Border Device Searches Continue To Increase, Threatening More Than Just The 4th Amendment
from the nothing-to-hide,-everything-to-fear dept
This administration has made it clear "securing" the borders is one of our nation's top priorities. In all honesty, the administration probably couldn't care less about the Canadian border. Almost all of its attention is focused on the southern border, but it also wants to make sure visitors/immigrants from certain countries are hassled extensively no matter where they first set foot in this country.
The nation's borders have long been a place where certain rights become privileges. Legislators and courts have done little to roll this back, usually favoring national security over individual rights. Border searches of electronic devices were already on the rise before Trump took office, jumping from 5,000 in 2015 to nearly 20,000 in 2016.
2016's gaudy record numbers will soon be overwritten, though. And we're barely three-quarters of the way through 2017.
On April 11, 2017 the CBP announced in a press release that they'd searched 14,993 electronic devices being carried by international travelers (they don't say how many were American citizens). In all of 2016 CBP says they searched 19,033 devices. In 2015, reports say they searched about 5,000.
At the rate reported, visitors and US citizens will have been on the receiving end of nearly 60,000 devices searches by the end of the year. And that's only if the last reported numbers remain steady. But there's every reason to believe these numbers will increase exponentially. The administration has actively encouraged more intrusiveness at the borders, something that has bled into potential rights violations even at our northern border, where things were generally more relaxed.
The DHS is fine with this wholesale write-off of Fourth Amendment protections. It frequently points to a 2009 Privacy Impact Assessment which bluntly states plenty of privacy will be impacted and the CBP is more than welcome to generate probable cause after the fact.
CBP will contact you by telephone when the examination of the electronic device(s) is complete, to notify you that you may pick-up the item(s) during regular business hours from the location where the item(s) was detained. If it is impractical for you to pick up the device, CBP can make arrangements to ship the device to you at our expense. CBP may retain documents or information relating to immigration, customs, and other enforcement matters only if such retention is consistent with the privacy and data protection standards of the system in which such information is retained. Otherwise, if there is no probable cause to seize information after review, CBP will not retain any copies.
But this increased focus on searching as many electronic devices as possible has the potential to do damage to rights beyond those enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Frank Miniter of The American Conservative points out so-called "routine" searches cause problems for the First Amendment.
While doing research for my novel Kill Big Brother I had off-the-record conversations with men and women from U.S. intelligence agencies. I also interviewed Dark Web types who insisted they stay on background. None of these individuals told me about secret government programs or anything at all that would make an interesting scene in a Jason Bourne movie. All I got was background and perspective—invaluable things to a journalist who wants to get things right. But recordings of some of those conversations are on my iPhone. Other sources are there, too. So I’ve password protected the encrypted data. It will automatically erase all the texts, audio and more if someone tries to guess their way into my phone.
That’s my reason for being concerned that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has the power to disregard my Fourth Amendment rights and to demand I give them access to my digital devices if I fly internationally or even decide to drive to Montreal.
I’m a journalist and I must protect my sources, but I also don’t think my private photos, my social media, my texts and more are the government’s business.
A couple pieces of legislation aimed at creating a border search warrant requirement have been introduced, but will be facing more opposition than usual. The DOJ and DHS have never welcomed new warrant requirements and, given the directives issued during the first few months of the Trump presidency, will certainly feel any such requirement would undermine their ability to carry out the president's orders.
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, dhs, fourth amendment, homeland security, privacy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Contact me how?
"CBP will contact you by telephone when the examination of the electronic device(s) is complete"
If they seize my cell phone, how are they going to contact me by telephone when they have my telephone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contact me how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contact me how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contact me how?
Saves them time for the next search of your person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contact me how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ship it first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ship it first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Close, but not quite right
The DOJ and DHS have never welcomed new warrant requirements...
I'd remove one of those words accuracy.
The DOJ and DHS have never welcomed warrant requirements...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Close, but not quite right
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If you can't deal with that, you have no business being in a government position. These people need to resign immediately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
?? What 4th Amendment
All 3 branches of the Federal Government have vigorously chipped away at 4A over past 50 years ... because its legal principle strongly restricts government power over the populace.
