161–170 of 483 posts
Is it legal to take steps to intentionally frustrate any future searches that may be done against the device by border agents, in cases where the is no other crime being covered up? For example, having a trusted remote party encrypt your data, and that party will only decrypt it once you've cleared customs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People love trading other people's freedom for security. Especially if it has to do with immigration.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted, it seems entirely correct, given the prevailing political climate.
It's just so dumb, and I've heard a lot of older people especially who will say the common "Why is it a problem if you've got nothing to hide?". I think some people fail to understand the kind of data people can have stored, and how much of some people's lives are part of their digital devices. I'm sure they wouldn't want police coming into their house and searching it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do since the courts assume the parties behave honorably (I.e. they assume there is no parallel construction)
Sadly this is an incredibly cogent concept. We saw this with Lavabit and when courts accept patently false LE testimony. The system works when corruption and deceit aren't present or tolerated - when they are the institutions become suspect.
Digital privacy while crossing borders seems to increasingly be an issue. And I'm worried that it's not going to improve any time soon. Politicians and very rich people don't deal with border security the same way normal people do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is wrong with sex tourism?
In most parts of the world, sex workers don't exactly have strong human rights protections. In a poor country, it's generally worse. A relatively wealthy, privileged person going someplace poor for sex is probably doing it because it facilitates doing rather nasty things in a way that is comfortable for them. They don't need to be ugly about it. Someone else will be ugly about it on their behalf while making them fee…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That really wont fool them though. EFF recommends against it too.
What exactly is wrong with this approach? It should get you through the border with no further suspicions, since I’m guessing they don’t have the time to be checking for hidden partitions for every traveler they pull over.
2) Because it could be a crime. Failure to disclose an encryption key if requested by UK Police and Customs authorities is a breach of The Terrorism Act, for which you can be arrested.
3) If they ask if you have hidden or encrypted data, and you lie about it, in the US you're now guilty of a federal crime -- even the hidden volume itself is empty or innocuous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean what counts as work and where it occurs are becoming very difficult to manage? What happens if you have to do work while on a real holiday, should you be deported for this? Is it valid to allow these searches for these sort of offences, it seems like at some point everyone will be guilty of doing these things.
I wonder this myself. There is a difference between traveling for the purposes of work, and working while traveling. I have a 100% remote position. I normally do my work in the US. I've considered flying to Europe for a few weeks, where due to time zone differences I could do touristy stuff during the day and then work my US 9-5 shift in the EU evening. This would allow me to travel but to not take vacation time. Wou…
I basically had my mornings free every day until I ate lunch then i would sit down and start work for the day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People love trading other people's freedom for security. Especially if it has to do with immigration.
Immigration : the government's favorite scape goat.
>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…
>> Can this be used to get whatever case(es) he was defending thrown out because solicitor-client privilege was violated or parallel construction was used? That isn't what this is about. Nobody is talking about what this is really about and it isn't anything to do with him being a lawyer. This guy (1) was traveling alone (2) to a distant (3) and poor (4) country without preexisting business ties (5). Those are all re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guatemala is well known as a drug transport point. Plenty of the politicians there were caught being directly involved. Which, along with other contraband, accounts for the majority of the customs actual work and far more likely to be the concern with any traveller from there: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-guatemala-politics/guatem... https://www.insightcrime.org/investigations/the-zetas-in-gua... http://latinal…
Don't use american definitions of "probably cause". Canada is a different country and defines probably cause very differently. Canada has a different relationship with its boarders than America. The physical scale is are different. Sovereignty is different. Canada's "charter rights" are different than american "constitutional" rights. Canada placed greater trust in individual enforcement officers and, generally, does…
As a Canadian, I would say “not really”. Plenty of examples of people’s rights being violated by Canadian officials. Those events don’t get the scrutiny that US events do, but they certainly happen.