes to all, then sure, politely refuse and stand your grou…

Also, note that refusal to comply with ANY direction by CBP results in permanent unappealable revocation of trusted traveler status.

Fair point

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

#100

Post by andrewflnr »

krapp wrote: post #93
andrewflnr wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then let's stop talking about finding "terrorists" and call it finding "murderers" or "criminals." "Terrorist" is a just word governments use to scare their citizens into giving up their civil liberties in exchange for security theater and authoritarianism.

Agreed. "Mass murderer" would be more to the point, albeit still somewhat subjective. The point is, the conversation should be about effective tactics/policies for saving lives. Disputes over terminology are mostly a distraction from that.
Post reply on HN