Wall Street Journal Reporter Hassled At LA Airport; Successfully Prevents DHS From Searching Her Phones

from the the-government-will-abuse-your-rights-as-far-as-you'll-let-it dept

Fri, Jul 22nd 2016 9:41am — Tim Cushing

Welcome to Bordertown, USA. Population: 200 million. Expect occasional temporary population increases from travelers arriving from other countries. Your rights as a US citizen are indeterminate within 100 miles of US borders. They may be respected. They may be ignored. But courts have decided that the "right" to do national security stuff -- as useless as most its efforts are -- trumps the rights of US citizens.

Wall Street Journal reporter Maria Abi-Habib - a US-born citizen traveling into the States with her valid passport -- discovered this at the Los Angeles International Airport. Her Facebook post describes her interaction with DHS agents who suddenly decided they needed to detain her and seize her electronics.

The DHS agent went on to say she was there to help me navigate immigration because I am a journalist with The Wall Street Journal and have traveled to many dangerous places that are on the US' radar for terrorism.

It's generally a good idea to be wary when government employees suddenly offers to "help."

But after pushing me to the front of a very long line at immigration, she then escorted me to the luggage belt, where I collected my suitcase, and then she took me to a special section of LAX airport. Another customs agent joined her at that point and they grilled me for an hour - asking me about the years I lived in the US, when I moved to Beirut and why, who lives at my in-laws' house in LA and numbers for the groom and bride whose wedding I was attending.

Abi-Habib was very cooperative. She answered all of the agent's questions and remained calm despite this interaction being far from ordinary. It didn't matter. The DHS decided to flex its "our border, our rules" muscle.

[T]hen she asked me for my two cellphones. I asked her what she wanted from them.

"We want to collect information" she said, refusing to specify what kind.

"Collect information." That's intrusion and surveillance that serves no discernible purpose. The DHS was obviously hoping Abi-Habib would remain as cooperative as she had during the previous questioning. But Abi-Habib disappointed the DHS agent by suggesting she should talk to the phones' owner about her search plans, rather than just hope a lengthy, suspicionless detention would prompt Abi-Habib to relinquish consent.

"You'll have to call The Wall Street Journal's lawyers, as those phones are the property of WSJ," I told her, calmly.

She accused me of hindering the investigation - a dangerous accusation as at that point, they can use force. I put my hands up and said I'd done nothing but be cooperative, but when it comes to my phones, she would have to call WSJ's lawyers.

She said she had to speak to her supervisor about my lack of cooperation and would return.

Obstruction is an actual crime. This wasn't an empty threat. I mean, it was an empty threat in the way that government officials hand out threats they have no intention of following through with as a means of coercion, but it was not empty as in "without enforceable consequences." It was meant to make Abi-Habib more receptive to granting the DHS permission to search the phones. But behind the threat is an actual criminal statute that could have turned this from a detention to an arrest. And all because the DHS didn't want to obtain consent for its search from the phones' actual owner.

Abi-Habib called the DHS agent's bluff. The DHS relented.

The female officer returned 30 minutes later and said I was free to go.

Abi-Habib's post closes by noting she doesn't fit any terrorism profile and offers security tips for those traveling in and out of the US -- like leaving everything behind that could be searched/seized, or travel with a recently-wiped phone.

The DHS's actions here are disturbing. It suggests agents dig through devices on a regular basis, even when there's a complete lack of suspicion. Laws and court rulings confirm there is a lowered expectation of privacy at US borders, but the agency's refusal to follow through with a search of the devices makes it clear agents are looking to hassle people they think won't fight back -- either during the detention, or after the fact with lawsuits and/or public discussions of their treatment. It's incidents like these that show many public security efforts by government agencies are almost entirely ornamental. It's the illusion of security, rather than an actual protective effort. Border agents dig around in people's stuff just because they can, not because they need to.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cbp, customs and border patrol, journalism, maria abi-habib, phones, searches
Companies: wall street journal

60 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 9:57am

Unreasonable
Your definition and theirs differ by orders of magnitude. Too bad we don't ever get the chance to challenge them with their jobs on the line when they step over the line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Padpaw (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 11:01am
  
  Re: Unreasonable
  the day will come when the corrupt will be held accountable
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Yeah Sure, 22 Jul 2016 @ 11:50am
    
    Re: Re: Unreasonable ... Eventual reckoning
    While eventual accountability is pretty to contemplate, seventy-five years of experience has demonstrated otherwise. The slippery slope only becomes more slippery and slopier..
    
