111–120 of 212 posts
Remember the 5th Amendment applies to passwords. No law enforcement officer may EVER compel you to log in to a device with a password / pass code / unlock pattern, for any reason.
In other words, don't enable touch id or face unlock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It occurs to me that America has, in every state, a state-run "highway patrol" that searches for terrorists and drug trafficking and the like. The state-run highway patrol is still subject to the 4th amendment (search and seizure.) If you get pulled over by a LEO - they need consent, probable cause, or a warrant in order to rifle through your belongings.
> they need consent, probable cause, or a warrant in order to rifle through your belongings. which they can invent with no problem if they feel like it. nobody who declines to a search gets away with it; they just call a drug dog to alert and then they can search anyway.
This article seems like it’s written to be deliberately confusing. If I understand it correctly, the TSA is not forcing anyone to unlock devices. They take the devices away for some period, but if they’re securely locked, TSA won’t be able to get anything from them. However, the article drops border searches which do require an unlock right into the middle of the article, then goes on to say that they have no specifi…
> If I understand it correctly, the TSA is not forcing anyone to unlock devices. I'm sure they also don't shrug their shoulders and say "Locked? Oh well.". Varying degrees of coercion, threat, implicit or otherwise, relying on passenger ignorance to their rights. I wonder how many have unlocked it at their request too, which is specifically different from "forced".
This is what bothers me the most about TSA and Border Agents stamping on rights - there's the implicit "we're going to waste at least 1,300$ of your money by forcing you to take another flight and rebook hotels." I get so stressed about it I show up at least 3 hours early for any flight, sometimes even 4 for international.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not aware of anything better than brute force attacks for any vaguely recent iPhone.
To my knowledge this hasn’t been either verified or disproven, and no methods disclosed, but apparently CellBrite claims to be able to unlock iOS 11. http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/18/02/26/cellebrite-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is terribly dangerous advice for a border crossing.
Depends on who you are, whose border, and which direction. If you're an American returning from abroad, my understanding is the most they can do is detain you (briefly) and confiscate your electronic devices for a limited period of time. Americans can't be denied re-entry to the US. So go ahead and refuse as a political statement, the worst that could happen is you'll miss your connection and you'll have to use a tem…
Detentions have lasted more than 24 hours though, sometimes for days:
"Median Number of Hours Individuals Were Held in Detention, by Sector"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stop flying so much and tell them when the time comes fuckoff and come back with a warrant or at least get an officer who can explain under what authority do they conduct domestic searches without a warrant, ergo, unconstitutionally? Ah, you know what, I get it. They want to bring back the 90's cryptowars. They will lose again.
> Stop flying so much and tell them when the time comes fuckoff and come back with a warrant In other words, stop flying completely. Because with that reaction, you're not getting in the plane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, are you equating needless bureaucratic red tape in a non-profit's application for tax-exempt status to the seizure of a private citizen's phone and laptop?
Sorry, are you equating a private citizen having their phone out of their sight for 10 minutes with over a year of delays in permitting an organization to accept tax-exempt donations from thousands of citizens? Frankly, BOTH are unreasonable and the government should not be engaging in EITHER ONE. I think there is little to be gained by debating which is "worse" -- could we instead agree to cease doing both?
SO, no, the two situations are nothing similar in nature or scope.
I guess they didn't read Riley v California[1]. In the opinion of the SCOTUS: > Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life". The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founde…
That is what all the TSA searches have appeared like to me. Just a denial of service for maintaining a level of privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> taking a device for some amount of time and giving it back doesn't qualify as a (4th amendment) search If it's optional and I can and will refuse, fine. If it's not,and I'm not attempting to cross a border, they can get stuffed. For domestic travel, they do not need to examine the data - only the physical device needs to be examined to rule out security risk. They can do that non-intrusively with imaging and chemic…
I should clarify: If them looking through my data is not optional and I can't refuse, and I'm not at a border crossing (which is still bullshit imo, but well trodden precedent), they'd better have goddamn signed warrant.
