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

Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 181 posts

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#111

Post by FireBeyond »

RIMR wrote: post #21
beaglesss wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think that. I was strip searched When that came up with nothing they appeared in front of a judge claiming drug baggies were sticking out of my ass, then I was imprisoned, printed, and loaded up in a prisoner van and dragged to several hospitals while they tried to convince doctors to X-ray or invasively search me. It sounds so insane, and gross, people usually don't believe it. I was sent the medical bills when…

Yeah, that sounds like the cops. This is one of those things you should talk to a lawyer about, and possibly, if you want to and your lawyer approves, the media. Being invasively searched for drugs due to false testimony by officers, where it was proven that you were free of contraband, but then being billed for the process, is fucked up and a clear violation of your constitutional rights.

Or get arrested in Florida. Even if charges are dropped or you're found not guilty, the state will bill you for your jail stay, and unsurprisingly, not paying that will result in you being subject to arrest...

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#112

Post by FireBeyond »

beaglesss wrote: post #23
RIMR wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that sounds like the cops. This is one of those things you should talk to a lawyer about, and possibly, if you want to and your lawyer approves, the media. Being invasively searched for drugs due to false testimony by officers, where it was proven that you were free of contraband, but then being billed for the process, is fucked up and a clear violation of your constitutional rights.

I talked to several including the lawyer of Ashley Cervantes v US , a woman warrantlessly digitally raped (fingered) by doctors at the same hospital in search of drugs. Her case was publicized and far more egregious. They essentially told me they'd given up. I also reported a nurse who acted without consent to the nursing board. The board covered for her. And in Cervantes case, her doctor simply testified it was a he…

> And in Cervantes case, her doctor simply testified it was a he said she said and he pretty promised she consented.

Step-daughter was involved in a car accident at a lighted intersection. No cameras, no witnesses, nothing, just her in her car, and the other driver in his.

Police officer: "Did you have a green light?"

Step-daughter: "Yes, I had a green light."

He goes over to the other driver, and is back within two minutes. "The other driver said he definitely had a green light, so I'm issuing you a citation for failure to obey a traffic signal."

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#113

Post by qingcharles »

dmurray wrote: post #84
qingcharles wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. (and for those unfamiliar with the terms, in federal courts "Circuit Courts" are the first level of appeals courts, which both sides have a right to be heard in, followed by the Supreme Court which is discretionary and only takes on big cases) When there is a "circuit split" like this, with different appellate courts going in opposite directions you are almost 100% guaranteed SCOTUS has to step in to fi…

> the court has changed to the right, which generally (but not always) means less defendant-friendly, more government-friendly. I would say the court is generally less defendant-friendly and less government-friendly. Maybe in the narrow case where government = armed law enforcement, more government- friendly.

Maybe I should have said more prosecution/law-enforcement friendly, you're right.

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#114

Post by khimaros »

_flux wrote: post #101
alphabettsy wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s actually the native integrations that do this. Android Auto and CarPlay basically act as a display for your phone and little data leaves your device. Connect via Bluetooth to many vehicles and that data syncs to the car’s infotainment.

Whenever I pair my Android phone to e.g. a headset, it asks if I want to share my contacts. And, I suppose, also text messages, and I just checked there's that option with the paired vehicle (and it was unchecked).

it's so frustrating that this can't be disabled permanently so that it doesn't ask anymore.

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#115

Post by chatmasta »

kergonath wrote: post #55
chatmasta wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible to enable CarPlay but only for Google Maps? It’s so annoying that it seems to be all or nothing.

It would not really make sense. CarPlay is just your phone using the car’s screen. How would you do that for one app and nothing else?

> CarPlay is just your phone using the car’s screen

Then why does iOS warn me that my car will receive data from my phone when enabling car play? Does this just mean the screen, or does it get the texts/calls too?

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#117

Post by ASalazarMX »

ahdlakg wrote: post #85

It is amazing how the U.S. consistently gets away with this and is still perceived as a free country. In the 1980s the only border I knew where printed material was searched was the East German border. Back then the practice was considered outrageous.

What I find more egregious is, if this somehow sticks, non-USA citizens are still not protected from these invasive searches. This should be a human rights issue, not a local law.

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#118

Post by ranger_danger »

kotaKat wrote: post #108
dheera wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use the most obscure fork of Android possible, learn the most obscure language in Africa and set your UI to that language, ...

Aaaaand with the bootloader unlocked, they'll just grab the Cellebrite and/or call up Cellebrite Professional Services for remote unlock assistance. https://cellebrite.com/en/advanced-services/ The biggest thing is to set your device up on arrival to be powered OFF. Most of Cellebrite (and other security vendors) solutions rely on the phone having been unlocked once since first poweron (or "AFU").

Even better would be to not even bring a phone in the first place, and get a temporary one after arrival. Or get a prepaid one beforehand with nothing on it, if you're confident that won't be suspicious.

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#119

Post by ranger_danger »

dheera wrote: post #62
arnonejoe wrote: post #18

I’m curious, if your phone is locked, were they ever able to demand that you unlock it so they could conduct a search?

Use the most obscure fork of Android possible, learn the most obscure language in Africa and set your UI to that language, ...

That certainly won't look suspicious at all /s

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#120

Post by ranger_danger »

withinboredom wrote: post #68
ranger_danger wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I had a cop search my car once and he “found” drug paraphernalia. I don’t do any drugs, ever in my life. I’ve seen what it does to people from a young age and I had never seen that paraphernalia ever before in my life; also, this car was brand new and I had only driven it less than two miles from the dealership. My only crime was speeding on an empty road in a brand new car, but this cop taught me they are all crooke…

I do not think one bad experience means they are all bad. This trope is perpetuated so often that even mentioning it gets massive downvotes. Popular opinion doesn't always mean they're "right".

I think we all need to learn that there are different ways of interpreting things that influence people's opinions, and we should be open to the possibility that we might be "wrong" in someone else's context, myself included.

Why were they searching your car in the first place? Did you consent to it? Was there probable cause? Did you fight it in court?

I think we all have to do our part to expose any possible corruption if we ever want it to change... if that's even what happened. Just shrugging and saying "yea that happens" is not the answer IMO, and one could argue you're both wrong at that point.

Post reply on HN