Their point about how other countries will take the US's stance as a cue is somewhat scary.
If you try and cross any border it will be relinquishing access to all accounts.
I'm assuming email also comes along with 'social media', since communication is by its definition social.
So how do you protect yourself?
I think just going with "Don't have any social media" isn't a good answer because the relationship that children growing up today with the internet is almost completely different to even people 10-15 years older than them.
Someone having carte blanche access to a person's phone will find something if they want to.
Imagine you're in a few group chats, someone mentions doing some drug. And you've just entered a country where that's an instant prison sentence.
Maybe some off colour jokes about politicians? Proof to kick you out or at least detain.
I imagine we're at the cusp of something much more unsettling. The technology to reverse image search a face is available today. It's pretty easy to make you appear associated with anything, anyone, etc.
I don't believe any of the technical solutions mentioned in this thread; using a dumb phone, multiple identities and/or false data for plausible deniability, wiping the phone before passing the border, is viable for a larger number of people. They also fail once a border agent insists on accessing an email account for which they know you have the password.
The only protection is through protecting people legally. Once the border agencies can insist on accessing your email and cloud storage before letting you enter the country it seems like any arbitrary thought crime can deny you access.
"Sorry, sir, I use a password keeper and left the password file at home. I do not have any passwords with me."
That's not a lie, and I would love for them to explain to the judge if they did ever choose to detain you as to how this is not a valid and legal excuse and non-cooperation in any way.
And if you are in doubt about saying something like this, actually use a password keeper, it's a good security practice.
Further, do not bring any electronic device with you.
That's a different issue. When a court orders you to do something, then they would tell you to go back home and get the passwords or allow you the ability to do that. It's not reasonable for border security to expect you to carry your passwords with you at all time for all the services you use. It's a security risk to you, from third parties which might want to steal your data. Like for instance robbers that might force you to divulge your banking information at gun point.
What does "reasonable" have to do with CBP? They can detain you for a surprisingly long time or deport you (complete with banning you from further entry if you're not actually a US national) for failure to comply.
Except I don't have my phone. Why don't I have my phone? Because I don't want it to be stolen and I have no need for it where I am going. I want to unplug and relax, not be on call all the time.
CBP have deported US citizens in the past. 'Accidentally,' of course. Fun fact: if you are mistakenly placed in immigration detention, you're not automatically entitled to a hearing until 6 months have passed, so you'd better hope someone knows to file a habeas petition on your behalf.
In fact you're not automatically entitled to a hearing at all, but that was the working compromise established last time this ended up in court. Given the new administration's adversarial posture towards the judicial branch on the question of immigration reviewability, this is likely to change for the worse.
The US (and a large number of companies built around helping people emigrate to the US) puts a lot of effort into marketing, and frankly speaking, it's not a lot worse than most places people emigrate to the US from.
Nope. I was flagged for "secondary inspection" at the southern border. (Mind you, I am as white as you can get). Long story, short. I acted like a bit of an entitled jerk, and was surrounded by 15 CBP agents, had my head slammed on a metal table, cuffed, phone and wallet taken, and then I was taken to a windowless room (with a couple of older Hispanic guys who I remember thinking could be "disappeared" fairly easily without anyone knowing). I asked for my phone to make a call, but was denied. When I demanded rights, an agent told me that they didn't apply at the border and referred me to some Patriot Act notices on the wall. I felt powerless, and completely at their mercy. The agents told me that they would be searching my car without me authorizing it or being present (I remember thinking that they could plant something and notify CHP to pick me up a few miles up the road). After discussing things with the supervisor, I was let go but had my SENTRI pass revoked. Later, I contacted some lawyers who all advised that at the border, I didn't have the same rights, and that I had no case of any sort. Now, I am grateful it happened to me (because I stopped acting like an entitled asshole), but it left me feeling a whole lot less free, and it makes me feel more uncomfortable to travel internationally, which is a shame.
I'm sure the area where US laws apply can be discussed to greater lengths, but they're not applicable outside of the (geographical) US, regardless if you're a citizen or not.
Even if the subject of the action is an US citizen. (except for the taxation of non-resident citizens, which is a whole can of worms I'm sure)
This is for better or worse.
Extra-judicial killings happen a lot. In the case of self-defense for example. "Cop thought the suspect had a gun" is a mistake that happens often, but it can be legitimate as well.
I don't know why you think your constitutional rights disappear outside the geographic US. That is not the case. Constitutional rights protect citizens from our government regardless of their physical location. Indeed, geography was not a part of the Obama administration's justification.
As for your other point, self defense is a long established affirmative defense for murder, yes. However that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
If the government has a case to kill a citizen, that case needs to be made in court and evaluated by a jury of peers.
By your logic, it's acceptable for the PM of Italy to order the assassination of an Italian-American dual citizen because that Italian has pledged allegiance to a foreign state that engages in violence?
If that dual citizen is actively engaging in such violence and Italy is a (potential) target of such violence, and his activities are happening outside Italy, yes.
> "Where high-level government officials have determined that a capture operation is infeasible and that the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and is engaged in activities that pose a continued and imminent threat to US persons or interests."
Frankly, despite initial campaign promises during his first campaign, hes been as bad or worse than the GWB administration in a number of ways. Why he got a pass on a lot of it is beyond me.
We get our information mainly from the media. They decide what the majority of the country knows and doesn't know, and who gets a pass and who doesn't, because most of us don't have the time or desire to obtain first-hand knowledge of what's going on in the world.
I didn't vote for President in the last election, because he became a clown with his antics and she (IMO) is a crook. I'm not partial to one side or the other: I hate all politicians equally.
I'd like to hear facts about what is happening in the new administration, but have had to stop listening to all media because it is so incredibly lopsided it's infuriating and only gets me agitated.
Whereas the media used to report primarily facts, it seems to me that now they primarily report opinions, speculations, and prophecies. We're not able to form our own opinions on issues based on facts, because we don't hear many facts, and the facts we do hear are definitely not in any kind of balance on the many sides of complex issues.
