Thread

Returning from vacation? The government can search your phone without a warrant

411 points · 378 comments · rbanffy

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

ulfbert_inc · 1790856053 · focus · HN ↗
Related: <a href="https://adc.org/case/blumenthal-v-mullin/" rel="nofollow">https://adc.org/case/blumenthal-v-mullin/
spiclk · 1790856145 · focus · HN ↗
Does "search your phone" include any externally-hosted content that can be accessed by said phone?
1. someonebaggy · 1790856190 · focus · HN ↗
  Yes of course. Basically they have ruled the entire warrant requirement for searches and prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is suspended within 100 miles of any border or international airport (which is most of the US).
  1. close04 · 1790856659 · focus · HN ↗
    The question is about your data stored in the cloud (not sure if it matters that it’s outside the 100mi) not on the phone.
    Is the search limited to the phone itself and the data physically residing inside or can they open any door for which that phone is the key?
  2. spiclk · 1790856731 · focus · HN ↗
    A comparison would be physical keys found during a police search - under what circumstances can the police legally use those keys to search other, locked locations?
  3. ekejjedjndbd · 1790857207 · focus · HN ↗
    How true is that? Can police search a house without warranty in NYC say and have that entered as evidence (plus anything that lead from that) in court?
    someothherguyy · 1790857704 · focus · HN ↗
    no, because that would clearly be an unreasonable search
    galangalalgol · 1790857994 · focus · HN ↗
    No, but cbp could have a k9 at any bottleneck they want and those dogs read their partners body language, so if they are a racist idiot it might alert on excessive melanin providing probable cause. Assuming they didn't just train it to alert on command. And if it alerts yeah they can demand to search your phone. I don't hear about it getting used, but that could be because they are careful not to use it on anyone who might start a case that could get it ruled unconstitutional. They openly use it where they think there is actually smuggling.
  4. galangalalgol · 1790857700 · focus · HN ↗
    The law makes it clear that the rules are only suspended in the customs zone of the airport and within 100 miles of the airport. They seem to follow that. The checkpoints you see in Washington state or down near the border with Mexico do not show up around denver or dfw. The reality is bad enough we don't need to exaggerate it. And they can't just grab every phone as they walk around LA either, they have to signal their dog to alert on you to give them probable cause...
    iamnothere · 1790862243 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    alistairSH · 1790866275 · focus · HN ↗
    This.
    It's 100 miles of land & sea borders. Plus the airport zone. The airport does not create a new 100 mile zone.
    For example, ATL is not within 100 miles of a sea or land border, so the CBP zone is just the airport, not the 100 mile circle around the airport. But, ORD and LGA are both within 100 mile zones.
    Of course, it's all kind of a moot point, as the current administration seems happy enough to deploy immigration forces nationwide and Congress is spineless and incapable of pushing back.
    ElevenLathe · 1790873635 · focus · HN ↗
    Any standard that claims the entire city of Chicago to be a border zone is an absurd standard, just laughably overreaching if it were ever put in front of a fair court.
    iamnothere · 1790876949 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    alistairSH · 1790877743 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, it's pretty laughable, given Lake Michigan is fully within the US. But CBP considers all the Great Lakes as basically one giant international body of water.
    DC also, because of proximity to the Chesapeake Bay. Austin TX within 100 of the Gulf of Mexico. And on and on.
    As noted in a sibling, the 100 mile zone captures about 2/3 of the population.
  5. iamnothere · 1790862157 · focus · HN ↗
    This gets repeated in every discussion here and it’s absolutely not true. Please stop repeating it or it will become accepted “folk wisdom” and then they’ll actually push it as a policy.
2. someothherguyy · 1790858639 · focus · HN ↗
  <a href="https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/cbp_directive_3340-049b_jan_2026_508.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/cbp_directiv...
  3.2 Electronic Device: Any device that may contain information in an electronic or digital form, such as computers, tablets, disks, drives, tapes, flash drives, SIM cards, global positioning systems, unmanned aircraft systems, vehicle infotainment systems, smart watches, mobile phones and other communication devices, cameras, music and other media players.
  3.3 Basic Search: Any border search of an electronic device that does not qualify as an advanced search as described in section 3.4, in which an officer conducts a review or analysis of information residing in electronic or digital form on the device. A basic search may include documenting information observed on the device during the search that relates to immigration, customs, or other law enforcement actions in CBP systems.
  3.4 Advanced Search: An advanced search is any search in which an officer connects equipment, wired or wireless, to copy and/or analyze the contents of an electronic device. Use of external equipment (including a CBP standalone computer) merely to make the contents of the device available for inspection (including, for example, to bypass a password, overcome encryption, translate content, view files contained in an external drive or other electronic device lacking a screen, or charge a device) does not constitute an advanced search. Documenting notes and observations, as noted in section 3.3, does not constitute an advanced search.
