541–550 of 566 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Privacy is not a right under US law. The US constitution makes no mention of it and the interpretive framework that creates such a right was recently overthrown in the antiRoe ruling.
You seem confused. Privacy is not an implicit right under the Constitution under the new ruling of RvW, but that doesn't mean it's not a right under US law. There are plenty of privacy laws in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So let me get this straight - if I broke/lost a phone before a flight (and replaced with spare) - I can expect to be declined entry?
Not on its own. It's just that if crossing the border relies on the discretionary power of the local agents, and they find you suspicious enough to search you, and you then have additional aspects that might annoy them further such as being evasive about your electronics, then it could be a big problem for you. Statistically you don't have to worry about this at all.
If you have a phone and refuse to grant access, that's being evasive. If you have 2 phones and try to play it like you have 1 phone, that's being evasive. If you have a secret under-duress boot partition for your laptop, that's being evasive.
Having a set of travel electronics is not evasive. That's just how it is in today's big brother world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some countries and contexts this is a possibility. It's not uncommon for countries to have a system where you essentially have to convince a human border guard that you are no threat with no clear guidelines. Having no phone or a phone with not enough data can be a problem in such a context. The vast majority of border crossings across the world don't involve any questions about phones anyway, but if you are at th…
> It's not uncommon for countries to have a system where you essentially have to convince a human border guard that you are no threat with no clear guidelines. Canada is like this. I traveled to Canada with my father a few years ago. When we crossed the border I was driving; they asked both of us if we had any guns in the car. The answer was no and they were obviously free to search the car if they doubted that. But…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Let's trace this back to the beginning (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32866019):
This is /u/xoa quoting from TFA:
> Hassan Shibly, chief executive director of CAIR Florida, tells The Verge that most people who are shown the form giving CBP authority to search their device believe that they have an obligation to help the agents. “They’re not obligated to unlock the phone,” she says.
Which he follows up with:
> Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions". They may certainly ask that. You may choose to cooperate. But in general you'd be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no". If they arrest you they were almost certainly going to do so anyway but now they have less to go on and with more avenues to challenge it, and if they arrest you over exercising your rights you have a strong cause of action right there. CBP agents may well ask people this sort of thing all the time, but that doesn't mean citizens must comply.
Note that the scope of the discussion has been broadened here. /u/xoa is comparing phone searches at border stops to 'police officer[s] who [ask] if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions"'. And it's pretty clear that this list of police actions is not meant to be exhaustive, just illustrative. There are other unspecified things that an officer could do or say that would be within the scope of what /u/xoa is talking about.
So at this point in the conversation the scope is both broad and ambiguous.
The next step is /u/xnyan quoting /u/xoa:
> Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions". ...But in general you'd be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no"
and following up with:
> This is not only a very naive take, its a dangerous one - people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting. Law Enforcement Officers in the US has what is known as qualified immunity. In practice qualified immunity means as long as the LEO says they believed they were following rules (even if they were not), then they can do anything they want to you (including kill you) with little to no personal consequences.
> In other words, you can say "No officer, you can't look around without a warrant", to which they can say "I see an object that may be a gun, and you're moving your hand in the direction of your pocket. Stop. I'm afraid for my life, I need to break your car windows and throw you on the street"
The scope of the discussion has now been broadened yet again. And again, the specific details of the hypothetical scenario described by /u/xnyan are obviously intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive. An officer could say different words under different circumstances and still be within the scope of what /u/xnyan is talking about. And again, the full extent of the scope is ambiguous because /u/xnyan has not said how far he intended his example to be extrapolated.
But the next thing that /u/xnyan does is give an example of what he is talking about in order to support the point he is trying to make:
> It's common enough that a LEO can publicly and slowly strangle George Floyd on the street, recorded and in front of others, and the only notable/unusual aspect is that the police officer was convicted of a crime.
And finally:
> Your rights don't mean shit to cops.
All this allows us to infer that /u/xnyan intended the scope of his comment to be very broad indeed. He is basically saying that the police in the U.S. can, if they choose, do anything they want to you at any time under any circumstances, up to and including taking your life, and there is nothing you can do about it.
