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

51–60 of 142 posts

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

#51

Post by gruez »

dylan604 wrote: post #44
gruez wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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

You don't "have to", but they can deport you and refuse entry in the future in retaliation. It's a variant of the TSA not being able to "compel" you to a search, but they can refuse you from flying.

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

#52

Post by bdcravens »

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…

> what is relevance of being posted today

Not sure about today specifically, but it is pretty relevant with the World Cup starting in 2 weeks

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

#53

Post by rockskon »

userbinator wrote: post #6

The legalese is thick but this is a notable point I saw from a quick skim: 5.3.2 "Passcodes or other means of access may not be utilized to access information that is only stored remotely."

They will be disruptive to your life if you, as a U.S. citizen, refuse to unlock your phone on the U.S. border. But it is my understanding they cannot constitutionally mandate you provide a passcode to unlock your phone. But they may confiscate your phone from you.

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

#54

Post by Spooky23 »

gruez wrote: post #22
jazz9k wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China installs malware to spy on you. The US doesn't do this. Totally different situation. This also happens in many other countries

>China installs malware to spy on you. The US doesn't do this. Source? Are we talking on random travelers, or targeted individuals? I seriously doubt china is doing the former, and I also seriously doubt the US doesn't engage in the latter.

There are many well cited examples.

I believe in politically sensitive areas like Xinjiang it happens to everyone. A past employer gave specific advice regarding Hong Kong as well.

I think the key thing as a traveller isn’t the righteousness of China vs. US. It’s the chilling effect on travel and trade.

We really depend on these devices that have access to vast scopes of personal and other data. That sexy text you got a year ago is still in your text message store and may be a problem in some places.

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

#55

Post by bdcravens »

gonzalohm wrote: post #5
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.

Someone should make an app to offload all your data to a personal cloud before going to the airport and then reload it into the phone after going through customs

In the case of Apple, couldn't you reset the phone, sign in to a backup iCloud account, and then repeat the process with your real account once you're clear? Not a fast process, but most people have GBs of personal data so nothing would be quick anyways.

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

#56

Post by gruez »

Spooky23 wrote: post #54
gruez wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>China installs malware to spy on you. The US doesn't do this. Source? Are we talking on random travelers, or targeted individuals? I seriously doubt china is doing the former, and I also seriously doubt the US doesn't engage in the latter.

There are many well cited examples. I believe in politically sensitive areas like Xinjiang it happens to everyone. A past employer gave specific advice regarding Hong Kong as well. I think the key thing as a traveller isn’t the righteousness of China vs. US. It’s the chilling effect on travel and trade. We really depend on these devices that have access to vast scopes of personal and other data. That sexy text you go…

If we're talking about targeted hacks, are we sure the US doesn't do this? Is US soil off limits for hacks somehow? What plausible exploits could be done when someone is on US soil, but not over the internet, especially on modern phones where the baseband is isolated?

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

#57

Post by Spooky23 »

userbinator wrote: post #36
KennyBlanken wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not notable at all given a lot of content is synced to the device, not even counting temporary and cache files.

It's notable in that I've seen an increasing number of companies where employees are essentially given a thin client to connect to a remote server for work, and are sometimes even prohibited from transferring that data out of that environment to the local machine.

Yeah that’s really critical if you use O365, as the encryption terminates in each local jurisdiction and is in cleartext on that front end device. So if you connecting in Germany, you’re hitting a front end in Germany or at least the EU, and so forth.

One easier way to do that is to use a Chromebook Public Session with a VPN, then connect to SaaS or a hosted desktop in your jurisdiction.

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

#58

Post by themafia »

tptacek wrote: post #46
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.

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.

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

#59

Post by [deleted] »

gruez wrote: post #51
dylan604 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You don't "have to", but they can deport you and refuse entry in the future in retaliation. It's a variant of the TSA not being able to "compel" you to a search, but they can refuse you from flying.

[deleted]

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

#60

Post by Spooky23 »

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.

We really need a concept of tenancy in a digital context.

Your personal papers are perfectly safe and subject the fourth amendment protections in your rented apartment. But most digital materials are considered to have been shared with a third-party if you store them on Google Drive.

My feeling about this stuff personally is that the biggest issue is that stuff that happens in electronic devices is different in a modern sense than what anyone intended in the past. If you could figure out a way to make my personal property as it exists on a foam or another device, the same as the personal property that’s in my desk at home or the trunk of my car then technology would be able to solve a lot of these problems. I think the custom thing is a more nuance conversation. I don’t understand the theory of it enough, but intuitively it seems ridiculous that a CBP officer has the ability to legally go through 30 years of my pictures in my Apple album because I happen to be crossing a border.

Post reply on HN