    "We don't need no stinken' accountability. This is a war on sanity."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 2:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Unreasonable ... Eventual reckoning
      It has to get worse before it gets better.
      
      The pendulum always swings back and forth.
      
      Shit gets corrupt, people notice got used to it and ignore it as much as they can.
      Shit show signs of despotic behavior... people take notice cannot get used to it and show inklings of rebellion. (America is very early at this stage with the police shootings)
      Shit stays despotic... people get fucking tired realize they have nothing to lose and try to topple the regime or have a civil war.
      If good guys are successful (there are not always GOOD guys on one of the sides), things go well again until people forget what helped created the corruption... lazy and worthless fucking citizens doing nothing about it before it gets bad!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 9:57am

While they can arrest and detain and obstruction is a real charge, it's quite possible they'd drop the charge after a punitive arrest and detention because there is no actual investigation to impede. Investigations have targets and reasonable suspicions. You can't just say, "I'm going to investigate this person" and then waive their 4th amendment rights for them. And the government can't compel you to breach an employer agreement without a court order. A cop can't just say, "break your work rules because I want you to."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- McFortner (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:12am
  
  Re:
  Constitution? Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' Constitution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - I.T. Guy, 22 Jul 2016 @ 1:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You say you want a revolution?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 3:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      We all want to change the world.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2016 @ 10:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You tell me that it's evolution.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 1:20pm
  
  Re:
  Sure, there's no rap, but as the saying implies, the ride is no fun.
  
  You still get arrested, you still get detained, and while that's happening, they'll probably do everything they can legally to invade your space, your possessions, and your privacy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:04am

Always, before going through customs, especially in the US or UK, do a factory data reset your phone to wipe the device, so that is DHS or HM customs seizes the phone, they will not get anything off the phone.

I like to travel bv road over much of the North American continent, but before going throigh either Canadian or US customs, I always do a factory data reset on my phones, so that they will get nothing off my phones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 12:56pm
  
  Re:
  I don't get this... my phone is fully encrypted. The FBI has been unable to get anything off of fully encrypted phones. Does the CBP have some secret techniques that the FBI lacks? Or do they expect me to enter my lengthy passcode or use the fingerprint that *doesn't* lock out phone access for anything but the passcode?
  
  I'd be mightily annoyed if I had to give up my phone, but it's not like they could do anything with it once they got it. Oh, and my phone technically belongs to my service provider -- I guess I could suggest they contact my (international) service provider's lawyers for phone access. But that might just get me arrested or locked up without reason. So what's the actual thing to do here?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 1:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I think the actual thing to do is to avoid carrying anything that you care about. If you must have a phone in transity, carry a burner phone just for that purpose and ship your phone (and laptop or other valuables of importance) ahead to your destination via a parcel service.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Atkray (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 3:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This^
      Wiping your phone is still giving them YOUR phone, do you want to wait until they decide to return it to you, if the ever do?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2016 @ 9:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ...ship your phone (and laptop or other valuables of importance) ahead to your destination via a parcel service.
      
      You seem to be unaware of the government's procedures for secretly intercepting, searching and tampering with parcel shipments (e.g. installing malware). At least if you keep it with you, and they take it for "inspection", you'll know that they've had their fingers on it and you can never trust it again.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 23 Jul 2016 @ 9:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Of course I'm aware. However, they don't (and can't) do this in a blanket kind of way. You'd have to be someone they have a particular, and great, interest in -- and if you are, you probably know or reasonably suspect it.
        