I have to agree, though I did vote, I voted libertarian (not that I really like Gary Johnson all that much either). I can't watch/read most "news" without at least half of it pissing me off in one way or another. On the one hand, I don't like Trump all that much. On the other, I don't like all the fluffed up reporting on crap that the past administration did too. Or at least the over-inflated sense of how it's so much worse now.
In general, I'd love to see us reduce our foreign military presence by 85%, and cut military spending by over 50%. Not counting other areas of the govt I'd love to see deep cuts into. End the war on drugs. End privatized prisons. The list goes on.
Sorry for the bit of a rant... I'm just kind of sick of it all, and that's only loosely following anything.
2-4 years is extremely optimistic, but I think this is an issue that (finally) has drawn more attention than usual, so there is a chance there will be some work towards its resolution.
IIRC if you are within 100 miles of the (actual) border or an international airport then are you considered to be entering/leaving the US and can be searched without a warrant.
In the linked ACLU post, the 2nd-5th bullets are a great example. The second bullet specifically enumerates the government position on border searches. The 4th and 5th bullets detail what the Border Patrol can do away from the immediate vicinity of the border.
But the 3rd bullet, which is key to the notion of the 100 mile "constitution free zone", is more mysterious. It states that Customs has "broad—though not limitless—powers" without detailing them.
Many readers of this ACLU post and coverage of it have come away with a false idea that Customs and Border Protection has some magic wand. The facts are very different.
Here are the referenced sections, forgive any formatting issues.
> - According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.
> -Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."
> -In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain extra-Constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints.
> - Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).
I don't understand your point. The fourth and fifth bullet points are intended precisely to make the third bullet point concrete.
Technically they should probably have been formatted as subbullets of the third point, but other than that I don't see anything wrong.
Also, your para "Many readers … The facts are very different." — not apparently backed up by any details — is exactly the kind of weasel wording you decry. In fact, I think I'm being trolled here.
It's the same. The contention is that unlocking the phone yourself does not require actually providing your PIN. You're only being required to provide your phone in an unlocked state.
Yup... there is even a case on this exact point. TLDR; drug smuggler crossed the board and went through customs. He didn't get searched. Then as he was leaving the customs area, on the U.S. side of customs, the police performed a warrant-less search. Prosecutor argued the search was legal because he was in the process of entering the country and citizens don't have a right against search upon entry to the U.S. The court said that the search would have been legal had they done the search before going through customs. But once he got through customs, the search was no longer legal as he had his 4th amendment protections at that point.
Are you sure about this? Usually you can be stopped and searched quite far inland as long as they can prove that you recently crossed the border. This is often used to take smugglers.
They need reasonable suspicion and a link to the crossing.
For example, if you were an American, white college kid crossing the Canadian border into New York at a weird time, and behave in a manner that seems nervous or evasive, You're going to attract interest. If you start heading toward the Mohawk Indian reservation, you're going to get stopped as odds are good you're smuggling something.
Believing in conspiracy theories is, ironically, a way of attributing more power to the state/elite than it actually has.
You're celebrating pathological thinking, especially when you claim that stocking up on ammo contributes to the functioning of a nation (in the loosest sense of "nation"). The days of militias are long gone.
Yes, which makes this especially abhorrent. The government insists the searches are only of "visitors."
Nobody has an obligation to refuse to comply (and be detained and/or jailed) but if put in this situation I would refuse. I'm not willingly giving up my rights without a court compelling me.
Within Europe (ps: as a European citizen) you can go anywhere with a personal identification card (no passport) and there are no border controls (when walking or driving). There isn't even a border, just a sign: welcome to $country (ps: and maybe local driving instructions). Say what you will about the EU, but this has been a great achievement. I can go through airport security between two EU countries and security will just scan my ID and take a picture in an automated booth and I'm good to go (did exactly that several times). It's like 30 seconds to pass the security gate when entering and no personal interaction.
I'm really having difficulty to understand how the United States got from the cradle of freedom (let's say after the civil war, the colonization was not so prestigious) to the capricious and homophobic entity that it is shaping up to be.
Within the states of US you can do the same ;) EU essentially wants to be United States of Europe. Though I'm not sure all EU states yet ready to surrender as much national sovereignty as US states did.
And what anything of this has to do with homophobia?
Immigration and Customs Enforcement asserts authority over land within 100 miles of a border (including coasts). Anyone in the US can be stopped and asked for ID and proof they're in the country legally in that 100 mile zone.
That's implying interstate travel. Are you claiming ICE has authority to stop someone going from Georgia to Tennessee? The analogy was EU countries to US states, and specifically did not include international US borders.
Donald Trump is undoubtedly homophobic, I think he's just pointing out that for the country to be voting for him, to an extent a proportion of them must agree.
And I disagree about you saying the EU just wishes to become the United States of Europe. In almost no sense does anyone give up their "sovereignty" by joining the EU. Every country still creates it's own laws, governs how it wishes to and has full control over what happens to itself. The EU only allows free travel and trade between each of the countries within it and also a standard currency and standard regulations (to enable the free travel and trade to happen in a safe environment).
Another post already pointed out that you are probably wrong about Trump's homophobia.
But about European countries creating their own laws, the federalist movement so prevalent in Brussels these days certainly doesn't see it that way. What you describe was the EEC or the EEA. What the EU is about is different: it is not just free trade; it's about accepting laws, devised in Brussels, regulating many aspects of life - from how taxation must be organised, how economic activity may be encouraged, whether a nation may allow its subjects to chew tobacco, how wind power must or must not be subsidized, whether and what kind of hunting is permitted and whether people may own firearms... everything. Not just trade.
Also, creating a EU army is a recurring topic.
See how the Brussels is so wound up now that Britain dared to say "no thank you" to ever closer political and monetary union. There's a huge disconnect between Brussels (and European Parliament members) and the nations they are supposed to represent.
I'd be in favour of the kind of EU you imagine it is. Unfortunately that's not what we're getting, and that's why EU is disintegrating.
