Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US border forces are seizing Americans' phone data and storing it for 15 years

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 566 posts

Re: US border forces are seizing Americans' phone data and storing it for 15 years

#491

Post by refurb »

trasz wrote: post #406
refurb wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.theverge.com/2013/7/15/4524208/uk-border-police-... Police in the UK have the power to seize mobile devices from any traveler entering the country, and can retain their personal data for as long as they see fit, according to a report from the Telegraph.

They might have the power to, but they don't exercise it[1]. Also, this is about phone as in physical device; it doesn't grant them the right to access the (encrypted) data, does it? 1. Fun fact: the Queen has the power to execute anyone at will.

A simple google search proves they have used it.

https://cpj.org/2022/03/british-journalist-martin-banks-deta...

Re: US border forces are seizing Americans' phone data and storing it for 15 years

#493

Post by pyuser583 »

I’d really I like to know how they store data from a wide variety of sources for 15 years.

Mobile device file systems, etc, have changed a lot during that time. 15 years ago Blackberries were the big mobile thing.

Can you easily store data from a 2007 Blackberry on the same disk as an iPhone 14?

Re: US border forces are seizing Americans' phone data and storing it for 15 years

#494

Post by jameshart »

xoa wrote: post #421
jameshart wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And of course non-Citizens presenting for entry at the border are subject to the coercion that refusal to comply will likely result in entry being refused. Noncitizens do actually still have human rights (something Americans often seem to forget - ‘I can’t believe they used a dronestrike on a US citizen’, etc) But take the example of a person who has been issued a visa, looking to enter the US with the intent to immi…

Sorry, 5 comments in a few hours triggered HN's rate limiting, "sorry you are posting too fast", so I couldn't reply earlier. Not sure if you'll still see this but since I wrote it anyway: > And of course non-Citizens presenting for entry at the border are subject to the coercion that refusal to comply will likely result in entry being refused. Noncitizens do actually still have human rights Certainly, but this sub-t…

100% agreed. Stipulated, countries can do anything they like to people who ask to enter. Basic respect for the property, civil liberties, dignity and universal human rights of people petitioning to enter the country, though, is not tantamount to 'completely open borders'. I think we can all agree that even if there are not legal constraints on the indignities and rights violations which a border entry officer can subject an applicant to, there should be some ethical ones.

The danger at the border is that a person might be admitted who is not who they say they are, that they might bring with them some goods that shouldn't be brought in to the country, or that they might be planning to do something that exceeds the terms of their entry visa, or is otherwise undesirable. That last case is the tricky one, because it amounts to trying to detect a thoughtcrime.

Of course if you're trying to prevent thoughtcrimes, it would be useful to see into all of a person's relationships, private communications, and online activities. But we have to draw a line somewhere for what information it is acceptable for border agents to acquire to render their judgements. And even if we allow that accessing electronic devices at the border helps with that determination of 'intent' at the moment of entry, keeping all that data (not just the subset that was evaluated as relevant to the judgement) for years beyond that determination seems completely unnecessary.

And it's not necessary, because we all know that if you allow a border agent to search someone's phone, they can find a reason to prevent entry. But that's unnecessary, because a border agent can already deny entry for essentially any reason they like. There's no need to have access to a phone to generate pretext. But the difference between 'Access denied' with a note on the file to the effect that they thought the answers you gave to their questions were inadequate, versus 'access denied' with a complete copy of your digital identity attached to the file and a flag pointing at a set of facebook messages you exchanged a few years ago.... is pretty vast.

Re: US border forces are seizing Americans' phone data and storing it for 15 years

#495

Post by ikiris »

RajT88 wrote: post #484
jjtheblunt wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to some account in Nigeria. It must be awkward to be an honest Nigerian on Hacker News, since the country is famous for obvious online scams.

I went to a Nigerian wedding a few years back. Met a lot of techies who lived in the bay area. One was a PM at Microsoft even. If you get the chance to go to a Nigerian wedding, you definitely should because it is an awesome time.

was it to a nigerian prince?

Re: US border forces are seizing Americans' phone data and storing it for 15 years

#497

Post by jameshart »

antipurist wrote: post #476
yosito wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The chances of becoming a person of interest will always be non-zero, but I think I a lot of people can be reasonably confident that they are not likely to become a person of interest.

Given that 0.5—1% of the US population is incarcerated[1], and that getting a prison sentence is far from the only way to become a person of interest, it is quite reasonable to say that chances of getting some unwanted attention from various government and government-adjacent institutions are too damn high to ignore it. [1] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/01/16/percent-incarce...

While US justice certainly can be capricious and arbitrary, it is not entirely a random lottery whose eye it falls upon. And while those who believe in the centrality of personal responsibility and try to tell you that anyone who comes into contact with the police must have done something to deserve it are clearly deluded, there are things you can do in your life, or elements of your personal background and lifestyle that, though you never really opted into them, you may benefit from (one might call them 'privileges'), which will reduce the chances that you personally will run into trouble with the law quite considerably.

Your own personal odds are rarely the same as the average odds across the whole population. For anything. That's why insurance companies can exist.

Re: US border forces are seizing Americans' phone data and storing it for 15 years

#498

Post by ch4s3 »

nemothekid wrote: post #489
ch4s3 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that was a traffic stop and the officer freaked out after Castile mentioned that he had a CC handgun. Clearly the officer fucked up and murdered an innocent man. However, I think that’s different in kind and circumstances from what I was asking about.

1. A police offer stopped a citizen. 2. The citizen asserted his rights. 3. The citizen was shot and killed. I imagine you are splitting hairs on 2, (mentioning you have a CC handgun, vs telling an officer they can't have your phone), but both are Rights and one person died trying to exercise them (i.e., Your rights don't mean shit to cops).

I see your point, but I was specifically asking about searches like the border searches mentioned in the article, that's the context here.

I also agree that Castile was murdered by a cop, I just don't think it's splitting hairs to distinguish between a warrantless search and seizure vs a traffic stop where a handgun is in play. Both involve violations of rights, but different rights and in circumstances which are operationally different if that makes sense.

Re: US border forces are seizing Americans' phone data and storing it for 15 years

#499

Post by ch4s3 »

lisper wrote: post #430
MockObject wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prejudice that it's unlikely that an HN poster doesn't know George Floyd's story? Not only should you have that prejudice too, but simply assuming good faith would have helped you as well.

My prejudice is that if ch4c3 had noticed that the parent comment did provide an example (and it did) he would have said something like: the example you gave is not applicable because… do you have any other examples that are more on point?

Well I wasn't asking about the unrelated example, but rather the phrase I quoted.

Re: US border forces are seizing Americans' phone data and storing it for 15 years

#500

Post by Bakary »

dylan604 wrote: post #482
Bakary wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% of my flights have been exactly like this with no device inspection, and I've been in multiple autocratic countries. What I meant is that if they are at the stage where they are looking to plug into your laptop, having the ports blocked like this will immediately cause problems for you in countries where blocking your ports would be useful. It's a catch-22

So what happened during the 1% where it did happen?

Nothing exciting or worth sharing to be honest. Anxious hours spent in the airport followed by entry denial. There were no real consequences other than stress in the moment and the inconvenience of having to re-book a ton of things.
Post reply on HN