        If you are someone in that category, then your entire security game must be stepped up across the board anyway, and you shouldn't be using any cell phones except for burners that you only keep for a short period of time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2016 @ 11:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you are someone in that category,...
        
        Where is that list published?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Uriel-238 (profile), 23 Jul 2016 @ 12:48pm
        
        Terrorist Watch List
        Terror Watch List is one such list. I don't think they'll necessarily tell you when you're on the list or how you got on. There's not much oversight as to who gets on or taken off.
        
        Also see the No Fly list. If you're on that list, then you won't be allowed to board a plane, and the TSA will harass you a whole bunch just for the lulz.
        
        Again, there's no way to get off either of these lists, even if you get on by mistake. (Though there's supposed to be a redress process.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Avior, 24 Jul 2016 @ 3:50pm
        
        Re: Terrorist Watch List
        Umm, I don't think those lists are published.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 23 Jul 2016 @ 3:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No need for a list. I'm talking about people that the government thinks may be spies, might be important terrorists, might be engaged in very large crime efforts, etc. If you're someone that is incurring such suspicion, you're very likely to know it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Avior, 24 Jul 2016 @ 3:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I've seen it claimed that a number of the commenters here on TechDirt might be persons of interest to the government. In that light, I would consider your previous advise to people here to be unsound.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 25 Jul 2016 @ 7:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not sure what you mean here, or what advice I gave that you consider unsound.
        
        Let me be very specific: the government cannot intercept and modify a large number of shipments of equipment, no matter how much they might want to -- so this isn't being done as a blanket policy.
        
        If you ship you phone via parcel service, the government will not even know to intercept your package unless they're already keeping a very close eye on you, specifically. When I say that if you're in that select group of people, you'll know, I mean that either/or:
        
        1) You are engaging in activity that you know is likely to be of exceptional interest to the government. Large scale crime, espionage, journalists covering very sensitive stories, working for a foreign embassy, etc.
        
        2) Intercepting your packages will not be the only thing the government is doing with you. You will be under surveillance from many different angles. Enough so that it borders on certain that you'd notice something was up.
        
        If you're just a regular Joe, even one that is on the bad side of the government for whatever reason, they aren't going to waste a very limited resource such as intercepting parcels on you. At worst, they'll go with actions that are less expensive, like temporarily seizing your phone from you and slipping some spyware on it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:10am

Was it navigating immigration or an investigation?
That's the key - at what point did it become an "investigation"? And if so, what was the basis for her being involved in an "active investigation"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
McFortner (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:13am

Welcome to a Constitution Free Zone. Do everything we tell you to do and enjoy your stay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John85851 (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:14am

I know it sounds racist...
I know it sounds racist, but here's my travel tip:
Don't be brown-skinned and don't have a Middle-Eastern sounding name.

Let's review the facts:
An American citizen travelling with a valid passport? No problem.
She was on assignment for one of the most well-known newspapers in the US? No problem.
She wasn't white? Detain her for questioning.
She can have the newspaper back up her travel plans and not allow the searching of her phone? Okay, let her go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeremy2020 (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:27am
  
  Re: I know it sounds racist...
  Yes, it is racist. That is kinda the point. Unfortunately, people can't change the color of their skin to avoid "suspicion".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:16am

Lord Acton didn't quite get it right.
Impunity corrupts, and absolute impunity corrupts absolutely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JustShutUpAndObey, 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:17am

Policy guidelines
I would love to see the policy guidelines the DHS has issued to these border agents. Are they instructed to collect everything from everyone? Why? or is it just from people with furrin-sounding names?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:18am

Has she just signed herself up for a no-fly list? Law enforcement and security people in the USA tend to get petty when people will ot accede to their 'reasonable' requests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scote, 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:43am

Nice, but thin dodge
""You'll have to call The Wall Street Journal's lawyers, as those phones are the property of WSJ," I told her, calmly."