> for the country to be voting for him, to an extent a proportion of them must agree.
Even less true. Even if Trump were homophobic - which is most likely not true - that does not mean somebody who voted for him supports him in that. Elections concern a wide array of issues, and people choosing between the two (or four, but let's not pretend anybody but the two had any chance) candidates necessarily compromise and vote for the person who may hold different views in many areas.
It is true that some homophobic people voted for him - as, it is certainly true, some also voted against him - but we know exactly nothing about how many and in what proportion. It is not the base for saying US is a homophobic country because of that, and it is most certainly not true.
> In almost no sense does anyone give up their "sovereignty" by joining the EU
Not true, please read about laws and policy harmonization in EU. Also, US does have wide areas in which state and not federal laws are used. One can argue US states have less sovereignty than EU member states, that's probably true, but the large amount of similarity is still there.
> The EU only allows free travel and trade between each of the countries within it and also a standard currency and standard regulations
This is impossible without EU members surrendering part of their sovereignty - unless you want to pretend that so many countries having same laws (or, as you call it, "regulations"), same migration rules, same currency policy, same trade rules, etc. all happened because by chance they all independently passed exactly the same laws.
> Do you have any specific reasons he's homophobic?
Yes, actually. He's said very homophobic things and done some very transphobic things.
1. He's on record saying "marriage is between a man and a woman."
2. He's on record saying he supports Pence's "FADA" which makes it legal to discriminate against LGBT people in any way imaginable (including denying social services such as basic policing or health care services) if a person claims a sincere belief that their religion condones such discrimination. You can read more of it here, this draft is well-circulated: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802 (fun fact, this law also makes it illegal for the States or any Corporation to have any rules that might curtial these actions, so as a business owner a manager could fire a gay person and you couldn't punish them for it).
And then this week, we saw Trump's admin immediately pull back protections put in place to keep trans children safe and provide them life-saving medical interventions.
The White House hasn't been this overtly homophobic since Reagan's pressec and the press pit laughed at gay men dying of AIDS.
I'm not sure why the guy waves a rainbow flag once and suddenly we're all supposed to ignore his policy promises. He said he'd sign FADA and unless something dramatic changes, he's going to get the opportunity to. Claims of an anti-LGBT stance and homophobia seem fairly well founded at this point.
Not to detract from your point but you're referring to the Schengen Zone specifically. There are EU countries opted out (UK) and non-EU countries participating (e.g. Switzerland, Norway and Iceland).
Wasn't this how the world worked up until a century ago? Anyone could walk or sail into any country, anywhere in the world, without a passport. Apparently the World Wars changed that.
Passports have been around for over 1500 years [1].
There was a brief blip in the 19th century, as railways started to cross Europe and passport checks seemed pointless [2], but that aside, passports seem to have been more common than not.
Given how much was controlled by monarchy-issued licenses and charters, I doubt it was that easy to rock up and enter a foreign country without any papers, but I'd certainly be interested to learn more.
a century ago one couldn't arrive to a foreign land and immediately start receiving monthly check, free housing, health and other services [savage, barbaric regimes!]. typically people arrived to a foreign country with means and purpose. why would anyone need a passport? to protect whom against whom?
wrong, at least in the case of america. This poem from 1883, this was on the St. of Liberty, which was errected in 1886 [1]. "give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses". They didn't have means. There were the people who wanted to prevent the racially inferior from coming here, like italians, before them irish, etc. We aren't that america still, in 2016. 133 years later.
Really that applies if you are a "White EU Citizen". People of other ethnic origin are quite routinely stopped and questioned in the Schengen Zone at transportation points.
> there are no border controls (when walking or driving).
In practice they may not always exist, but I think Schengen member states have the authority to perform border controls in all cases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area#Border_checks does not talk about distinctions depending on the mode of entry). In the current political climate, even as a citizen of a Schengen country, I would not cross borders within Schengen space without ID: I would not be surprised if states decided to perform border checks, and they would probably have the right to deny me passage if I do not have suitable ID.
I understand that there are some overlapping rules and regulations between EU member states and states in the Schengen Area. But you don't have to go more than a year back, when the refugee crisis peaked, to find Norway enforcing full border control on all land and sea based borders. But not by air, probably because they knew most refugees would never be allowed to board a plane or afford the tickets.
This ended up in a huge mess, but as far as I know very few were actually turned away. Mostly people ended up being fined for not being able to provide a valid ID and let back in after a manual verification. There were some controversy around this, as citizens are not legally required to carry IDs.
The temporary border controls are not there to physically stop people from entering, but to dissuade them from trying to go to Norway at all in the first place. That's the big effect, and it is of course intentional.
This wasn't true during the height of the refugee influx through Greece. I took a flight from Greece to Frankfurt and the German police inspected each passenger individually before we were allowed to the gate.
Also before any crises, when I was taking the cheap buses between copenhagen and hamburg, there was usually passports controls on entering Denmark. The police officers would be very lax with european citizens, it felt like though.
Individually? It's extremely difficult other than "try not to appear suspicious" and bring a dumbphone when crossing borders.
The real protection is collective. Stopping the current administration is only the beginning; the Democrats are merely "not as bad" on this kind of issue. Broader anti-racism and anti-racist-media action is needed, because otherwise this kind of arbitary brutal border policy will win votes.
The Mayor of Stockton, while returning from China, was forced to give up his password and then subsequently had all electronic devices seized. That was in 2015; this isn't about race, the broader issue here is privacy and where do I rights kick in.
