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

111–120 of 142 posts

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

#111

Post by testing22321 »

kelnos wrote: post #106
testing22321 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but you get to go home Not always. They must admit you, but they can arrest you one second later

They still need to charge you with something. If they can't, they can't hold you. Yes, I know, they can theoretically do whatever they want, but realistically it would take the most spiteful of spiteful agents to arrest you without cause (just because you refused to unlock your device). Just the act of doing this would create a lot of extra work and paperwork for the agent that most of them are not going to want to d…

Cue all the people that get thrown in jail for 48 hours without being charged at all, or those arrested for resisting arrest… for resisting arrest.

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

#112

Post by simoncion »

tptacek wrote: post #70
themafia wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The collection act originally was intended to apply to merchandise and merchant ports. The concept was judicially expanded upon in 1925 but wasn't fully ensconced into federal law until 1952.

At actual border crossings, the practice at the time of the framers was that warrantless searches/inspections at border crossings were normal and permissible.

At actual border crossings, the practice at the time of the framers was not to carry along all of your private correspondence, business records, reading lists, and so forth. Related to that, given the complaints that started the war, I'd strongly expect that in Washington's day it was not permitted to perform unwarranted searches of one's sealed correspondence going through the US Post. [0]

As the ability to perform surveillance on members of the public expands, laws and regulations must be reconsidered with these new capabilities in mind if just outcomes are to be maintained. Laws, regulations, and punishments that were just and reasonable when one expected to learn about and prosecute one offender in -say- a million are likely unjust and unreasonable when one expects to learn about and prosecute every single offender. [2]

[0] See also Section 16 on numbered page 236 of [1]

[1] https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/1/STA...>

[2] Yes, there are offenses -such as murder- for which this doesn't hold. I'd expect that these are the minority of offenses.

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

#113

Post by laken »

kelnos wrote: post #104
mixdup wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't prevent you from entering the country. You do not have an unlimited right to bring items into the country with you, though. They can absolutely prevent you from bringing your phone across the border if you decline to unlock it

> They can absolutely prevent you from bringing your phone across the border if you decline to unlock it Under what grounds?

The directive linked in the literal OP you're commenting under. (section 5.41 in that directive)

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

#114

Post by piva00 »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #89
huslage wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, I'm not sure they can compel non-citizens. If you want in, you might have to give them the keys. But if you would rather not enter, would they compel on pain of imprisonment? The U.S. isn't China or the UK.

In my experience going through the border in China is more pleasant than through the USA, never had a hiccup in China while I've been detained for hours without contact with the outside going through a transit in JFK.

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

#115

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #89
huslage wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, I'm not sure they can compel non-citizens. If you want in, you might have to give them the keys. But if you would rather not enter, would they compel on pain of imprisonment? The U.S. isn't China or the UK.

UK citizen here and I've never had any issue with flying in/out of UK with several electronic devices (phone, laptop, tablet, steamdeck etc). Never even been asked to power them on or demonstrate them working (i.e. to show that they're not a bomb disguised as a laptop) and don't know anyone else that's had any hassle getting back in the country. I've been selected for being swabbed for explosives a few times though, but even that only takes a minute and is hardly any inconvenience.

In my experience, Australia was the most difficult country to get into as they are (now) very careful about bringing in any plant seeds or fruit, but the security staff were very friendly and helpful. I had to spend a while explaining that I did have some bananas in my bag previously which was why the cute sniffer dog was interested in it.

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

#116

Post by chopin »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #115
NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I'm not sure they can compel non-citizens. If you want in, you might have to give them the keys. But if you would rather not enter, would they compel on pain of imprisonment? The U.S. isn't China or the UK.

UK citizen here and I've never had any issue with flying in/out of UK with several electronic devices (phone, laptop, tablet, steamdeck etc). Never even been asked to power them on or demonstrate them working (i.e. to show that they're not a bomb disguised as a laptop) and don't know anyone else that's had any hassle getting back in the country. I've been selected for being swabbed for explosives a few times though,…

Same experience with Australia. Japan is very painless, as well. Friendly, helpful staff on both.

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

#117

Post by TylerE »

dylan604 wrote: post #79
gruez wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The premise (non-citizen) is in the question and doesn't need to be repeated. C'mon, this isn't grade school where you have to answer questions by first restating the question in its entirety.

No, but even in grade school, the teacher would get the student to actually answer the question when it is clearly being evaded. Or maybe put the student's name on the board for wasting everyone's time for being obstinate.

Seems to me you're the one being evasive here.

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

#118

Post by TylerE »

tptacek wrote: post #92
LocalH wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the US Government: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46601

Nobody disputes that border searches are constitutional at the functional equivalents of the border; if you fly in from Canada and land in Tulsa, Tulsa includes a de jure international border. 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.

> 25-100 mile zone extends outwards the airport customs gates

No one in this subthread has claimed that but you.

We're talking about this: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46601#_Ref40429957

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

#119

Post by ThePowerOfFuet »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #89
huslage wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, I'm not sure they can compel non-citizens. If you want in, you might have to give them the keys. But if you would rather not enter, would they compel on pain of imprisonment? The U.S. isn't China or the UK.

>The U.S. isn't China or the UK.

Wasn't. Past tense.

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

#120

Post by dylan604 »

TylerE wrote: post #117
dylan604 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but even in grade school, the teacher would get the student to actually answer the question when it is clearly being evaded. Or maybe put the student's name on the board for wasting everyone's time for being obstinate.

Seems to me you're the one being evasive here.

How am I being evasive when I'm the one that asked the question? Gawd, how I love the interwebs
Post reply on HN