  5.1.4 An officer may perform an advanced search of an electronic device only in instances in which there is reasonable suspicion of activity in violation of the laws enforced or administered by CBP or, in the absence of individualized reasonable suspicion when there is a national security concern. All advanced searches require supervisory approval at the Grade 14 level or higher (or a manager with comparable responsibilities). In cases where the inspecting officer and approving supervisor rely on the presence of a national security concern, without reasonable suspicion, to conduct an advanced search, approval from the Director, Field Operations; Chief Patrol Agent; Director, Air Operations; Director, Marine Operations; Special Agent in Charge; or their delegate, is required prior to conducting the search. In compelling circumstances where operational considerations prevent prior approval, notification shall be made as soon as possible. Notification must include an explanation of the national security concern, the compelling circumstances that precluded prior approval, the relevant facts and information supporting the search, and the results of the search.
  5.1.5 All searches of electronic devices will be documented in appropriate CBP systems. Officers will document any supervisory approvals required under this Directive and, in the case of an advanced search, the factors establishing reasonable suspicion of a violation of a law enforced or administered by CBP or a national security concern, as well as relevant observations, impressions, and actions taken, as appropriate.
  5.1.6 Searches of electronic devices should be conducted in the presence of the individual whose information is being examined unless there are national security, law enforcement, officer safety, or other operational considerations that make it inappropriate to permit the individual to remain present. Permitting an individual to remain present during a search does not necessarily mean that the individual shall observe the search itself. If permitting an individual to observe the search could reveal law enforcement techniques or potentially compromise other operational considerations, the individual will not be permitted to observe the search itself"
  1. spiclk · 1790859898 · focus · HN ↗
    It sounds like the person whose device is being searched could legally disable the data connection before the search.
3. [deleted] · 1790859455 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]
someonebaggy · 1790856153 · focus · HN ↗
The constitution is officially toilet paper.
1. stymaar · 1790856408 · focus · HN ↗
  It's gilded toilet paper so that they can still say it's gold when it comes to protecting the NRA or the right for corporations to buy politicians.
lbriner · 1790856170 · focus · HN ↗
For me, it isn't the lack of warrant (I am a UK Citizen but I expect we have similar problems here), it is the lack of transparency and accountability.
If was arrested on suspicion of something, I can get legal assistance and I can know what I am suspected of and why before any of my property (or in this case, potentially very private and sensitive information) could be taken. If the arrest is manifestly wrongful or not based on any evidence, then I expect it would be easy enough to resist investigation.
On the other hand, having someone at the border who can justify an arbitrary search on the basis that "they might suspect of something", without having to clearly justify that basis and that if they then take property (or information), potentially copy it completely opaquely and then have zero accountability if that is misused is extremely frustrating but I guess you need to lobby your lawmakers to make the system fairer and to ensure legal protections of privileged information is completely upheld - period.
1. eviks · 1790858246 · focus · HN ↗
  Warrant is a mechanism to address transparency and accountability (somewhat)
  1. snarf21 · 1790860227 · focus · HN ↗
    Exactly, a warrant is a transparent and accountable step in convincing a third party that this is probable cause.
2. RunSet · 1790865813 · focus · HN ↗
  Possible solution: An app that dumps / restores the phone to a remote site, all e2ee.
  Wipe your phone and factory reset before you cross the border, then restore afterward.
  1. mettamage · 1790866359 · focus · HN ↗
    I did something like this, though not as an app. It was pretty cumbersome to do. Next time I'll just bring a travel phone.
    xethos · 1790870823 · focus · HN ↗
    This is actually exactly why I avoid this advice: wiping your phone, and setting it back up later, is a pain in the ass. Especially when you're meant to be on vacation, or exhausted from returning from one. And if it's a pain in the ass, it likely won't get done. The below isn't perfect, but minimizing legal things that CBP can make a case of doesn't have to be all-or-nothing
    At this point recommending the minimum that normal people will actually follow feels more effective: photos, main messaging app, and password database.
    Photos are backed up; normal people use Google photos, my partner and I use a NAS, but everyone should have a "Free up space" / "Delete photos that are backed-up from device" option. This makes it easy and gets you space for more vacation photos
    Main messaging app can be Telegram, Whatsapp, or (in my case) Element. Deleting it from your phone won't cost you your messaging history, but gets your most sensitive chats out of any potential spotlight
    I can handle a password database, but "Chrome saves my passwords" means signing out of Chrome is all normal people have to do
    eddieroger · 1790883371 · focus · HN ↗
    A password database seems like the exact thing I don't want on my phone in this case. Or at least only a vault with stuff I absolutely need and can't live without.
    xethos · 1790886432 · focus · HN ↗
    "I can handle" being more along the lines of "Most people use Chrome to sync passwords, I can find my own solution"
    I mention it because it's something I absolutely want in day-to-day use on my phone, and that I agree with it being one of the few things I'd make a point of not having with me when crossing the US border with
    Normal people can sign out of Chrome, I can set up a delayed email (with an encrypted database) before I leave, or put it on a uSD card in my checked baggage, or any number of low-effort but not-on-my-phone workarounds
  2. aqme28 · 1790866775 · focus · HN ↗
    I think with iOS you can do this pretty straightforwardly
TrackerFF · 1790856519 · focus · HN ↗
Yeah, people are unfortunately not informed on just how much power border agents wield. Not only in the US, but in many (most I'd believe) other countries, too. I've worked on cases (intel side) where the law-enforcement side would just wait for the surveillance objects to cross the border, as that's where they could do most data collection with the least hassle.