Unfortunately my degrees from Law & Order and Google University suggest that anyone who has access can grant permission to search the phone - so while I think it was reasonable of her to say "ask the WSJ" it wasn't a perfect out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- orbitalinsertion (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:55am
  
  Re: Nice, but thin dodge
  Considering that they were apparently not ready to just seize the phones, anything is reasonable to offer, and i don't think she showed up with a planned and researched "dodge". She merely said she would prefer to speak to the phones' owners about it, and that is seemingly too much trouble somehow for them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 11:21am
    
    Re: Re: Nice, but thin dodge
    I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the DHS actually did call the WSJ, and the WSJ said "no".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 5:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Nice, but thin dodge
      Ha Ha, you said Doughnuts while talking about cops.
      
      Intentional or not... you decide.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 12:04pm
  
  Re: Nice, but thin dodge
  If she had provided them access to the devices might they have then charged her under the The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for providing access without the owner's permission? Maybe busting her under the CFAA was their actual objective.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 6:20pm
  
  Re: Nice, but thin dodge
  As a journalist, isn't there some sort of professional code of conduct involving confidentiality of sources?
  
  And wouldn't she be contractually obligated to her employer to not hand over all of her emails and files to some low ranking nobody at the airport?
  
  What if she worked for a defense contractor or was working on some top secret new multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical?
  
  It was a lose-lose situation for her.
  
  Proto-fascist America is a lose-lose situation for everyone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Padpaw (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:58am

You have no rights if those in charge decide to target you. It is not just at the border but everywhere in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Drew (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 11:42am
  
  Re:
  I have learned this first hand. It's a long story, but my situation had nothing to do with the border, and yet our 'right' to free practice of religion was completely ignored on several counts (even to the point of being told where we're allowed to take our daughter to church, and being forbidden from observing holidays with her.) Rights only pertain to civil disputes. If any government agency is involved, the very concept becomes moot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - James Burkhardt (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 12:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'd love more details on this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quiet Lurcker, 22 Jul 2016 @ 11:49am

The (ideal) proper response in a situation like this.
I'm free to go? There's no investigation? Excellent. Turn around and place your hands behind your back. I'm invoking citizens arrest and taking you into custody. The charge is attempted kidnapping and attempted theft of property. I'll just dial 911 and ask the nice, friendly local police to come and take you into custody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re: The (ideal) proper response in a situation like this.
  Yeah, just before you find yourself now the one in handcuffs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Quiet Lurcker, 22 Jul 2016 @ 3:56pm
    
    Re: Re: The (ideal) proper response in a situation like this.
    On what grounds?
    
    No "investigation". No probable cause. No subpoena. No warrant.
    
    Under those conditions, what the TSA people did was flat out illegal. Period. Breaking the law is breaking the law, whether you're TSA or a private citizen. A felony is a felony.
    
    The TSA agents were being thugs, just trying to cause trouble, full stop. I'll be the only reason they backed down was because they found out the traveler was a reporter for a respected newspaper. I think it's a sucker bet that the minute they discovered that, they decided not to push the issue, for fear of prominent, negative publicity.
    
    If she had gone on with the citizens arrest, and in turn arrested her, it would have been splashed across the front page, and Washington D.C. would suddenly find itself in the legal and publicity cross-hairs of the one newspaper that's still a cheerleader for this administration.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 6:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The (ideal) proper response in a situation like this.
      Under those conditions, what the TSA people did was flat out illegal.
      Rule of law isn't really much of a thing in contemporary USA. As for the forth estate coming to the rescue, have you read WSJ lately? Murdoch is arguably a bigger cause of the world's problems that any government actors. Can't see him getting too exciting about fighting the authoritarianism he's worked so hard to install.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Padpaw (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 8:28pm
  
  Re: The (ideal) proper response in a situation like this.
  they would murder you by shooting you dead and then claiming you assaulted them and they feared for their life
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 1:01pm

when you put chihuahuas in charge they become very large.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personanongrata, 22 Jul 2016 @ 3:18pm

Tales from the Banana Republic of America
Your rights as a US citizen are indeterminate within 100 miles of US borders. They may be respected. They may be ignored. But courts have decided that the "right" to do national security stuff -- as useless as most its efforts are -- trumps the rights of US citizens.