There is now NO effective legal mechanism to enforce 4A -- courts at all levels have sided with the "government view" of expansive government powers of search & seizure.
Abandon All Hope that some ancient ink on parchment (Constitution) will shield you from tyranny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ?? What 4th Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ?? What 4th Amendment
Can answer that for you.
People willfully remain ignorant of how their government operates along with a very healthy disdain for the founding fathers. For many "single issue" voters, if a person was ever associated with something they feel is negative then it is a total boycott of everything they did and stood for.
Sadly, most people are not capable of appreciating a person for doing the right thing, when they think they did something else wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ?? What 4th Amendment
So, why do they hate America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ?? What 4th Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Close, but not quite right
So what of it? You gonna do something about it?
You don't tell US what to do. We tell YOU what to do. The tail don't wag the dog, chump.
-- DHS/CBP
/p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Close, but not quite right
"So what of it? You gonna do something about it?"
Once a warm, friendly destination for international travelers, the USA has become of late a hostile and unwelcoming country. As a foreigner, I will not visit the USA until it changes it's policies.
n.b. I genuinely don't know what /p means in a forum (and search engines are no help), so I'm taking you literally. Apologies if your comment was intended as humourous. Feel free to take my response as literal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Close, but not quite right
/p = parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Close, but not quite right
And the reason they continue to believe this after so many hears is that many courts seem to have agreed with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Close, but not quite right
In a day and age where you don't own your devices can you really be upset when they search Apple or Samsung's phone or HP or Lenovo's laptop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tax the ever-loving SNOT out of companies that offshore-outsource positions while raking in the cash here.
Enough is enough.
When we've kicked out all of the criminal invaders and the U6 Employment numbers start looking better, we can think about opening things back up / easing off on the taxes.
Until then tighten the screws until the pain brings results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...and you think this will *increase* your GDP? Wow.
"Tax the ever-loving SNOT out of companies that offshore-outsource positions while raking in the cash here."
How, exactly, will preventing foreign-born people from doing business in your country stop US-based employers from offshoring? Wouldn't many of them simply move their offices away from an environment so openly hostile to a global business?
Like most insular xenophobes, your solutions will only cause deeper problems with your economy, because you've been conditioned to believe in a boogeyman. Probably by the very people who would stand to benefit from an isolationist approach - a group that doesn't include the average working American.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're way ahead of you.
Disney for example did NOT replace their IT staff with foreign nationals holding H-1B visas. No, they instead replaced them with American outsourcing contractor. Which used foreign nationals holding H-1B visas.
Your "ever-loving SNOT tax" wouldn't apply to Disney, since they merely sub-contracted to an American company. It wouldn't apply to the outsourcing contractor, since those were - for them - new positions with no American workers being replaced.
It even went to court, with claims that Disney and the contractor violated civil racketeering laws. It turned out it wasn't RICO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you a descendant of European relatives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you wanna argue the point, go argue with a brick wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not the meaning of indigenous.
It sounds like he already is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like to drive all over North America, but I wipe my devices before returning to America.
There is no criminal charges they can bring against you for wiping your devices. Wiping your devices, before returning to America, is not a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Making a law against wiping a phone could be a thorny issue, because sometimes phones have problems where a Factory Reset is a must.
And, then, like I said, there are places in your car you hide the SD cards, where CBP will never think to look for them. This way, if the device is seized, your data is safe.
If you don't want to go through the hassle or reinstalling all your apps, hiding the SD cards, if you are driving, is an option. Where to hide them depends on what kind of car you have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
People have tried all sorts of ways to hide stuff and still get found out.
I would give you some tips but I needs to keeps a few secrets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Car stereos would fall under "hidden compartment" laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Double-sided tape + micro SD cards = Retro-Cyberpunk Artificial Fingernails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Travelling with a cat, for that purpose, is not illegal. Just be sure to check Canadian and Mexican laws for temporary imports of pets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And the laptop I have in case I need to make a last minute hotel reservation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is seprate from the fuse in the main fuse box. The cigarette lighter has its own separete fuse. I had to put a higher amperage fuse in there so that all my stuff can run, as I run stuff from a 12 to 110 inverter. Off that inverter I run a laptop, three phones, a digital clock, becuase the clock display on my car stereo is too dim to see during the day, and one of these personal mini-stero systems, which I use to kick up the volume, just connect the main car stereo using RCA jacks.