If for whatever reason you think you're being investigated or surveilled (who knows for what these days, could be enough to just associate with the various protest groups / orgs), you can just assume that the border will be where they'll try to clone / download your data (phones, laptops, whatever)
1. kypro · 1790857063 · focus · HN ↗
  UK is crazy for this. Border police can detain anyone they like for literally no reason and if they do you have no right to lawyer or no right to silence. Your devices can also be taken and you must hand over any passwords.
  I know the UK is an authoritarian state and not really comparable to the US, but as a Brit it's kinda weird hearing Americans complain about flock cameras and arbitrary border searches – these are common place things in the UK and no one cares (well, apart from me and maybe one or two others).
  1. mvc · 1790857189 · focus · HN ↗
    All the shady stuff the UK does, it does at the behest of the US.
    someonebaggy · 1790857545 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think so. I think the British public genuinely want to live in an authoritarian surveillance state.
    Once they do, they might stop wanting to live in one. But for now they want it.
    Ylpertnodi · 1790858268 · focus · HN ↗
    They don't. But cameras - like where I am now - came in gradually, and the public only get to see motorway crashes and the stuff the .gov want you to see. If the aussies have facial recognition, so do the brits.
    One eye. That will rule them all.
    OroPla · 1790878824 · focus · HN ↗
    If the country is thoroughly taken over by crime, an authoritarian surveillance state does have its perks. I heard there are no-go zones in London that tourists are warned about, so maybe that is the case over there.
    Citizens had been cheering when the government over in El Salvador was rounding up all the gang members and just locked them up without due process.
    goatlover · 1790879396 · focus · HN ↗
    If a country is "thoroughly taken over by crime", wouldn't it stand to reason that the criminals are running the surveillance state? Certainly starting to feel that way in the US at the federal level.
    GenBiot · 1790933612 · focus · HN ↗
    'No go' zones are massively exaggerated. There are nicer areas and less nice areas, but crime is generally pretty low (compared to other comparable countries) in every area. No one ever describes dodgy parts of US cities as 'no go' areas even though the crime happening there is typically much more prevalent and visible (e.g. Hard drug use on the streets).
    tancop · 1790926616 · focus · HN ↗
    The UK is a divided country. Pensioners are the most important demographic for getting reliable votes and they live in fear because they read crime news every day, so they support any measures if they believe it can help put the criminals in line. Most politicians do everything they can to have pensioners on their side. Touching the triple lock was unthinkable for years while liberal and socialist economists were all warning against it.
    Fascists are split between young American influenced ones who want freedom and hate the Online Safety Act, and racists who support anything as long as will make Muslims lives harder. The freedom loving ones are winning today so you see Green and Reform MPs standing together against the government.
    Middle class professionals see Dubai, Singapore and China as good examples and don't mind losing freedom for safety. The rich technocrats running the country are the ones who came up with all this, because they see the world as uneducated masses who need a nanny state to control them. And it helps their investments grow.
    The types of people who are most affected by the surveillance state already gave up on politics years ago because there's no one to represent them. There is no party fighting for young or working class people's actual interests, so they vote for extremists in the hope that something will change.
    When Thatcher said "there is no society" she was wrong at the time, but her successors did everything they could to make it real.
  2. seanhunter · 1790857926 · focus · HN ↗
    That is not true. The specific powers of arrest and detention by UK border force were set out in this freedom of information response here <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uk_border_force_powers_of_arrest/response/1494571/attach/3/55583%20H%20Ali%20response.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1" rel="nofollow">https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uk_border_force_power...
    Summary is they can’t detain people for no reason, they can detain people for specific offences relating to immigration and citizenship, customs and excise and also the normal stuff any regular police officer can arrest people for.
    I’m no apologist for how much state authority they have, but it’s not as bad as you’re making out.
    rdm_blackhole · 1790858344 · focus · HN ↗
    It is true.
    The UK border agents (technically counter-terrorism) can stop you at the border, force you into a room, ask for your passwords to all your devices and you don't have the right to refuse.
    You also don't have the right to a lawyer to be in a room with you and you are compelled to answer all their questions and they do not need to tell you why they stopped you.
    Then, if you are lucky they return your devices 7 days later after they have been through everything.
    This guy went through it last year and talks about what happens when they stop you: <a href="https://youtu.be/991kRp8KUmo?si=-5S1uLE7K9KG_gNj" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/991kRp8KUmo?si=-5S1uLE7K9KG_gNj
    suslik · 1790860112 · focus · HN ↗
    > you don't have the right to refuse
    What happens if I still do? Or pretend that I forgot my pin and accidentally lock my phone down?
    rdm_blackhole · 1790860887 · focus · HN ↗
    The guy in the video explains exactly that.
    If you are a UK citizen, they will charge you under the terrorism act if you refuse to answer their questions or if you try to conceal anything or if you refuse to provide all the passwords to all your devices.