What is an unalienable Right if the Right may be voided by government functionaries at any place and time for any reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 5:16pm
  
  Re: Tales from the Banana Republic of America
  Unalienable is just a big word for YMMV.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 5:23pm
  
  Re: Tales from the Banana Republic of America
  Alienable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
seedeevee (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 5:30pm

We all fit the terrorism profile
"Abi-Habib's post closes by noting she doesn't fit any terrorism profile "

Hahahahahahahaha! Abi-Habib might as well just consider they will see her name as "bin Laden".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Padpaw (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 8:35pm

showing doubt about the US governments policies gets you on the potential domestic terrorist watch list these days
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 9:45pm

Nope, no profiling here
Agent: "A reason for suspicion? A Muslim? Who travels to foreign countries for her so-called "job"? Could anyone be more suspicious? But it's not like we profile or anything like that."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:19pm

So its the WSJs phones. I would have let the customs inspectors see what was there, to hell with the company legal department. And if I had been fired for it, I would left WSJ off the list of companies I worked for when looking for a new job.

All she had to do was let them look, then leave WSJ off her resume, if she fired for it.

problem solved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Coyne Tibbets (profile), 23 Jul 2016 @ 12:55am
  
  Re:
  I "agree".
  
  That's all anyone needs to do is cooperate with the government. Government shows up at your bank, the bank should just cooperate and give them any of your account information they want. At your email provider, same thing. Agent shows up at your door and asks to search your house, step aside and cooperate.
  
  We have Fourth Amendment rights, yes, but that doesn't mean we should be uncooperative when the government wants in.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Quiet Lurcker, 23 Jul 2016 @ 7:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    Um, no.
    
    The fourth amendment exists for a reason. When the recipients of warrants, subpoenas, etc., fight those orders, they are strengthening that self-same fourth amendment, especially in this day and age when it is "more honor'd in the breach than in the observance".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Coyne Tibbets (profile), 23 Jul 2016 @ 1:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In my post, I was being sarcastic. Reading it in retrospect, I can see how that would fail to come across. I should have added a line about prostrating ourselves to be walked over by government hob-nailed boots, or something like that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
peter, 23 Jul 2016 @ 1:53pm

And now I know
I worked for a UK defence contractor. We were specifically forbidden from traveling to the states with a laptop that was not completly clean and had never been connected to our company network. We were also issued a brand new mobile phone and were forbidden from traveling with our normal work phone.

Now I know why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 24 Jul 2016 @ 1:10pm
  
  Re: And now I know
  Yeah, these days a good rule of thumb is never cross a US border carrying anything you're not willing to lose. Electronics, money... if it looks valuable it's just one claim of 'suspicious activity' away from being stolen from you.
  
  Course it doesn't exactly get much better once you're past the borders either, so a better rule of thumb would probably be to avoid the US if at all possible should you have anything of value.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2016 @ 6:59am

Ever since rupe bought wsj, it went down the drain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TRX (profile), 24 Jul 2016 @ 8:34am

"Hand over your phone."

"Sure, go for it."

"Where is the SIM card?"

"What is a 'SIM card'?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 24 Jul 2016 @ 11:19am

New tech?
This actually presents the opportunity to develop new technology, specifically phones, burner or otherwise, that can be configured and customized completely from a saved file.

The end-user process goes like this:

• Take blank phone (with minimal data) to foreign nation (or purchase one at location)

• At site, get (encrypted) data-and-config kit from FTP.

• Get crypto key from another site

• Configure phone.

• Use phone.

• When returning home, blank and/or toss phone.

• Go home empty handed, with nothing to seize a blank (or mostly blank) phone to surrender.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Avior, 24 Jul 2016 @ 4:09pm
  
  Re: New tech?
  This actually presents the opportunity to develop new technology, specifically phones, burner or otherwise, that can be configured and customized completely from a saved file.
  
  The law would have to be changed as it is currently illegal for certain parts of a cell phone's firmware to be user alterable. (This is where the government could install it's own hidden malware.) I don't foresee the government repealing that law any time soon.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]