STOCKTON, Calif. (CN) — Stockton, Calif. Mayor Anthony Silva was arrested at his summer camp for underprivileged youth Thursday and faces multiple charges over his suspected involvement in an underage strip poker game. Silva was arrested at his camp by agents from the FBI, Stockton Police Department and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s office. The incumbent mayor’s bail was set at $20,000. The FBI also recovered evidence of Silva secretly taping a conversation with a Stockton city employee, while another witness told investigators that Silva has cameras in his bedroom and at the Stockton Kid’s Club, Riebe said. The charges come amid recent revelations from the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office that a gun owned by Silva was used in the 2015 killing of a 13-year old. Investigators say a semi-automatic pistol that was stolen from Silva was used in two separate Stockton shootings. Silva says he informed authorities his gun was missing in March 2015, a month after the gun was used in the fatal shooting of Rayshawn Harris. Officers recovered the weapon during a domestic disturbance unrelated to the mayor.
Silva is no longer mayor(lost re-election for some reason), trial proceedings are still going on.
Broader anti-racism and anti-racist-media action is needed, because otherwise this kind of arbitrary brutal border policy will win votes.
This is an issue much bigger than race and as soon as we stop compartmentalizing it into that it will be better for us all.
You turn it into another about race thing and people will tune out. You make people realize they are at risk no matter who they are and they might pay attention. That might sound tone deaf but the reality is people first and foremost care about themselves and their in-group before anything else. It's hard not to.
The problem is, the reason it does win votes, and the reason a lot of people want "law and order" and "tough on crime", is because they reason it won't apply to them, but to "those people". What is "those people" defined by in their minds, at least to a first a approximation before they consciously reason about it? Race.
Now, they might think in terms of it being for thugs and terrorists, instead of black people and Muslims, but they 'know' they themselves can't possibly be mistaken for either because they 'don't look like a thug/terrorist'. While the searches are indeed applied along racial lines, it will be hard to convince them otherwise, because they are mostly right.
So, sure, this is about liberty, about forestalling totalitarianism, about our human right to privacy and our political right to protection from unreasonable search, but it is also about race and about xenophobia. I am not sure failing to acknowledge that does us any favors strategically. At risk of going full Godwin's Law, there were a lot of things wrong with Nazism besides anti-semitism, but analyzing why people allowed the rise of Nazism without talking about anti-semitism is foolish.
Xenophobia != surveillance state or totalitarianism
For example japan or poland are fairly xenophobic and isolationist, but they don't practice a surveillance state or ask for your social media accounts at the border. Foreigners are free to enter as long as they don't overstay their welcome.
I would say that xenophobia is the natural state of homogeneous populations. Everything different is treated with suspicioun, but not necessarily overt opposition or hatred. Xenophobia only gets used as leverage by politicians to amplify and deflect other issues (such as income inequality) onto other groups. Fix those issues and some latent xenophobia isn't going to turn into problems.
I am not saying xenophobia inevitably leads to searching phones. But in the US, right now, the justification for the surveillance state is in a big part due to xenophobia and race relations. It is a major factor in the current pathology and we ignore it at our peril.
The law and order type will always find something to increase their powers. You're just trying to fix their current attack vector, which means they'll just use a different scare tomorrow. To have lasting improvements the security apparatus needs to be scaled down.
You are projecting your theoretical model of government-public relations onto the world, and ignoring the fact that race has been a major motivating factor in American politics for the last few centuries. I disagree with your claim that this is just strategic opportunism.
I think you are talking about two different groups. As in: will three letter agency type people have the incentive and the desire to expand their capabilities, independent of xenophobia and racism? Yes, absolutely. Do xenophobia and racism play a significant part on why large swats of the population are going along with this? Also, yes. A U.S. where most Americans don't fear foreigners from any part of the world is one where justifying scanners, pat downs at the airport and massive data collection becomes a lot harder for the kind of people whose core objective is to justify scanners, pat downs and massive data collection.
But this is also ignoring that there are very real reasons this is happening. Within the last couple of years we had the Bataclan, Nice, Orlando, etc, all directly from Islamic terror.
Does that mean Muslims should be discriminated against? Obviously not. However, this is a very blunt way of people trying to protect themselves (even if it's not effective or overreaching).
We also had significantly more deaths from things like school shootings and other violence not related to terrorism from Islamist groups, and yet we are pulling out funds for counter-extremism from all causes not related to Islamic terrorism (say, white-supremacist terrorism). By the numbers, the current counter-terrorism policies are an over-reaction, poorly thought out and unfairly target an enormous population that doesn't seem to pose in expectation a more significant risk than others:
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/27/14412420/terrorism-muslim... : "The study found that only 46 Muslim Americans (defined as “Muslims who lived in the US for an extended period”) were linked to violent extremism at home or abroad in 2016. The total Muslim American population is 3.3 million."
So, to prevent 46 or so crimes, affecting 54 or so people (say 300 if you think there are large numbers of wounded), we are de facto abrogating the rights of 3.3 million people, plus visitors. Nevermind that terrorism represents only 0.05% of violent crime, that violent crime itself is at its lowest in decades and that we never felt the need to become a surveillance state over said amount of crime. The only reason why people think it reasonable to do so now is that they associate Muslim with terrorist at a visceral irrational level, not because it makes sound logical sense. Hence, racism and xenophobia is a perfectly reasonable explanation.
Also keep in mind that, over time, treating any group better both at home and abroad reduces incidence of terrorism from that group. But the point is that the current incidence itself is not anywhere near the point where putting millions under surveillance is worth it.
Wikipedia: "Mateen was born Omar Mir Seddique[6] on November 16, 1986,[7] in New Hyde Park, New York, to Afghan parents"
(Similarly, the Bataclan attack was carried out by French/Belgian nationals)
So he was a US-born US national. Not an immigrant or green card holder.
> Does that mean Muslims should be discriminated against? Obviously not.
Yes! Exactly!
> To wave that off as "racism" isn't really fair
.. what? It's discrimination against a group of people by religion-inferred-from-ethnic-origin-or-skin-colour. That's exactly what racism is. It's not "waving it off" at all.
>The problem is, the reason it does win votes, and the reason a lot of people want "law and order" and "tough on crime", is because they reason it won't apply to them, but to "those people". What is "those people" defined by in their minds, at least to a first a approximation before they consciously reason about it? Race.