    As for what happens when you can genuinely not remember your passwords, I honestly don't know. The guy in the video just gave them access to everything because he travels a lot and did not want to have to explain why he has a terrorism charge to his name every-time he has to apply for a new visa.
    Maybe you can refuse and stay silent and fight the charge later in court with a good lawyer but who knows. IANAL so do your own research before doing anything.
    As for what happens if you are a foreigner and refuse to unlock your devices/ answer their questions, they can deport you and potentially ban you from entering the country for a certain amount of time or indefinitely.
    godwinson__4-8 · 1790863815 · focus · HN ↗
    > Maybe you can refuse and stay silent and fight the charge later in court with a good lawyer but who knows. IANAL...
    You ask who knows. Then you say IANAL. I'm excited for you. You're so close to identifying who might know! Keep doing your own research, you got this.
    bigfishrunning · 1790866957 · focus · HN ↗
    There is a problem when the laws are so convoluted that you need a professional interpreter, and those interpreters are prohibitively expensive.
    godwinson__4-8 · 1790868027 · focus · HN ↗
    Lawyers make YouTube videos. Lawyers, academics and legal advocacy groups often write copiously about these issues. You can find ways to interact with a lawyer which can be useful short of a prohibitively expensive retainer or representation.
    Or you could be extremely lazy and watch some random guys overwrought personal narrative which the commenter basically admitted was completely uninformative in explaining how the system actually works and then extrapolate from this video to make broad claims, wasting everyone's time.
    Yes the law is convoluted and complicated. Free societies that need to balance the same tension humans have always struggled with - between freedom and safety - and try to do so in a fair way despite all the impulses and incentives for abuse are going to be complicated. Justice used to merely be the mob. Are you sure you don't want the law to be complicated? You resent the modern need for the expertise of specialized lawyers? Do you complain medicine has gotten too complicated when the doctor doesn't begin by hacking your limbs off?
    bigfishrunning · 1790957694 · focus · HN ↗
    > Lawyers make YouTube videos.
    Above you mocked "Doing your own research"; most of the people "Doing their own research" are watching these Youtube videos by people who claim to be lawyers and may or may not be. You can't have it both ways.
    godwinson__4-8 · 1790960527 · focus · HN ↗
    Information literacy 101 would demand looking the person up. Or going to a law school's channel rather than some random.
    This really isn't that hard.
    Stop making excuses for mediocrity.
    ryandrake · 1790866632 · focus · HN ↗
    > As for what happens when you can genuinely not remember your passwords, I honestly don't know.
    This is pretty scary. I don't know any of my passwords because they are random strings of letters, numbers and symbols, and they're only kept in a password manager that sits on my powered-off PC at home. How do these border agents expect me to recite my passwords from memory?
    gib444 · 1790880207 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    pmyteh · 1790965661 · focus · HN ↗
    Not necessarily a problem (for them). The police can serve you a s.49/RIPA notice with a "period for compliance which is reasonable under all the circumstances" (49(4)) so you can go home and get the keys. I expect they'd have grounds to impound your devices, though, if they've grounds for invoking RIPA at all.
    If you've genuinely forgotten/don't have the keys, that could be a bigger problem. It is a defence, if charged, not to actually have the key - and they do have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt if "sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it" (53(3)(b)) - but that does ultimately involve convincing a magistrate or a jury.
    iamnothere · 1790861432 · focus · HN ↗
    They serve you a RIPA notice and you either provide the password or they prosecute you. Penalties are 2-5 years in jail depending on the nature of the investigation.
    I avoid flying anywhere near the UK or its territories.
    gib444 · 1790864491 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    creata · 1790871116 · focus · HN ↗
    I've seen ordinary people forget things they've done every day for years. It's not something that never happens.
    gib444 · 1790879777 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    geye1234 · 1790874165 · focus · HN ↗
    Thanks for stating this. The UK is far more authoritarian than the US. No first, fourth, fifth or sixth amendment. And HMRC can search your house without a warrant - see my other comment.
    The anti-Americanism on this site is bizarre. The USA gives people the greatest protections in the world.
    hn_acc1 · 1790890291 · focus · HN ↗
    GAVE, not gives - past tense. What good is an amendment if the govt can ignore it at will (2025+) and you can't sue successfully because SCOTUS will find some made up reason to make you lose?
    [deleted] · 1790929575 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    MiroslavPokorny · 1790915588 · focus · HN ↗
    Can you please share with me the UK equivalent of Guantanamo ?
    ndsipa_pomu · 1790943999 · focus · HN ↗
    Stoke-on-Trent
    ndsipa_pomu · 1790943982 · focus · HN ↗
    Depends on what aspect of authoritarianism that you're looking at. In the UK there's very little chance of getting shot by the police (especially as they don't routinely carry guns) and police shootings garner a lot of press coverage.
    Meanwhile, the U.S. has gangs of armed ICE "agents" that can pretty much murder people at will without even getting arrested.
    piloto_ciego · 1790878745 · focus · HN ↗
    I just want to say, as one of those filthy American types, that you always have the right to refuse anything, in any country for any reason.