I LOVE it LOUD. I like to play my music loud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wiping your devices IS a crime, if they decide to accuse you of anything.
If the RIAA accuses you of file sharing, wiping your drive will lead to a default judgement against you. And it could lead to obstruction of justice or contempt of court charges.
Which may seem reasonable. But you risk the same thing if Prenda Law finds out that you've been using a registry cleaner. It may also apply if you defrag your hard drive.
And don't forget, in several ways, According To The Government, Clearing Your Browser History Is A Felony.
Refusing to hand over your smartphone password can already get you thrown in jail indefinitely. You can bet that if you wipe your phone to stop the authorities from imaging it, they can find something to charge you with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
With the border patrol imaging devices at random, you are subject to a possible investigation with no accusation and before you get to the border.
I'm not saying that charges would hold up in court if you could afford proper legal representation. But if authorities decide that you wiped a device to impede even a possible investigation, they could likely find something to charge you with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No matter the laws, if you are building to the Anthropogenic Climate Change Disaster Scenario this should be allowable by any court.
You could even build to the standard of the Zombie Apocalypse and still be allowable by the courts.
At this time, one could even use the excuse of NK as a reason for building or even remodelling to such a high standard. There are enough reasons to do this without even having to mention the government and its toadies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if they put a GPS anklet on me, I will get a GPS jammer and jam it so they cannot locate me, long enough to cut the thing off and smash it pieces in the trash compactor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
America has extradition agreements with most countries. Even if they didn't bother, America shares its criminal and medical data with other countries' border patrol agencies. The slightest criminal record will get you barred from those countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's no secret that you're subject to a possible investigation (even with no accusation) once you arrive at the border. So even if you erase your device ahead of time, they could accuse you of interfering with their investigation. See the links in my post further up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does this include anything more sturdy than a cardboard front door?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you are a US citizen then you can be prosecuted for violating US laws even if you were out of the country at the time. So, yeah, they could prosecute you for wiping your phone before returning to the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is because of laws like that that wiping programs have gotten better. If you use program that does a complete wipe and overwrite, and them reinstall windows and your programs, how are they going to know you wiped your computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yep, sure is. "Destruction of evidence", "obstruction of justice", etc., etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Title 18, Section 1519 of the US Code makes it a crime punishable by 20 years in prison for anyone who destroys, alters or tampers with evidence that would be useful in a federal investigation, whether such an investigation exists yet or not. This law was enacted following various large corporate scandals where prosecution became impossible because all evidence had been destroyed by the company.
When you destroy evidence, the legal system assumes the worst about what that evidence would prove.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
After all if I delete my phone before I'm at the boarder, or even at the boarder and before I see any agent and they ask to see my phone, it's already been wiped. I wasn't under investigation before I wiped the phone. Is this a new PRE-CRIME law now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: never underestimate the power of power hungry government workers.
That includes ignoring the law, redefining the English language to alter the law, obfuscating judicial decisions, denying a defendant due process and access to information supporting their defense, fabricating evidence, using dubious sources for expert witnesses, and confiscating your resources so you can't mount a good enough defense.
The list can go on and there are multiple examples of the government (I know it's individuals but they represent the government as a whole) bending or breaking the laws so they can win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
148 Cong. Rec. 7418-9 (Friday, July 26, 2002).
(Emphasis added.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Note—
Correct “7418-9” to “S7418-9”. The “S” significantly indicates that Mr Leahy's record was entered on the Senate side. That was my omission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. I just didn't dig into the record deeply enough to understand the error. Looking at the related bills, though, makes it plain: “HR 2673” should have read as S 2673.
(In case anyone wonders why I'm bothering to clutter up comments here regarding an immaterial error by either GPO or Senator Leahy—it makes it easier to keyword search later.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Even after the law has been pointed out to him, he still says that? What an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cut the guy a break.
Take, for instance, something I found with a brief bit of googling around— a CLE presentation on 18 USC 1519: The Changing Face of Obstruction. Without the quotes in that presentation from Senator Leahy, does it seem plausible that Congress intended in Sarbanes-Oxley to do away with the element of nexus to a “to a pending or imminent proceeding or matter” ?