Well, race or nationality. I don't think Trump voters think American citizens will be subjected to authoritarian measures, or should be. They think their in-group is safe.
I don't know why you were downvoted; while it's true that racial minorities are targeted more often than most, many don't empathize with that. They only care once their own rights are threatened.
By making it clear that these issues harm everyone, we can prevent these actions from happening to anyone. People are willing to take away the rights of others, but generally are not willing to sacrifice their own.
Not sure why you are down-voted but this is true. Most of the anti-liberty policies come in disguise of we v/s bad guy arguments. The bad guys are often minorities.
I've observed this pattern: 'bad guy' is part of another group? That whole group is bad. 'bad guy' is part of the group of the person speaking: That's just an individual rotten apple, but it does not say anything about all of us.
Obviously. It all boils down to which group is in power and who is powerful. Minorities are going to get a fag end here. For example I see very little talk of illegals from Canada or Europe who are in USA. But authorities will only talk about Mexicans painting them as some kind of gangsters and criminals always. Indians or Chinese aren't that active in organized crime but their education and high skill is portrayed as evil "stealing jobs" phenomenon.
Do you think that, perhaps, the fact that all the Canadian gangs keep it under the radar while Latino and Black gangs do all the "represent" game with leaving disfigured bodies, tagging cities, hanging around streets wearing gang colors etc is relevant? I am sure that Canadian cartels and gangs are just as dangerous, pushing all the contraband maple syrup and making our kids addicted to sugar, but, somehow, they figured out the PR game and keep the news of their kidnappings, executions and drive-bys out of sight.
Unfortunately, I suspect that failing to have a the ability to grant border agents access to social media or email accounts will soon become grounds for detainment and further scrutiny by itself. If you are carrying a "dumb phone" or don't have email or social media set up on your phone, then what are you trying to hide?
Exactly - and some smart people do actually have "dumb" phones.
Or sometimes I think about ditching my GUI Linux for something really basic - same reason why some people stick with dumb phones - now what happens if I hand over full control over my neat z-shell to the TSA? Will he grep around or just consider me dangerous?
They're just going to copy the data off and some software will look for things by hash.
It would not surprisee if at some point, if we leave this tyranny unchecked, we will all be forced to hand over our devices while deboarding so they can be scanned while we wait in line for initial interrogation.
The documentation that comes when you are compelled to give over keys mentions that they will retain complete copies of any disks, drives, flash card, any piece of data until it is no longer relevant (read, forever).
I suggest installing a shell OS (with a neat GUI, no hacker-ish looks) on the Notebook's first partition, the rest (where the main Linux installation is residing) will be encrypted and can be decrypted and booted into only using a USB bootloader with the missing LUKS header (which can be downloaded later using a VPN, for example).
If they ask you "is there any hidden data on this device", you would have to respond in the affirmative. Lying to a border guard is a felony, there's no cute technical solution to this. They will, according to their own paperwork, make copies of any data they find interesting for future analysis.
Hmm, what if we keep some encrypted porn in the shell OS? "Yep, there is hidden data. Do I really need to decrypt my special folder because I really wouldn't like to? OK then, the password is.."
Disclaimer: this is all being speculative, of course. I'm not suggesting to lie to or misdirect a border guard in a real-life situation.
This is a perfect example of why the correct place to fight this is at the judiciary.
Trying to outsmart the border guards essentially makes you a smuggler. Sure you're trying to smuggle your own personal data rather anything nefarious, but either way - you're trying to beat them at their own game, on their own turf, where they have every advantage, constant practice, and effectively get to write their own rules.
Every fantastic example you dream up, you have to pray no-one's thought of it before. The game's rigged.
The only real way to win is to double down on the legal position of such searches.
TrueCrypt supported plausibly deniable encrypted partitions. When using something like this it'd be possible to deny the existence of encrypted data and lab analysis wouldn't turn anything up. Or so they claimed.
See this -^ ? It's a new pseudonymous account. Unless your social network has some kind of insane policy where they only allow you to have a single identity you can use that kind of feature to compartmentalize your activities.
Combine that with a phone that lets you have multiple users where you use one for banal activity which you can then show to Big Brother when he comes knocking. And others for anything important.
To me having several pseudonyms and also using throwaways is part of standard information hygiene. I also have multiple email addresses, some are set to forward to others (one-way of course), others aren't. I don't know why people aren't teaching that to their children.
I also love 4chan for that reason. I can talk to people in a totally ephemeral manner. Identity only exists for the duration of a conversation.
Or I don't know, do people also share their grindr adventures by linking that account to twitter these days?
Let me start by saying I don't begrudge your info hygiene habits at all, this isn't an attack against you. But I've seen a few suggestions lately on building tools to circumvent these awful policies.
What we need to be doing is vehemently protesting these policies and rejecting them completely. If we start building tools to deny information when someone Has physical access to your unlocked device then we normalize these policies and accept the enevitibility that our privacy is gone. This is a war we cannot win. Not everyone is going to operate with the hygienic standards you use.
That said I've never actively protested a thing in my life. I am basically guilty or complicit myself, and I hate it.
Yeah protesting hasn't really worked that well to date. But do you think people will become more upset if they're told that transiting through airports now requires you to hand over your unlocked phone to a stranger while they go through all of your email, banking, and social media accounts?
It's easy to dismiss data retention laws because they're so far away. But if someone is literally sitting across from you going through your phone? I think (hope) that image will drive the point home a lot better than it has previously.
thats not true, people simply don't understand how their privacy has been used against them. everyone still thinks this is about ads, but its much worse.
> To me having several pseudonyms and also using throwaways is part of standard information hygiene. I also have multiple email addresses, some are set to forward to others (one-way of course), others aren't. I don't know why people aren't teaching that to their children.
For aliens (people entering under ESTA, visas, etc), you are compelled to reveal any aliases or pseudonyms you operate under. There's a two page document for you to fill the details out under ESTA, presumably under under a visa as well. Lying to a border guard, or on these forms is a felony.