    You might be persecuted for it - but that right to say, “F-you I’m not talking” is always an option, it’s just that it tends to be more pain than most are willing to endure. Myself included, to be fair, but the right to “STFU” is pretty hard for them actually to force you to comply with if you decide not to talk.
    thfuran · 1790858430 · focus · HN ↗
    If the information has to come from a freedom of information request, then either you have a whole secret body of law to which that response makes the public partially privy or that’s actual internal policy, not the limit of their legal power.
  3. rurban · 1790860851 · focus · HN ↗
    Welcome to the "democratic" regimes of US, UK, Russia and Turkey. Arbitrary border searches, interrogations and imprisonment, if you are on the wrong end of the political spectrum.
  4. dylan604 · 1790866305 · focus · HN ↗
    > these are common place things in the UK and no one cares
    That seems like a YP not an MP. Just because you and your fellow countrymen gave up long ago is not the problem of those fighting to not lose those rights now. Except maybe you guys make it easier as an example of for the government to show as an example of other countries are already doing it. Thanks for that.
    The fight might be a losing cause, but at least it is being fought as long as it can be fought instead of just laying down and accepting it like the UK seems to have done.
  5. stronglikedan · 1790868304 · focus · HN ↗
    > Americans complain about flock cameras and arbitrary border searches – these are common place things in the UK
    We complain about those things because we can clearly see that "the UK is an authoritarian state" because they are common place in the UK.
    > no one cares
    More like people pretend to not care for fear of being locked up for seemly arbitrary reasons, which seems to happen quite a lot over there based on the news reports, because "the UK is an authoritarian state".
    someonebaggy · 1790872317 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not illegal in the UK to say you don't like the cameras everywhere. But if you ask UK people, they seem to actually like them. It's a different culture I guess.
    asdff · 1790879087 · focus · HN ↗
    In the US we get assigned 1984 to read in school as a lesson on the dangers of dystopian tyrrany. In the UK they seem to see the book as a guide in a lot of ways.
    MentalM · 1790882199 · focus · HN ↗
    > It's not illegal in the UK to say you don't like the cameras everywhere.
    That is exactly how authoritarian state looks like.
    "It's not illegal in the <our-authoritarian-state> to do <something-our-authoritarian-state-does-not-like>" (but if you do, you'll be f.ucked. Probably. Because it is not illegal).
    someonebaggy · 1790883369 · focus · HN ↗
    No. Nobody is being punished in the UK for saying they don't like cameras everywhere.
    autoexec · 1790891855 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not sure why they wouldn't be. People have been arrested for peacefully protesting (<a href="https://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent-actions/united-kingdom-over-500-further-arrests-at-peaceful-protests/" rel="nofollow">https://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent-actions/united-kingdom-ove...), asking who elected the king (<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-62878954" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-62878954), holding up signs (<a href="https://apnews.com/article/palestine-action-terror-ban-arrests-supreme-court-193d7ef0cb31f5e4b37b720044631d4c" rel="nofollow">https://apnews.com/article/palestine-action-terror-ban-arres...), flying flags (<a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/02/flag-raising-activist-arrested-distress-public-order-oxford/" rel="nofollow">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/02/flag-raising-act...), posting photos of current events online (<a href="https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/08/30/fdbr-a30.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/08/30/fdbr-a30.html), trying to avoid facial recognition (<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/facial-recognition-cameras-technology-london-trial-met-police-face-cover-man-fined-a8756936.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/facial-recogniti...), and in countless instances where people expressed themselves on social media.
    Punishing someone for saying they don't like cameras seems like it'd be perfectly on brand for the UK at this point.
    someonebaggy · 1790940876 · focus · HN ↗
    Notice all of these are time/place/manner violations, except for Palestine Action which is explicitly ruled illegal.
    If you go to the US inauguration and yell "hashtag not my president!" you'll get arrested too.
    autoexec · 1790987793 · focus · HN ↗
    You'd be far more likely to get away with it in the US, if you can get past security and the efforts to corral you into "free speech zones". Many people did exactly that.
    <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-oath-of-office-jeered-inauguration-latest-a7538631.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-tru...
    <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-inauguration-protests-live-latest-news-updates-washington-dc-capitol-us-president-ceremony-watch-a7536526.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-tru...
    someonebaggy · 1791039453 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't believe if you yell "hashtag not my president" at trump's inauguration you won't be arrested.
  6. goatlover · 1790879308 · focus · HN ↗
    Maybe more Brits should care? I've seen some complaining online and in the media about living in a surveillance state.
2. jwr · 1790859098 · focus · HN ↗
  I'm lucky to live in a country (Poland) where border agents can either let you in, arrest you if there is an arrest warrant, or detain but only with a lawful basis for detention (as in, you are posing a threat to others) and detention may be used only when other measures have proved pointless or ineffective.
  This makes returning to the country nice and pleasant. The border agents never ask you creepy questions like: Where are you going? Where will you be staying? What do you intend to do? (it's what US border agents ask their citizens). They just say hi and let you in.
