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

CBP Directive 3340-049B: Border Search of Electronic Devices

cbp.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 142 posts

Re: CBP Directive 3340-049B: Border Search of Electronic Devices

#41

Post by gruez »

stavros wrote: post #28
XorNot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't work well in my experience. What I want is to get my home screen back exactly as I left it: I've not found anything able to pull it off on Android though. Ideally it would be an exact flash image of the phone.

Adb backup exists, though I haven't tried it, and Google cloud backup does this. However, if you trust Google, you probably already trust the US. Unfortunately, I don't know of any other app that does this on an unrooted phone.

>Adb backup exists, though I haven't tried it,

It's very patchy, and many (most?) apps opt out, so it's functionally useless.

Re: CBP Directive 3340-049B: Border Search of Electronic Devices

#42

Post by gruez »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #31
itstotallykyle wrote: post #2

It's wild, I have worked internationally for a long-time and the rule when going to certain countries was bring a burner device. Going to China essentially meant the device was nuked on return to the States, now it is the same feeling to/from the US.

For GDPR reasons alone it's probably not a good idea to take a business phone across certain borders. You run the risk of disclosing customer data to a 3rd party, if only because the customer data in your phone book counts as PII. So long as only a few countries are doing this, it might seems doable. If everyone starts doing it, international travel becomes rather annoying to say the least. Realistically I think at s…

>For GDPR reasons alone it's probably not a good idea to take a business phone across certain borders. You run the risk of disclosing customer data to a 3rd party, if only because the customer data in your phone book counts as PII.

But "law enforcement" is specifically exempt?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...

Re: CBP Directive 3340-049B: Border Search of Electronic Devices

#43

Post by eff-nix »

gruez wrote: post #40
chasd00 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to China means your devices are owned when the plane touches down if not before. That’s why you bring a burner device (including laptop and anything else), never log into anything, and throw it in the trash when you leave.

>Going to China means your devices are owned when the plane touches down if not before. ??? Are American made operating systems (Android, iOS, Windows, Mac) so full of 0days that the Chinese are burning them on random travelers? This just feels like either severe paranoia and/or chinese/american psyop, making people think that China has some magic hacking power.

[dead]

Re: CBP Directive 3340-049B: Border Search of Electronic Devices

#44

Post by dylan604 »

gruez wrote: post #37
dylan604 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I had thought (and Supreme Court ruled) you could not be compelled to unlock an encrypted device, which is why I always powered mined down before crossing. Does that apply to non-citizens? If a CBP officer doesn't like you as a non-citizen, like your lack of cooperation during an interview, they could just deny your visa and your entry into the US. If you're a citizen, they can't deny your re-entry. They can delay…

>> I had thought (and Supreme Court ruled) you could not be compelled to unlock an encrypted device >Does that apply to non-citizens? If a CBP officer doesn't like you as a non-citizen, like your lack of cooperation during an interview, they could just deny your visa and your entry into the US. That's exactly what "you could not be compelled to unlock an encrypted device" means? You won't get sent to the gulag for re…

Not really sure what you're arguing, but it's not an answer to my question

Re: CBP Directive 3340-049B: Border Search of Electronic Devices

#45

Post by Spooky23 »

smdyc1 wrote: post #25
866-RON-0-FEZ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia's been doing this forever.

We have? My international relatives have never been searched to that degree, if at all. That said, the whole thing is overreach in any democratic society.

Read the stories about people who actually have this happen. You can usually figure out why they are targeted. That may not be just. But it is.

Customs agents are always given broad discretion and generally care about something.

Most normal folks will never intact with these issues. The last time I travelled internationally, they weren’t even doing secondary customs screening upon return to the US.

Re: CBP Directive 3340-049B: Border Search of Electronic Devices

#46

Post by tptacek »

delichon wrote: post #35

We need a constitutional amendment that says "we really mean it" with respect to the 4th and 9th amendments, explicitly including personal digital data and criminalizing general surveillance. With fangs.

The border search exception was designed by the framers.

Re: CBP Directive 3340-049B: Border Search of Electronic Devices

#47

Post by tptacek »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #23

A friendly reminder that the CBP has decreed itself to have authority within 100 miles of any US border, as that it is its interpretation of "a reasonable distance" from said border. That basically encompasses two thirds of the population. The last two years have demonstrated a radical need to curtail that range of authority and shift from it being vaguely specified to a concrete legislative specification. Even ten m…

This is false. It's an old fundraising claim used by the ACLU; they have since set up pages backing away from it (because convincing people in the US that they don't have rights they do in fact have is not good civil liberties advocacy). There's direct SCOTUS precedent on this.

There's a 100 air mile border definition that's material to immigration enforcement (with complicated limitations). It does not determine where searches under the border search exception can occur.

Re: CBP Directive 3340-049B: Border Search of Electronic Devices

#48

Post by huslage »

dylan604 wrote: post #21
chrsstrm wrote: post #16

This directive was issued in January of this year, what is relevance of being posted today? I love all the instances where it says, we will not do this or infringe in this way... unless it is a matter of national security, which we don't have to disclose to you. So basically, do what you want as long as you write it up properly. And this part: 5.3 Review and Handling of Passcode-Protected or Encrypted Information 5.3…

> I had thought (and Supreme Court ruled) you could not be compelled to unlock an encrypted device, which is why I always powered mined down before crossing. Does that apply to non-citizens? If a CBP officer doesn't like you as a non-citizen, like your lack of cooperation during an interview, they could just deny your visa and your entry into the US. If you're a citizen, they can't deny your re-entry. They can delay…

It ONLY applies to citizens. The CBP cannot deny an American citizen entry into the country for any reason. They cannot compel a citizen to unlock their devices. All bets are off for non-citizens, sadly.

Re: CBP Directive 3340-049B: Border Search of Electronic Devices

#49

Post by [deleted] »

gruez wrote: post #40
chasd00 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to China means your devices are owned when the plane touches down if not before. That’s why you bring a burner device (including laptop and anything else), never log into anything, and throw it in the trash when you leave.

>Going to China means your devices are owned when the plane touches down if not before. ??? Are American made operating systems (Android, iOS, Windows, Mac) so full of 0days that the Chinese are burning them on random travelers? This just feels like either severe paranoia and/or chinese/american psyop, making people think that China has some magic hacking power.

[deleted]

Re: CBP Directive 3340-049B: Border Search of Electronic Devices

#50

Post by antman »

itstotallykyle wrote: post #2

It's wild, I have worked internationally for a long-time and the rule when going to certain countries was bring a burner device. Going to China essentially meant the device was nuked on return to the States, now it is the same feeling to/from the US.

Had the same guidance for many years for visiting the US given by the large US firm that employed me
Post reply on HN