This is the point at which you asked:
> > people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting.
> Can you cite any examples of this happening?
Well, yes, he can. And he did.
I understand that it was not your intention to ask about the "unrelated" example, but in context, that is the most reasonable interpretation of the words that you actually wrote because you didn't say what you meant by "this". In the absence of clarification, the antecedent for "this" in English is usually the most recent reasonable reference, which is to say, the circumstances being described by /u/xnyan in the comment you were responding to, which were very broad, and which included an example as part of the description.
Even if you are a person who will never in your life end up as any kind of person of interest for the government, handing over data in this way could still be quite dangerous. Phones will often contain data that can facilitate theft and fraud if ending up in the wrong hands. If they're able to copy everything, including private data from all apps that could be quite bad. For example many countries now use apps to log…
Things like secured enclave should make it hard to extract private key from a device even if you have full access.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why the hell would anybody sane, especially with all knowledge average HN user has about government overreach and greed, hacks, 0days, bugs etc. ever put such a critical item as banking app on their phone? Apple vs Android is irrelevant in this, there is no truly safe mainstream phone in 2022, period. Are people really that lazy? I do manage quite a few financial things but for none of those phone apps is crucial and…
Because accounts are insured and so need to transfer money on the go. How do you transfer money to friends when you go out to dinner? At least in Australia, this is done via your banking app. How do you withdraw money from an ATM? Again, this is moving primarily app based. Your definition of sane may be security at all costs, but for most convenience and social norms trump this.
With cash?
> How do you withdraw money from an ATM? Again, this is moving primarily app based.
With a card?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, so the right thing to do is make sure we get to that point by having open borders.
Correct, because in doing so you max freedom, growth and power, which you don't want to stunt in order to avoid a made up concern that may or may not happen and can be prevented before it happens if it almost happens. Anyway, the market will tend to equilibrate. If one country hypothetically gets "overpopulated", then the less populated place will become more attractive (although I strongly challenge this, nobody wan…
Due to the lack of a good alternative, we allow anyone born in this country to be a citizen, and to vote at age 18. I wouldn't want random people who don't speak the language nor have any interest in sharing our culture or respect for human rights or democracy to have political power. (See: the importance of public education for a well-run society).
So let's say we allow an unlimited number of people in with almost no barrier, who may or may not share our political values or language, to live and work here. Sure, it's happened before in mass immigration movements. What if we said, "You can be here, but you can't vote until you are documented to have lived here for a certain period of time and can pass a citizenship test?"
That may work, but I wonder what will happen if we continue to have (as we now do) a two-tiered system ala Starship Troopers; one of citizens and one of "civilians" who do do not have political power. What are the impacts? I am not sure.
My core belief is that education and common values are important to a society, and I am concerned that unfettered immigration into this country would risk destroying whatever common culture/language we have over time.
Even if you are a person who will never in your life end up as any kind of person of interest for the government, handing over data in this way could still be quite dangerous. Phones will often contain data that can facilitate theft and fraud if ending up in the wrong hands. If they're able to copy everything, including private data from all apps that could be quite bad. For example many countries now use apps to log…
Why the hell would anybody sane, especially with all knowledge average HN user has about government overreach and greed, hacks, 0days, bugs etc. ever put such a critical item as banking app on their phone? Apple vs Android is irrelevant in this, there is no truly safe mainstream phone in 2022, period. Are people really that lazy? I do manage quite a few financial things but for none of those phone apps is crucial and…
You mentioned “hacks, 0-days and bugs”. I assume you’ve seen the news when big banks like capitalone got hacked. Do you believe your account is safe from any of these types of hacks because you don’t use their mobile app?
How do you justify using your phone to communicate with family members? After all, a hacker could use those people as an attack vector. Those communications, the family member email addresses, your photos and travel history and shopping history could all be used to profile you, profile them, steal your identity, etc
How do you justify using any technology whatsoever when it’s just such a scary world? Once you answer that for yourself, you’ll find the answer to your “why the hell would anybody sane” question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
I wish the 2nd Amendment folks would care about the 4th Amendment just as much.