  1. keiferski · 1790859370 · focus · HN ↗
    Poland border agents do ask why you're visiting. Don't know where you're getting that info.
    ryanbrunner · 1790859650 · focus · HN ↗
    The obvious difference between your experiences and the person you're replying to is that he's residing there and you're visiting. You're right that your rights are far more limited when you're a visitor to a country crossing a border, but he and this thread are talking about what rights residents to a country have regarding the border.
    philipov · 1790875708 · focus · HN ↗
    Asking why someone is visiting is also pertinent to the border agent's direct job, because different types of visits require different documents, such as a work visa.
    orwin · 1790860837 · focus · HN ↗
    At least not if from the EU.
    jwr · 1790863467 · focus · HN ↗
    My point was that Polish citizens do not get asked. This is different for Americans. US citizens entering their own country have to answer these bizarre and sometimes creepy questions.
    keiferski · 1790863666 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, in that case I agree. I didn't realize you only meant Polish citizens.
    hdgvhicv · 1790864169 · focus · HN ↗
    I’m British, I entered Britain yesterday morning and didn’t say anything to anyone from leaving the plane to asking for a coffee at Ealing Broadway - it’s all automated. The job of the border is to check you are the person your passport claims to be, which seems reasonable.
    I did have to put my hotel on the landing form when I entered singapore last week but nothing more - again didn’t talk to anyone until checking in at the hotel. In China they did talk to me, asked me if I was there for business or tourism the week before, nothing more.
    I know the US border is perhaps the least friendly border I’ve ever crossed — and that includes going in and out of Gaza, but I assumed that US citizens didn’t get that treatment.
    pseudohadamard · 1790914338 · focus · HN ↗
    Same here, no interaction with border control people apart from them directing you to the passport reader if you look confused, although I did once have a nice chat with an older border control lady who was wondering whether it was worth getting back into IT work because they were desperate for people who still knew COBOL. Time taken to exit the aircraft and clear immigration and get to the luggage carousel is about 5 minutes, most of which is spent walking.
    +1 for the US border comment, and I've been into East Germany, Russia, and similar countries. And that's not an exaggeration, the US border experience is by far the worst of any country I've ever been to.
    stronglikedan · 1790868111 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't understand why they would even bother asking a US citizen who is returning home these questions: Where are you going? Where will you be staying? What do you intend to do?
    Wouldn't everyone just answer, "home", "home", and "go home"? What would even be the point?
    kube-system · 1790868328 · focus · HN ↗
    They ask because people are dumb and say stupid incriminating shit
    SirMaster · 1790871689 · focus · HN ↗
    When I come home I don't even talk to anyone...
    I just walk through the global entry gate without interacting with anyone...
    someonebaggy · 1790872237 · focus · HN ↗
    Even though the law says they have to let you in eventually, it doesn't say they can't harass you just in case you fall for it.
    mrguyorama · 1790878377 · focus · HN ↗
    The law also says that a cop can't arrest you for no reason but every lawyer will tell you that only means you get a check after the court battle, not that you won't get arrested.
    "They have to let you in" means that they don't let you in and you might be able to get a payout in court.
    Nobody at the border has the job of "Force the border agent to let in anyone who is an actual American because they have that right", and nobody holds a gun to the border agent's head if he does not let you in.
    1718627440 · 1790925727 · focus · HN ↗
    A society is fundamentally broken if people need to get held a gun to their head, to make them do, what the society has commonly decided they should do. That simply doesn't scale. You might be able to do that for a few fallen individuals, but not for load bearing ones.
    icantevenhold · 1790938159 · focus · HN ↗
    Every society - like any other sufficiently complex system - is operating in a constant state of brokenness. Societies are dynamic, with components (organizational, human, technical) failing and being replaced continuously.
    someonebaggy · 1790940909 · focus · HN ↗
    All are broken, some are more broken than others.
    1718627440 · 1790943353 · focus · HN ↗
    Broken in the sense of not sustainable, faulty in principle, might lead to further demise, or failure. Not as in there are issues, not everything is optimal.
    icantevenhold · 1791025053 · focus · HN ↗
    On a long enough timeline nothing is sustainable; it just depends on when it breaks down. I think society can go on like this for a long long time
    sidewndr46 · 1790877951 · focus · HN ↗
    I've had border agents repeatedly ask me my citizenship and where I was born at
    palmotea · 1790880057 · focus · HN ↗
    > I've had border agents repeatedly ask me my citizenship and where I was born at
    Why? Your passport indicates both of those things.
    clort · 1790882617 · focus · HN ↗
    There may be a difference between the passport you are presenting, and your passport. Until the border agent determines that those are equivalent, you are not necessarily who you say you are.
    moate · 1790879137 · focus · HN ↗
    >>I don't understand why they would even bother asking a US citizen who is returning home these questions...
    Racial profiling for one. Also "citizen" and "natural born citizen" getting treated differently for another.
    jjav · 1790930396 · focus · HN ↗
    > What would even be the point?
    The point is harassment, and trying to trick you into some perceived lie so they can detain you. The US is friendly like that.
    WalterBright · 1790876871 · focus · HN ↗
    Last month I returned to the US. My experience with passport control was I stood in front of a camera and a photo was taken, and the light turned green, and I went through. No questions, no interaction with passport staff.
