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

Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–378 of 378 posts

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#371

Post by vsl »

mikeash wrote: post #362
wang_li wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that no one who is reasonable thinks that Americans who travel to Canada get to exercise the rights they hold as Americans in America. But is having a concealed carry permit in your wallet a reasonable indication that you have a gun on your person or in your vehicle? Statistically, in the US, CC permit holders are the most law abiding group in the country.

Let’s imagine, hypothetically, that a visitor came to the US and had a permit from their country of origin allowing them to own and travel with slaves. Would border patrol be justified in giving them extra scrutiny to see if they might have one with them?

Well, no?

Assuming by default that somebody would break the law, just because you politically disagree with them, is not justified. As said above, CC holders are among the most law-abiding citizens (this is true in my country too). They're aware of the laws governing their permit and assuming by default that they'd break other countries' laws is preposterous. You don't just forget that you're carrying when you travel abroad or by airplane. And you sure as hell don't do something as idiotic as that, with the accompanying consequences, intentionally.

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#372

Post by mikeash »

vsl wrote: post #371
mikeash wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s imagine, hypothetically, that a visitor came to the US and had a permit from their country of origin allowing them to own and travel with slaves. Would border patrol be justified in giving them extra scrutiny to see if they might have one with them?

Well, no? Assuming by default that somebody would break the law, just because you politically disagree with them, is not justified . As said above, CC holders are among the most law-abiding citizens (this is true in my country too). They're aware of the laws governing their permit and assuming by default that they'd break other countries' laws is preposterous. You don't just forget that you're carrying when you trave…

It’s not about political disagreement. It’s about having a permit for something that’s not allowed to transit the border. Assuming nefarious intent by default is, for better or worse, how border controls operate almost everywhere for almost everyone. You have to demonstrate that you’re OK to enter, they don’t have to demonstrate that you’re not.

As far as forgetting that you’re carrying, numerous examples say otherwise. Random data point: the TSA confiscated over 4,000 guns last year, of which I imagine approximately 100% were inadvertently packed by innocent people. Whether it’s intentional is immaterial; Canada doesn’t want guns crossing the border, and they couldn’t care less if you’re doing it by accident.

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#373

Post by maximilianroos »

Zak wrote: post #171
everdrive wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly suspect that CBP's "strong suspicion" is equivalent to a HN poster's "whim." I'm not insulting either party, however when anything similar to this debate plays out, parties talk past each other on this sort of disagreement.

"Reasonable suspicion" is a legal term. In this context, a CBP officer would need to have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe the item to be searched is illegal to bring into the country, or contains something that is illegal to bring into the country. A hunch is not sufficient; it requires objective evidence. Reasonable suspicion is not required for every search at a border crossing, and the Fede…

> Federal circuit courts are split on whether it is required for a forensic examination of a mobile phone at a border crossing

Did Cotterman 2013 clear this up? How does are circuit courts split yet the 9th assumed jurisdiction?

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#374

Post by Zak »

maximilianroos wrote: post #373
Zak wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Reasonable suspicion" is a legal term. In this context, a CBP officer would need to have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe the item to be searched is illegal to bring into the country, or contains something that is illegal to bring into the country. A hunch is not sufficient; it requires objective evidence. Reasonable suspicion is not required for every search at a border crossing, and the Fede…

> Federal circuit courts are split on whether it is required for a forensic examination of a mobile phone at a border crossing Did Cotterman 2013 clear this up? How does are circuit courts split yet the 9th assumed jurisdiction?

The 9th circuit has jurisdiction in this case because it happened in California. US v. Cotterman is the relevant case, and the 4th circuit made a similar ruling in US v. Kolsuz, but the 11th circuit held differently in US v. Touset.

So in some parts of the US, reasonable suspicion is required. In some parts, it isn't. In some parts, there is no binding precedent on the issue. It's likely that the supreme court will hear a case on the issue eventually.

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#375

Post by microtherion »

cyberfart wrote: post #271
microtherion wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's any country in the world that doesn't reserve the right to deny entry to non-citizens for any reason they choose.

Perhaps I was unclear, I was asking if they can confiscate your stuff and send you back without it.

I'd think any such confiscation would be for a finite time only, but "finite" possibly encompassing a good portion of the useful life of an electronic device. The US can confiscate your kids and send you back without them. I doubt they'd draw the line at confiscating a phone.

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#376

Post by Friedduck »

Knowing what we know it astonishes me that people take devices with anything of value over an international border.

Save everything to the cloud, or use a burner device like a It’s not worth the hassle.

(And yes, I’ve read that this antagonizes border security to a certain extent, if they believe you’ve done just this.)

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#377

Post by cyphar »

justin66 wrote: post #360
cyphar wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court first ruled in 2008[1] that the right to personal ownership of guns is a valid reading of the 2nd Amendment (devoid of any military/militia purpose -- a departure from previous Supreme Court decisions). While it is correct to argue that Supreme Court decisions are "case law", the Supreme Court is the final appellate court in the US -- so the only way to change their decision would be through a const…

It would be more accurate to say advocating for a different interpretation of the second amendment. At times, some do advocate for the repeal of an amendment as well, and in that case the "opposed to x amendment" verbiage seems a bit more appropriate. There have been a few groups calling for constitutional conventions in the past few years and I think there are some examples of this there. I don't think actually repe…

> The supreme court does change their mind about things, as the Heller decision demonstrates.

Heller was not a change of mind by the supreme court (it ruled on a different matter to previous rulings -- which had explicitly skirted around the problem of civilian ownership of weapons outside of a military context).

However, even if it were a change of mind -- the supreme court changing its rulings is an incredibly rare event because such events question the finality and authority of their decisions.

Hence why I said "the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment" -- because waiting for the supreme court to change their mind about it (while technically possible and sometimes the case) is hardly a useful policy position for a political argument.

Re: Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

#378

Post by zitterbewegung »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #364
zitterbewegung wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can seize your stuff so your workaround won’t work when they pass it to their tech team for forensics. Also, if they find something now they have you lying to customs.

It seems (ha!) possible to design the logic for such a system with deniability, like the system has to use the second/third/fourth password to attempt decryption before you know if the padding is encrypted or random noise [if the specific encryption has a signature then each install could encrypt the empty space with a few keys taken from urandom]. First password accesses clean files, second one accesses dummy [legal…

You still are now attempting to deceive a government official. Also, you are assuming that the technician assigned to you wouldn't be able to figure this out.

Also, sweating you out in holding is probably more effective than you realize.

Post reply on HN