91–100 of 142 posts
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.
Protections at the U.S. border and within the U.S. are actually pretty good. Much of Europe isn't as good. Hell, the British will throw you in jail for refusing to unlock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The exception zone" is a myth.
Tell that to the US Government: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46601
The dispute (it's not really a dispute, there's a line of SCOTUS precedent explicitly about this question) is whether a 25-100 mile zone extends outwards the airport customs gates. No.
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 think the context is just mass international travel due to the US hosting the World Cup, no?
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 have nothing to hide, but still no intention to provide my passcode.
EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Search by border officers may very well be GDPR breach for that controller if there was data of EU data subjects, but I don't think there is currently any case law around it.
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…
They can't compel you to decrypt anything, and powering down is a good idea. There are consequences for not decrypting, though: for a U.S. citizen, they can seize your stuff for up to 5 days. For non-citizens, they can elect to not let you in. Concerning "obligated", I would point out that regulations aren't laws. Governing bodies can say whatever they want, but that doesn't make it so. For instance, the TSA continue…
Explain, please, because you seem to be implying that someone can board a plane from New York to LA without being legally required to show any identification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The list of countries where you need a burner phone will likely grow longer. Canada, Australia, UK, some developing countries, etc...
Governments maintain formal lists of countries for these types of things. I think people would be surprised how many diverse countries are on the formal lists. A number of European countries have been on them for years.
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…
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.
CBP partly justify the invasion of privacy by citing a supposed reduced expectation of privacy when traveling. But people whose data is caught up on the devices of others are not the ones traveling, but they are still having their messages read and photos copied.