    The fastest I've ever gotten through passport control.
    pyreko · 1790888358 · focus · HN ↗
    I had this experience at YYZ once in like 2024 (Canadian on a TN), it was very nice, didn't even have to hand over my passport. It went away at some point though and I haven't experienced it since...
    palmotea · 1790879979 · focus · HN ↗
    > My point was that Polish citizens do not get asked. This is different for Americans. US citizens entering their own country have to answer these bizarre and sometimes creepy questions.
    It's not like I kept a list or anything, but as an American, I don't think I've ever been asked questions like "Where are you going? Where will you be staying? What do you intend to do?" by border control when returning to the US.
    I distinctly recall having been asked questions about where I'm coming from, like "Do you have any X"? (where X is legal and common in a country I visited, but illegal in the US).
    kevin_thibedeau · 1790883264 · focus · HN ↗
    They're on the lookout for criminal activity. I transited lower Ontario with empty containers for a completed move between states. That can look like smuggling to the guards and you get more probing questions.
    eks391 · 1790906318 · focus · HN ↗
    I am a US citizen who has left the States a small handful of times. I received probing questions twice while crossing the USA-CAN border (which I have crossed ~6 times), once where the agent got angry with me because apparently I wasn't answering/following her directions well enough, and the other time the agent seemed to just be following a protocol. The only other time I was questioned was on my way to Iran, but everyone was getting questioned. That flight was delayed by over 3 hours too.
    I do not look like an immigrant or other marginalized group that stereotypically gets extra attention at borders. I know the difference, because my (American) brother-in-law gets 'randomly selected' everywhere for the misfortune of having Arabic ancestry.
    brailsafe · 1790913303 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    giancarlostoro · 1790913636 · focus · HN ↗
    Depends... I've come back to the US without being asked a single question.
  2. WesolyKubeczek · 1790859808 · focus · HN ↗
    But if you are from outside the EU, it’s tad different.
  3. ShinyLeftPad · 1790860057 · focus · HN ↗
    Strongly depends where you're from. I know of people who were turned around.
    LtWorf · 1790861749 · focus · HN ↗
    Did they have a valid passport?
    ShinyLeftPad · 1790871413 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes
    LtWorf · 1790885447 · focus · HN ↗
    Was it going to expire soon? Did they lack a visa?
    ShinyLeftPad · 1790940731 · focus · HN ↗
    no, the problem was that they additionally had a russian passport.
  4. OroPla · 1790878461 · focus · HN ↗
    If you are part of the EU and move to countries that are also part or at least have strong ties your experience on the border can still differ a whole lot.
    I've been traveling during high alert corona times where you had to carry extra corona related paperwork or at least that was the official message, but at the border no one even asked for your passport. There were a lot more people at the border but a lot less interest in getting close.
    Then at more normal times border agents wanted to know nearly everything about what was in the car. Sometimes you have to drive through a scanner and sometimes they just wish you a happy day or not even talk to you.
    It's mostly chance, but no one ever wanted my phone, so far.
  5. RyJones · 1790880333 · focus · HN ↗
    This is completely counter to my recent-ish experience. Over the last two years I've entered Poland... 14 times? and over time, the experience has gotten more intrusive.
    kazinator · 1790881319 · focus · HN ↗
    Could it be because of the war going on next door?
    RyJones · 1790910441 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes? The claim: the Polish border is easy. My counterclaim: no it is not.
    tremon · 1790932762 · focus · HN ↗
    That was not the original claim. The original claim was "border agents never ask creepy questions to returning Polish citizens".
  6. kuramori · 1790881298 · focus · HN ↗
    > Where are you going? Where will you be staying? What do you intend to do? (it's what US border agents ask their citizens)
    Recently you don't even have to get your passport out of the bag, nevermind talking to anybody - you just stroll through the gate. They know who you are via facial recognition (which is creepy in its own right). But how would you know that, tovarisch mayor, your metoditchka was written a long time ago.
    mmmlinux · 1790886002 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah I realized after I got home that I flew from London to DC recently, and I didn't show my passport once. I liked the stamps...
  7. galkk · 1790890863 · focus · HN ↗
    Polish border agents told me (Ukrainian, first time to Poland) to speak to them in polish language when they were checking my documents some years ago, so YMMV.
    abc123abc123 · 1790891931 · focus · HN ↗
    Polish police and border agents are absolutely disgusting. They come straight from the soviet union. Avoid at all cost. I certainly wont be going back to poland any time soon. At least not by air.
  8. MiroslavPokorny · 1790915452 · focus · HN ↗
    Its funny for a country obsessed with efficiency, the US border agents ask questions that are completely pointless and never verified and simply a waste of time.
    ndsipa_pomu · 1790943759 · focus · HN ↗
    The questions are more a means of judging whether you're nervous or behaving suspiciously. The actual answers are irrelevant unless they're especially bizarre.
    MiroslavPokorny · 1790982320 · focus · HN ↗
    Might as well go back to judging a person on the shape of their skull or tea leaves.
    ndsipa_pomu · 1791018398 · focus · HN ↗
    Not really as those aren't situational. If you start asking someone ordinary questions and they appear especially nervous then it's probably that they have something to hide and combined with other things (e.g. big heavy coat in hot weather) might tip off the security people.