That must be new. It wasn't part of esta two years ago. I would be totally unable to produce all my aliases in all the services I have accounts. I wouldn't even be able to remember all the services.
I believe it's supposed to be only names you've gone under, calling yourself horsemaster88 on youtube wouldn't be included, but calling yourself Jerry Fink, lord of horses would be included. With the new laws going into place for giving up social media names I wouldn't be surprised if online pseudonyms will be included in the future though.
That falls apart with the simplest IP tracking. The government has all that data anyway, I see no reason they couldn't run a "background check" and figure out exactly who you are and what you've done.
It's a false sense of security, is it not? It's probably best to assume your opponent isn't completely dumb.
If a state intelligence agency is targeting you, there's just really not a lot you can do at that point. But ephemeral9235's suggestions should work OK to avoid handing over all your personal data at the border.
That depends on what your threat model is. I assume we're talking about random police or border searches of your phone. Not the NSA or some surveillance apparatus which can make warrantless inquiries to your ISP and social network providers at a moments notice.
If we're facing a surveillance state without any internal obstructions then yes, far stricter opsec will be needed.
In the near future I expect random border searches to include all internet traffic associated with you. It's going to get hard for the average person to evade it. Your techniques won't be nearly enough.
I guess I'm wondering if border guards at any point in the future will have quick access to a database, presumably with information from a company that has either voluntarily or been forced to provide data.
Sir, we just ran your social networking accounts and according to our data you have another Facebook account that you did not provide access to...
Such a database would indicate two things a) law enforcement has access to such a database without warrants b) facebook provides such a database without warrants.
To me those would be reasons to leave the country and facebook.
Even something like a VPN isn't really perfect, because a smart enough monitoring system could track a vpn connection coming from your system, and then compare that to traffic coming from the vpn. Tricky, but possible.
Social networks are useless with pseudonimous accounts - unless there is some link between pseudonyms. The social aspect is in building the network, having reputation, maintaining a circle of friends and acquaintances, etc. but you can't build network out of throwaway accounts. Of course, HN is not a social network - it's a news/discussion site. So if you don't care about the reputation - which is not prominent anyway, so there's not much reason to care - you can use throwaways freely. But for most social networking functions it's a no go.
Set all your accounts up with auto-generated passwords, and store the whole lot in a password vault[1]. Don't bring the password vault file with you when you cross the border. Arrange to acquire it after you have entered the country[2].
Now you can honestly say you don't know any of your passwords. If enough people do this, then this law will be pointless.
Also, for the love of god stop bringing your smartphone with you when you travel. Get a $15 quad-band feature phone, and just bring a paper map with you. If you don't need your laptop then leave that behind as well.
[1] As much as I hate password managers and see them as a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist, you should probably be doing this by now anyway.
[2] The details of this can range from a pre-timed email to a physical handover from someone inside the country, depending on whether you think the border police might detain you and attempt to force you to acquire the password vault.
How about this.
Make 2 email accounts. One for your stuff, one that is more or less empty.
Re-set your phone to factory. Synch with the empty account.
When you are in-country, reset phone, synch with first account. Done. 45 minutes or less with decent wi-fi.
Of course my preference is to avoid said country on principle in the first place.
I really don't understand how they would ever enforce the "social media accounts." It's pretty easy to just have two facebook and twitter accounts. If it becomes a problem everyone affected would have multiple accounts.
Also, for the love of god stop bringing your smartphone with you when you travel.
Is there a risk of bringing a smartphone with no past context on it (e.g. a previously-unused refurb or new phone)? Even one that has been factory reset would give basic prying eyes nothing to find, barring the use of forensic tools.
>Is there a risk of bringing a smartphone with no past context on it (e.g. a previously-unused refurb or new phone)?
If you're willing to have two smartphones, or to backup and wipe your smartphone when you travel (don't forget the sim), then I guess not that much. I definitely couldn't be bothered though, hence the cheapie phone. Your mileage may vary if you're going for a 3 months sojourn I guess, I usually do 2-3 day trips.
However, back on the sliding scale of paranoia, the main risk of bringing your phone with you if you want next level protection from the US is that if they ever take your phone and remove it from your field if view, you might want to bin it. The US has proven very adept at modifying circuitry of devices to monitor them[1]. A cheap feature phone can be binned without thought.
factory reset will do the job even for forensic tools- the border-class forensic tools- cellebrite, magnet forensics aquire, oxygen, etc are all accessing above the flash translation layer. So deleted is deleted, in that case, on a phone.
And chip off is Mossad level expertise, due to chip size/complexity, wear-leveling and said flash translation.
Wipe phone when you pass through border, restore afterwards. If you're really paranoid, if the device leaves your presence it's to be considered physically compromised.
It is bizarre that we're now having to consider the type of preparation you previously would want to consider for places like China.
I'm really not sure if I want to visit the US at all while Trump is in power. Not because I expect the chances of any severe problems are all that huge, but because the growing lack of predictability is just creating sufficient friction.
> I'm really not sure if I want to visit the US at all while Trump is in powe
I don't fancy Trump anymore than the next guy, but this started long before he got elected.
This is driven by the intelligence community for their own power grab and is 100% independent. It would be pushed through no matter who sat in the presidential seat.
Let's just say that if you try to oppose it, in the current (intolerant liberal) political climate someone has enough data on you to ruin your life and career as a politician no matter who you are.
That's a massive amount of power. Seeing how the head of NSA openly and repeatadly lies under oath to no consequence what so ever, I'd be surprised if it's not a power being misused regularly.
I agree it started before that. The difference is the lack of predictability under Trump. There's no doubt China is still far more authoritarian, for example, but it's government is fairly predictable.
You are right to be outraged, but you are wrong to be fearful of Trump. You need to be fearful and angry at the government, regardless of who's the President.
This 'there is no difference between the parties' thing is getting really old, the differences are clear. Yes a surveillance state had also flourished under the Democratic administrations and that's a Bad Thing, I'm with you on the general need to roll that back.