How do you think you can convey that statutory intent to people? They should just read the statute for themselves? Everyone should just recall the Enron / Arthur-Andersen history, and just somehow know that the statute says that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You, apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Most Aussies travelling between Cuba and Australia, travel via LAX, coming on flights from either Jamaica, Mexico or Guatemala
By the time they figured out what happened, said Aussie would be back home in the Great Southern Land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is there some "evil dude" bit that gets flipped and persists over a wipe? Certainly there is a three letter acronym that is capable of using an electron microscope to see the bits that were overwritten, but that proves nothing because they are not able to date the over write ... afaik anyway - I could be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
By doing a complete wipe, there is no way they can date the wipe.
I am surprised that the really advanced stuff, like KillDisk and CyberScrub, have not been totally7 banned in places like the USA and the UK, since they make it almost impossible to determine when any wipe was made, and if you repeat it 35 times, which some products allow, there is no POSSIBLE way they can determine if and when you wiped the hard disk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like I said, I am surprised the USA and Britain, at the very least, have not outright banned those programs yet, because they leave no tell-tale signs you used them, and ever more so after Windows and all your programs have been re-installed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's even possible for the absence of the memory card to give itself away, for example if your mobile device has a broken link to the missing card, trying to follow that link will cause an error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I hope you were not serious, because that statement is about as bankrupt as they come.
You may have nothing to hide, except you are going to want to hide your politics, your possessions, your opinions, your medical history, your personal details, and anything else that can set a turd muffin officer on a hell bent for leather objective to fuck you up today, because they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act criminalizes deleting anything that might be used as evidence in any federal investigation, and the Act is written broadly enough that a Customs & Border Patrol inspection qualifies as an investigation.
When evidence is destroyed, standard court doctrine is to presume the worst. Obviously, if you were willing to risk a 20 year prison sentence to avoid the federal investigation finding what was on your device(s), then the government really NEEDS to turn every aspect of your life upside down and give it a good shake to see what falls out.
That is what the law is in the US right now. It's stupid, it's horrifying, and it's almost certainly unconstitutional -- but the courts are perfectly willing to convict people anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they put a GPS ankle bracelet on you, just jam that with a GPS jammer, so they cannot locate you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When evidence is destroyed, standard court doctrine is to presume the worst.
The mere lack of data on something doesn't indicate evidence of anything.
Can you point me to a statute that states that I need to consult the federal government before attempting a wipe on a device?
Seems like if we follow your logic, you'd see a shitload of arrests of people wiping their phones before selling/trading them because there might be something on them that the government might come looking for later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You might want to look up "selective enforcement".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Very few statutes contain a requirement to “consult” the government before acting criminally. Rather, most criminal statutes state the crime — and prohibit it. You don't get a free pass from a “consult”. Or at least, you're not supposed to.
The core problem with overbroad laws is that they vest too much discretion in government prosecutors. Yeah, theoretically they could arrest everybody and their dog too — under an overbroad law. But they don't. They never do. Not ever. Instead police and prosecutors hand out passes to their friends, but come down hard on little people who get out of line and piss them off.
The law becomes arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Very few statutes contain a requirement to “consult” the government before acting criminally.
Rather, most criminal statutes state the crime — and prohibit it.
The mere act of wiping your phone is not criminal.
If it is, I'm sure you'd be willing to point out the statute that defines it, and subsequently prohibits it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Lame ass excuse for violating peoples rights, funny how this is never applied towards themselves.
I should not have to hide anything as I am not doing anything wrong .. is the typical response to to asinine pov, but there are many "laws" that one can violate without even being aware of the incursion.
So, yeah - when you live in a world where you are in violation of some law, no matter what you do, then certain coping mechanisms come into play. This is human nature, not criminal behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The DoJ interpretation of the law is that anything that would reasonably be useful in a current or future federal investigation is illegal to delete. Even if you have no knowledge of the investigation or even if it hasn't been initiated yet.
Violators of the law are subject to large fines and/or 20 years in prison. And yes, people have been convicted under that interpretation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The DoJ interpretation of the law is that anything that would reasonably be useful in a current or future federal investigation is illegal to delete. Even if you have no knowledge of the investigation or even if it hasn't been initiated yet.
