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

131–140 of 142 posts

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

#131

Post by mixdup »

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?

Customs law? You have an absolute right to return to the country as a citizen. You do not have an absolute right to bring whatever you want into the country, even as a citizen so they can search your belongings to see if you are carrying contraband. It's a different set of rules than if you're just on the street already in the country, crossing a border customs has a lot of leeway

I'm not saying that I agree with it, it's just the way it is

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

#132

Post by majorchord »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #130
piva00 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The vast majority of people from the developed world have no problems going through any border in the developed world. Your experience is probably representative, but that's not what we're talking about. My understanding is that de facto you have no rights at all in China. The Americans take this sort of thing very seriously, which is why it's in the news and talked about. Some guy gets imprisoned for 37 days for a m…

Yet Japan, a country the West fetishizes regularly, routinely jails people for 20 days with no contact or even any charges at all, often ruining their lives, while desperately trying to force a confession no matter how innocent you are, then (hopefully) turning them loose, and not many people seem to care about that.

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

#133

Post by ZiiS »

XorNot wrote: post #17
ZiiS wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All backup apps work, no special requirements. Seedvault for my LiniageOS.

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.

I agree they could be better; though I do get my home screen restored.

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

#134

Post by ZiiS »

XorNot wrote: post #17
ZiiS wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All backup apps work, no special requirements. Seedvault for my LiniageOS.

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.

NANDroid dose the exact flash image, but with modern hardware rooted encryption it stopped being useful.

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

#135

Post by simoncion »

tptacek wrote: post #121
simoncion wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not saying that iPhones and computers don't challenge the premises of the border search exception, only that those searches don't by themselves represent some decay of the Fourth Amendment.

AFAICT, neither was OP. They said:

  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.
You replied:

  The border search exception was designed by the framers.
and I wrote the clarification that I did because -given the context- it seemed pretty clear to me that you'd missed OP's point.

I'd go further and argue that law enforcement and other government agents should be absolutely prohibited from accessing ordinary people's data [0] stored with or collected/computed by a third party without first getting a warrant or other such authorization from The Court. It has been ages since most of that sort of data could reasonably be considered «incidental business records», and how the law treats it absolutely needs to be updated to match the reality of how regular people's day-to-day interactions with third parties have changed.

[0] ...or metadata...

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

#136

Post by tptacek »

simoncion wrote: post #135
tptacek wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying that iPhones and computers don't challenge the premises of the border search exception, only that those searches don't by themselves represent some decay of the Fourth Amendment.

AFAICT, neither was OP. They said: 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. You replied: The border search exception was designed by the framers. and I wrote the clarification that I did because -given the context- it seemed pretty clear to me that you'd mi…

It's good to want things!

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

#137

Post by simoncion »

tptacek wrote: post #136
simoncion wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAICT, neither was OP. They said: 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. You replied: The border search exception was designed by the framers. and I wrote the clarification that I did because -given the context- it seemed pretty clear to me that you'd mi…

It's good to want things!

I've been getting the impression that all that metaphorical rocket fuel you and your colleagues have been metaphorically sipping is burning you out. Don't be hesitant to take a sabbatical or extended vacation to perform a solid personal health check.

As I'm sure you know, chronic exhaustion and overwork is insidious and impairs your ability to recognize that you're affected by it. Even those of us who very definitely know better than to get caught by it sometimes get caught by it... and getting sufficiently out from under it to even recognize that you've been substantially impaired by it (let alone fully recover from it) takes more time than one might expect.

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

#138

Post by tptacek »

simoncion wrote: post #137
tptacek wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good to want things!

I've been getting the impression that all that metaphorical rocket fuel you and your colleagues have been metaphorically sipping is burning you out. Don't be hesitant to take a sabbatical or extended vacation to perform a solid personal health check. As I'm sure you know, chronic exhaustion and overwork is insidious and impairs your ability to recognize that you're affected by it. Even those of us who very definitely…

I'm sorry, I don't understand what this has to do with the thread? Did you mean to respond to some other comment I wrote?

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

#139

Post by simoncion »

tptacek wrote: post #138
simoncion wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been getting the impression that all that metaphorical rocket fuel you and your colleagues have been metaphorically sipping is burning you out. Don't be hesitant to take a sabbatical or extended vacation to perform a solid personal health check. As I'm sure you know, chronic exhaustion and overwork is insidious and impairs your ability to recognize that you're affected by it. Even those of us who very definitely…

I'm sorry, I don't understand what this has to do with the thread? Did you mean to respond to some other comment I wrote?

> Did you mean to respond to some other comment I wrote?

My reply is attached to the comment it was intended to be attached.

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

#140

Post by tptacek »

simoncion wrote: post #139
tptacek wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what this has to do with the thread? Did you mean to respond to some other comment I wrote?

> Did you mean to respond to some other comment I wrote? My reply is attached to the comment it was intended to be attached.

Then I have to ask, are you OK? We're not talking about AI.
Post reply on HN