91–100 of 483 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s my main issue with the recent trend to make international travel harder. There’s a huge push to assume that travelers are criminals and all kind of inconveniences, expenses or outright humiliations are O.K.
I've certainly reduced my tourism levels on account of CBP. Can you not rip my car to shreds every time I cross the border?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm more surprised at the 38% true positive rate. If you consider false positives, it would mean that they are shockingly good at profiling and most criminals are dumb enough to leave obvious evidence on their phone, or an overwhelming majority of people have committed a "customs-related offence" so that you could pick anyone and they would be guilty.
I would think most offenses are for improper entry, visa, etc. If you were entering to work on a tourism visa I think it would be very easy to find proof in a simple email, text or document.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's literally useless for government sponsored persistent malware.
Can you expand on this? I'm curious and a little Googling didn't yield much
It’s a bit sci-fi, but well within the resources of any of these governments.
Why do border services think they can seize a device and send it to a lab? If a border officer suspected I had a hidden compartment in my suitcase could they ship it off to a special lab? I don't agree with (but can see the logic in) them copying data off your HD and trying to crack it later. But I don't understand what legal argument is to be made for arbitrarily seizing property at the border.
Because they can. But the bigger question is the "should" of it.
> Officers uncovered a customs-related offence during 38 per cent of those searches, said the agency. This is hard for me to comprehend. Does anyone have an idea of what 38% of the phones can have stored on them, that is illegal to have when crossing the border?
It’s not on 38% of phones. It’s on 38% of phones that they search, and they only do that in situations where they think they are likely to find something based on the story provided by the traveler. Usually it involves working on a tourist visa, or intent to overstay on a visa (person claims to be visiting but does not intend to leave).
Here's the American version. https://www.netflix.com/title/80107514
They had a Canadian and an Australian but seems to have been removed. http://natgeotv.com/ca/border-security https://7plus.com.au/border-security-australias-front-line
>Wright refused, telling the officer both devices contained confidential information protected by solicitor-client privilege. >He said the officer then confiscated his phone and laptop, and told him the items would be sent to a government lab which would try to crack his passwords and search his files. Can this be used to get whatever case(es) he was defending thrown out because solicitor-client privilege was violate…
Along the same lines a case could be made for legal malpractice if it was reasonable for the attorney to know that there could be a search (and it is he is an attorney and the assumption is he is familiar with the law). It is similar to putting his phone unlocked in a car and the phone or the car is stolen. There is a reasonable expectation that the attorney will safeguard client materials (is what I would argue). (Paper files in the office and not giving the proper protection the same).
Bottom line is the fact that he is an attorney does not magically in itself also mean he doesn't have to take prudent steps to prevent the release of information (with regards to malpractice).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm more surprised at the 38% true positive rate. If you consider false positives, it would mean that they are shockingly good at profiling and most criminals are dumb enough to leave obvious evidence on their phone, or an overwhelming majority of people have committed a "customs-related offence" so that you could pick anyone and they would be guilty.
I would think most offenses are for improper entry, visa, etc. If you were entering to work on a tourism visa I think it would be very easy to find proof in a simple email, text or document.
While for a laptop one can use xen ( or grub, or similar ) to default boot into a pretty boring image of, let's say, windows 10, with some fake-but-good-looking documents, photos, etc, I wonder what are the possibilities on a smartphone? Would this be possible on an Android?
It's not like you need to 'smuggle' any form of data physically.
I mean, any data considered to be dangerous (like terrorist attack plans, atomic bomb designs or political inside information) can be accessed across borders via the internet. You don't need to have those on any of your devices.
And even if you had the data on a laptop, how does border patrol even know what they are looking at?
> Officers uncovered a customs-related offence during 38 per cent of those searches, said the agency. I really want to understand what kind of digital data is considered a customs-related offence.
There’s a reality tv show that follows the Canadian border patrol, in the couple episodes I’ve seen the agents have found emails about the person crossing actually going for work when they say for tourism or visiting family.