People are not corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Corporations are people, according to the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
According to Congress…
Title 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
. Chapter 1 - RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
. . 1 USC § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth
If you don't like that provision, write your congressman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If true, why government agents, officials, and police hide a lot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New trolling game.
If it is impractical for you to pick up the device, CBP can make arrangements to ship the device to you at our expense.
See who can get the US government to send the largest package the farthest away. Extra bonus points if you can get them to break a $100 shipping cost.
Double points if you can get the package delivered overseas. Triple if you can get the packaged shipped to a location in the middle east to a person with a Muslim sounding name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People are detained. items are stolen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where does it say...
As a Canadian permanent resident I am highly tempted to wipe my phone prior to coming back from vacation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where does it say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crossing the border today...
Unfortunately it only unlocked 4g, so I haven't been able to get a SIM card in the great white north that would get this Verizon LG phone working.
So phone was a bust.
For a laptop I bought a chromebook, made a new gmail/googlevoice account, and only used that while I was here, and in addition before I packed this morning, I did "powerwash" on my device.
My SD card is pulled from my tablet (which wasn't wiped) and its traveling with my tools (and a couple other sd cards).
We'll see how it goes.
I've already warned my wife I might get arrested... maybe i need to grab Ken White's phone number :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crossing the border today...
If and when a future President should lift the ban on North Korea travel, and you take your cell phone, unlocking the phone to use a North Korean sim card, which the DPRK requires if you want you use your phone in the DPRK, will not a crime under the DMCA, becuase unlocking the phone for the purpose of using a SIM card in another country would be for financial gain.
Just something to note when a future (likely Democratic) Presient lifts the travel ban.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Crossing the border today...
A hotel, in, say, Canada, is not subject to American laws, even if any Americans are staying in any of their rooms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Crossing the border today...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Crossing the border today...
17 U.S.C. § 1204 - Criminal offenses and penalties
17 USC § 101 - Definitions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Crossing the border today...
However, if a future President does lift the North Korea travel ban, you would likely have to go through China.
You could get the unlocking done in China, before boarding your DPRK-bound flight. It is not illegal in China to to do this, so US law would not be applied to either you, or whatever Chinese cell phone store you used to unlock the phone.
While it is still 18 years away, if I go to the DPRK to observe the 2035 total solar eclipse, should the travel ban be lifted by then, I will just simply have a cell phone store in China unlock my phone, so that a DPRK sim card can be used, as that country's laws require, and neither my, or whatever cell phone store I use to unlock my phone, will be subject to prosecution in the United States, as a Chinese cell phone store is only subject to Chinese law, and the DMCA does not have any jurisdiction in China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Crossing the border today...
Fwiw, no reasonable person obtains free “legal advice” from random anonymous (or even pseudononymous!) internet commenters.
Reasonable people surely know that “legal advice” is given in the context of a professional relationship with a licensed practitioner who is able to competently tailor that advice to particular circumstances. It often costs money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Crossing the border today...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Crossing the border today...
Unless my eyes deceive me, the text actually reads, with added emphasis, “commercial advantage or private financial gain”.
Iow, the phrase is structured as: { [limiting adjective] noun } disjunction [defined term]
It's NOT structured as: { [limiting adjective] disjunction [limiting adjective] } [defined term]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crossing the border today...
Around the turn of the millenium I would take DRM-protected music I purchased and plug a tape recorder into the back of my computer, and record them on to cassette tapes, so I could play them in my car, which had a cassette player at the time.
Record said music onto cassette tapes so that I could listen to them in the car did NOT violate the DMCA, because the music was puchased legally, and recording onto cassette tapes for the purpose of listening to the music in my car would certainly not have been for commercial or private financial gain as I was merely converting legally purchased music to a format where I could play it in my car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crossing the border today...
17 USC § 1008, which is part of Chapter 10 added by the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), appears to use the phrase “noncommercial use by a consumer”.
I tend to think discussion of the AHRA here is straying a little far off topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crossing the border today...
Maybe you should just stay at home. That's what good citizens do. If you're trying to leave the country you must be up to something.