But don't come here telling me administrations are basically the same. And much of the surveillance state exists because of the politicians that pander to the more xenophobic demographics. Look how much of the previous 8 years they spent portraying Obama as a crypto-Muslim, bent on the the Islamicization of the United States yadda yadda. Every time he tried to dismantle or scale back any aspect of the national security state (Guantanamo being an obvious example) conservatives howled about him enabling terrorism and putting the American people in danger. To ignore those factors is to deceive yourself about the political dynamics that shape your environment.
all obama had to do was not renew bush's executive orders. thats it. he just had to do NOTHING. so yes, as far as privacy is concerned, both parties are equally shit.
That's what he did with troop withdrawals from Iraq - simply stick to the agreement Bush signed. And yet everyone on the right seems to think that by doing so he gave birth to ISIS. Ignoring these political realities is facile, even if you aim to overhaul the whole political system.
You miss the part where my concern about Trump is the lack of predictability, as evidenced by the sudden travel ban.
I can deal with an authoritarian government as a visitor if I know what to avoid while visiting. Not so if the rules can change at the whim of someone who seems unstable.
We should definitely be fearful of Trump. The only good thing that can come from this is that he will take full blame, but people will finally realize how corrupt we have become. I doubt that will happen though, because I'm sure the other half is brainwashed to think the Democrats can do no harm either.
I found this comment by educar from HN a few days ago very interesting and true:
> If you still think of the world as divided into good and evil, then I have to break it to you that you have been played. Brainwashed by years and years of media programming.
> One man's terrorist is another man's hero. The U.S routinely bombs other sovereign countries and this is show cased as a "hero" activity. If the bombed people retaliate, they are terrorists. The truth is not black/white. Same way U.S data surveillance is OK but same thing done by China is seen as backward regime.
It's only bizarre because we've been brainwashed in our youth years into thinking highly of USA, and our adult selves still mourn the loss of simple ethical compass, but that was always only imaginary.
I don't think I've been brainwashed much with that respect - I spent my youth involved in left wing political organizations that just a few years earlier would have barred me from entry to the US, to the point that I called the US embassy to check before my first entry (they stopped caring after the Soviet Union collapsed), and that means there's almost certainly a file on me with Norwegian security services. I've been highly critical of US governments most of my life.
The reason I find it bizarre is that I've visited the US about two dozen times over many years, and while I know there are plenty of issues for many visitors, it used to be fairly predictable who would get stopped, and I used to feel safe that I would not get pulled aside and face more invasive questioning or searches.
As I've noted elsewhere, part of what is changing is that it appears this predictability is out of the window: Things like NASA employees stopped or how a few days ago a former Norwegian Prime Minister travelling on a diplomatic passport was stopped. And so.
In a way, I suppose, I get to finally experience the uncertainty people from less favoured countries and/or darker skinned/with a muslim sounding name have dealt with for much longer. That is perhaps the only benefit of this mess: It's finally affecting groups of people that may cause it to become politically untenable over time.
pretty sure this is common in many countries. I know here in NZ they have had that right. Though, there was a bit of a backlash against that and they (government) were looking at changing so that there are reasonable grounds for search. Quick search seems to indicate UK and Australia is similar.
That is true, and while it is bad, a large part of the difference is to what extent it is likely to affect you as a regular visitor. The US has always been stricter than most places in my experience - I've gotten far more scrutiny on entering the US than China, or anywhere else other than perhaps Canada.
But what has changed is the predictability and the extent of use of these types of powers.
I used to feel safe that I would not get taken aside and have to deal with this type of thing, but now I see no reason to any more, because there seems to be no reason to assume that the rules won't suddenly change overnight.
On entering the UK on the other hand, I still feel reasonably safe that though I know they can, the odds that they will are extremely low.
It used to be that I'd consider what to clean off my laptop before entering places like China. Now I'm not sure I'll even want to bring my regular laptop to the US.
How about a lockdown feature that sends the unlock code to a trusted 3rd party? For corporate phones that should work quite nicely, especially if unlocking would require physical connection to the trusted network.
That way you could simply put it into lockdown mode before you enter border checks and not use the phone except for minimal calling features.
You can restore using iTunes backups stored on an encrypted hard drive in a secret volume. Plausible deniability even after decryption. TrueCrypt does this.
We need a "kill code" on secured devices: A separate password that silently resets the device to a saved state suggesting mild use and offering nothing of substance.
Alarm systems have these: A code you only enter under duress, that looks like a regular disarm code, but silently summons help. So where are Apple and Google on something similar for our digital privacy?
Unless this wipes the device, it serves no use. They don't want your pin to browse through the phone - CBP policy is to take a full disk image, which would not work without the real pin as I understand it. This was the case in the OP article as well - CBP took a full copy of the phone.
If they take the phone apart to get to the storage, they don't need your pin, unless the entire storage is encrypted, in which case an alternate pin should probably not decrypt the entire storage.
If they access it through the phone, they can only access what the OS allows.
I think an OS that would allow you to expose only a safe part of your phone, would be an excellent idea.
Only if you're accused of a crime, right? Which is not the case here. They just want to search your data. Although if you're not a citizen they will probably not let you enter the country.
Not really. As soon as you know there's an investigation against you, any action to purposely destroy relevant evidence can be used against you, even if there was no formal crime charge yet. For companies, they usually get special letter that instructs them to preserve evidence due to investigation ongoing or lawsuit pending. It is also common in civil cases, where there's no crime to talk about at all.
But on a personal level CBP agent saying "we need information on your phone" can be treated as informing you about necessity to preserve evidence, and they may as well just give you a printed instruction saying you have to preserve it. Once they did that, purposely destroying evidence (which is anything they could consider relevant) is a crime.
Unfortunately, you are not likely to get off on technicality with this - they know the technicalities much better than you. The whole policy of border being "rights-free zone" needs change, not finding a loophole.
Yeah. But I cannot change these policies. I am not even a US citizen. So I have to wipe all my devices clean before crossing the border. Or risk confiscation. Because there is no way (except torture) they will get any of my passwords.