Uh oh. Sounds like a possible felony. You better hope you don't get caught.
Now you've added premeditation, collusion, and conspiracy, as well as dragging your poor wife into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Crossing the border today...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to deal with insane criminal "authorities."
2. Abandon hope all who enter here. Welcome to Hell, pretending to be a fair and balanced civilization, where the crooks running the show are rewarded with bonuses for treason and/or criminal conduct, while "citizens" who are regarded as property (anyone with a net $ worth < fill in the blank) is murdered on the side of the road as the result of fearful reaction afrer being stopped for a crooked license plate or for straying two inches over some imaginary line, all in the name of lawn odor.
Laws? What laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws. We make them up as we go along, enforced by the latest pedophile in a black robe backed by a gang of 40 or 50 Swat Thugs throwing flash stun grenades into baby cribs on a "no knock" raid on the wrong residence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to deal with insane criminal "authorities."
But if the highest of laws is not a suicide pact and can be ignored when it becomes inconvenient, then any lesser law cannot be a suicide pact either.
So you're actually right -- there are no laws any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make sure all files are further encrypted with 1024 character keys. If asked for the keys, provide hand written paper copies.
And you forgot which keys go with which flash drive. Oops! How silly of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business cells with high-end encryption
Last I checked, it was common practices for businesses to use robust encryption on company phones, many apps for which provide for multiple partitions.
Essentially one partition has all the data one would expect on a business phone.
The other has the actual data concerning the company.
This way the phone can be unlocked for authorities as necessary. Though soon they'll just accuse everyone of having second / third / fourteenth partitions, whether or not it's supported by the cryptosoft in use. They'll be able to accuse everyone of concealing evidence the way they use detection dogs to bypass probable cause.
For now it will probably be low risk to have your phone so encrypted so long as no officer wants to harrass you, and you have a believable partition to show them...
...Unless you're non-white, look Muslimish, your name is Cory Doctorow or you are known to officials who want to confiscate your land / sleep with your spouse / wreck your business. Then you're pretty much fucked the second you step into an international airport, whether you're carrying suspicious electronics or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business cells with high-end encryption
Some people don't want to give up passwords for that reason. So if are fired for that, just leave that job off your list of references when you go for your next job, problem solved.
It is currently not a criminal offence in the USA to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business cells with high-end encryption
The foreign companies that do that are themselves, not subject to prosecution in the United States.
So A British company can wipe and reinstall company laptops before issuing laptops to their employees before travelling to America, and the company managers would be not subject to prosecution in the United States, because a British company's offices are only subject to British laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does not bother me in the slightest
I dont care because I am never travelling to America. There are more welcoming and nicer places in the world than I could possibly visit in my time left on this earth, so no hardship to me.
(Mind you I do feel sorry for those who do have to travel there.)
Seems that I am not alone. Check out the Tourism figures from http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2017-I-001/index.asp and look at how many of the change figures are in the red.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Miss, please hand us your phones."
"You're mistaken sir. I don't have a phone."
"They are in your hand."
*Holds up devices* "You mean these? They're not phones sir. One's a raspberry pi with a screen, it's acting as a radio. The other is an arduino board in a case... it has no screen or any buttons..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duh
Of course there is opposition, and it's not just from the usual sources. Smart people understand that you cannot hamstring the border inspection process with the need for warrants. You start to open up the gates by saying you need a warrant for certain things, and SCOTUS will soon rule that any border search beyond your passport would need one.
You don't want to start the train down that track... just like "Silver Streak" it ain't gotta stop until it hits a wall... HELLO Chicago!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Duh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I recently dropped my phone and cracked the screen, but everything else still works, except the ability to tether to a computer.
What will happens if I travel abroad and Customs wants to image my phone, but it cannot because the phone is partway boken? Everything else works, amazingly, after dropping it, but the ability to connect computer to us to transfer data vis USB is broken, though everything else still works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is already one instance where you can be denied entry, if you are a US citizen. If you are not Sentri-approved and get in the Sentri lanes, at the Mexican border, you can be denied and turned back to Mexico, even if are an American citizen. There are even signs saying that you will be denied entry and turn back doing that, even if you are a US citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]