I wonder if it would help if an equal amount of US citizens have to hand over their passwords at EU borders. Maybe that would help as a wake up call?
I'll protect myself by refusing. They can detain me for as long as they want. I'll fight it in court, because I am a US citizen and god dammit they do not have the right to warrantlessly review my encrypted communications.
If we've gone so far on the path towards authoritarianism that even citizens don't have rights, I'll just never come back in.
> I'll protect myself by refusing. They can detain me for as long as they want. I'll fight it in court, because I am a US citizen and god dammit they do not have the right to warrantlessly review my encrypted communications.
While I don't agree it's a good thing, I think they do have the right to detain you indefinitely and/or search whatever they damn well please if it's on your person. I don't think asking for a password that doesn't unlock a device in your possession would pass muster, but unlocking your phone would. Your rights (as a citizen) at the border aren't the same as when you're not there.
Also, I think the definition of "at the border" includes anywhere with 100 miles of the physical end of jurisdiction (so effectively you sitting at home in most of the west or east coasts is "at the border").
> If we've gone so far on the path towards authoritarianism that even citizens don't have rights, I'll just never come back in.
FYI, I think they have the same right to search you or hold you indefinitely on the way out as well.
> I don't think asking for a password that doesn't unlock a device in your possession would pass muster, but unlocking your phone would.
I don't think they can force me to give up my PIN. Not even a court can do that.
My rights as a citizen are indeed less, in that they can detain me in an attempt to force compliance. The thing is that it's never been fully tested. In all the cases I've reviewed, either the person relented or CBP eventually let them through.
If the detention lasted for days, their case would become harder and harder to make. Someone needs to make a stand.
> FYI, I think they have the same right to search you or hold you indefinitely on the way out as well.
Perhaps, but leaving is nowhere near as systematic. More importantly: if they were making giving up this info a condition of entry, I would refuse to enter. If they want to lock me up for that, I have a court case.
Do you have a job or family? How long would the former keep you employed? How long would the latter last without your support? Could you afford legal fees without employment?
It's cool to say these things, but the system is weighted against protest. You must be ready to sacrifice everything for your principles.
That's why I specifically said nobody is obligated to protest.
Personally, I'm quite well-positioned to be able to do this. I'm a young self-employed single white man with no family to support. My net worth is probably enough to pay the legal fees (though I hope that this is the sort of case the ACLU or EFF would support).
That's for contempt of court. If a judge thinks (effectively in his sole discretion) that you're in contempt of court, they can sentence you to whatever they'd like for as long as they'd like. It's purposely vague and powerful because it's meant to be used to punish the most heinous of acts: those against the court.
They could temporarily inconvenience you, or confiscate your belongings (or arrest you if you actually break the law)... but they would not legally be able to detain you indefinitely. A lawyer would have a field day with that.
Since there's nothing actually illegal about refusing to unlock your phone, at worst you'd lose your phone while they attempt to crack it offline.
The result of stories like this will be to chill visiting from other countries (destroying tourism in the country) and likely result in the same treatment by other countries to American citizens. I can't understand why the people who decide these policies think they are harmless.
Finally, it's not a policy; the the general differences in due process at the border, as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (1997, Ramsey v. United States).
That's how some employers (mine included) already handle work-owned electronic devices: going overseas -- either leave yours behind or pick up a loaner that will be fully wiped on arrival.
Have many accounts, some of which have a subsetof your email which is totally safe. They can even be mirrors.
Or alternatively, have all your sensitive communication on other channels which leave no trace (in browser history, for instance).
Simple!
PS: It would be cool if apps let you have steganography... like Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp wouldn't show ALL conversations until you entered a specific password. They could even have groups of hidden conversations. Even if cops know that, they will never be sure if you revealed everything. This may be good or bad for you.
>> Their point about how other countries will take the US's stance as a cue is somewhat scary.
I don't see this happening, in Europe at least. It seems like a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression and right to family and private life so shouldn't be possible for any of the 47 members of the Council of Europe (who are bound by the ECHR).
Social media is a made word and concept to talk about online services designed to capture and collect and exploit private personal data that the users willingly give them, the "if you're not paying for it, then you're the product being sold". so email does not fall into this IMHO.
Not having social media account is the obvious answer, there is little that this will be implemented ever but having a multiple password account could be a workaround. a master password give access to all while another you could give to border guard would transparently limit the access to a sanitized version of the account. The other obvious answer to force the government and lawmakers to remove this policy.
Have all expected social media, with expected contacts (family, friends, colleagues, etc) and activity. But carry disposable stuff, because you can't trust it after it's been taken for inspection. If asked, just say they you're worried about theft ;) Or if you're on business, that it's your employer's policy. Which it should be.
For anything that you want kept private, be very careful to compartmentalize it from your meatspace identity.
It is time for all cloud services to provide plausible deniability by allowing for multiple passwords to access the same social account - but where all the passwords except the One allows for only a subset of the account.
E.g. logon to Facebook using password 'plausible1' and see only friend 1 and friend 2.
Logon to facebook using password 'everything' and see friend 1 and 2 but friend 3 as well.
I'd suggest not even taking a phone if you are visiting the US. You can presumably buy a prepaid phone there if you need one during the trip, and connect it to your existing online accounts.
If you try and cross any border it will be relinquishing access to all accounts.
I'm assuming email also comes along with 'social media', since communication is by its definition social.
So how do you protect yourself? I think just going with "Don't have any social media" isn't a good answer because the relationship that children growing up today with the internet is almost completely different to even people 10-15 years older than them.
Someone having carte blanche access to a person's phone will find something if they want to.
Imagine you're in a few group chats, someone mentions doing some drug. And you've just entered a country where that's an instant prison sentence.
Maybe some off colour jokes about politicians? Proof to kick you out or at least detain.
I imagine we're at the cusp of something much more unsettling. The technology to reverse image search a face is available today. It's pretty easy to make you appear associated with anything, anyone, etc.