    MiroslavPokorny · 1791077341 · focus · HN ↗
    Many people are nervous because they have poor local language skills.
    Nerves are not a measure of someone's guilt of anything. Life is a bit more complicated than that. Im sure we are aware of many world leaders who lie quite confidently and your trap would never catch them.
    ndsipa_pomu · 1791111205 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree - it's not a perfect test, but it is easy to implement and costs nothing extra. I suppose it's more likely to catch those people who have been coerced into carrying something illicit rather than experienced smugglers who do it all the time.
    It's not used to establish guilt, but to establish whether the person is worth further examination, so false positives (e.g. due to language difficulties) would just lead to either further interviewing or searching.
    There's not really any good reason to not do it as the questions are not overly intrusive.
    MiroslavPokorny · 1791155232 · focus · HN ↗
    Your statement it costs nothing is completely untrue.
    Firstly the staff would need training to effectively ask the right questions and interpret the responses.
    Asking the public questions cost time. If you have two lines and one does the required checks and the other also asks questions and conversations happen, the later will be slower.
    Slower lines means more staff are required.
    ndsipa_pomu · 1791180643 · focus · HN ↗
    It doesn't seem to me as though it would require a huge amount of extra training - they're just ordinary questions about where someone is going and the reason for the trip.
    It might take slightly longer, but the questions are usually asked at the same time as passport checks are performed so I doubt it takes much longer at all.
  9. orloffm · 1790938821 · focus · HN ↗
    They do ask where are you going and where you will be staying, even if you have a permanent residence permit. Depends on your passport.
  10. pfannkuchen · 1790960762 · focus · HN ↗
    Are you sure that US border agents ask this? I don't recall ever being asked this when reentering the US as a citizen. They may ask where I went, but never where I'm going within the US or what I'm doing there. Not sure if my experience isn't representative?
    jwr · 1790963317 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, I'm sure. Many, many data points over many years.
3. __MatrixMan__ · 1790863451 · focus · HN ↗
  I dream of a future where the disk image in my laptop both functions as an operating system, but can also be decrypted into secret files. We'll keep the extra entropy in a pile of AI slop next to the other piles of AI slop. That way, under scrutiny, it just looks like an OS full of AI slop.
  1. chatmasta · 1790864313 · focus · HN ↗
    My work computer seems to already have this feature!
    __MatrixMan__ · 1790900733 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you have to be careful not to use it in a way that clobbers the hidden secrets, or do they shift around while you work so that they're always recoverable?
    fn-mote · 1790905928 · focus · HN ↗
    I’m pretty sure you’re replying to a joke about AI slop filling a work computer.
    __MatrixMan__ · 1791047889 · focus · HN ↗
    Right, my point was that if it's not steganographically effective slop, then it doesn't fit the bill.
4. Razengan · 1790883302 · focus · HN ↗
  > Yeah, people are unfortunately not informed on just how much power border agents wield.
  The question is how the fuck did everybody devolve into invertebrates and let it become that way
  If you're not pissed at all the laws that treat you like a bitch, you should at least be pissed at how the ruling class is immune to those laws.
  1. nxc18 · 1790884026 · focus · HN ↗
    > how the fuck did everybody devolve into invertebrates
    This law actually predates the discovery of evolution by some decades.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_though...
5. avinoth · 1790947052 · focus · HN ↗
  This is in line with what I was discussing with my friends recently. Governments across the world weaponised their border protection for all their invasive data collection citing terrorism and other threats. This more or less started post 9/11, and used that as the reason. Now, the AI agents and their hacking is exactly going to be used as an excuse to introduce the real ID verification they've been trying to implement for a while now
  I recently wrote a short blog post about exactly this worry.
gblargg · 1790856581 · focus · HN ↗
Too bad phones aren't easy to do a full back up of, wipe, then restore after you are past the border agents. Or can keep all user data on a microSD card that you remove and secure before the search.
1. gib444 · 1790856674 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
2. ekejjedjndbd · 1790856925 · focus · HN ↗
  Why not? I thought this was easy enough at least on apple.
3. gib444 · 1790856940 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
4. fransje26 · 1790857506 · focus · HN ↗
  > that you remove and *secure* before the search.
  In a dark body cavity?
5. duskdozer · 1790857701 · focus · HN ↗
  Explain how? I've yet to find something reliable like this. At best you can have a decent number of apps automatically reinstalled to the original state, but not all, and most settings don't transfer, etc. And that requires root access, which most people don't have afaik.
  1. ssl-3 · 1790859007 · focus · HN ↗
    I used to do this kind of thing with TiBackup when Android phones were easy to play with and experimentation was more common.
    I'd back up the phone to an SD card and/or send the backup offsite over the network.
    After that, I could nuke whatever I wanted -- or factory reset it, switch to a different OS (we often called them "ROMs" back then), play with that for a bit, switch back and forth, or whatever.
    When the time was right, I'd use TiBackup to restore the backup. It didn't even have to be the same phone. Apps and data were restored to where they had been. Home screens looked the same. Settings and preferences went back to how they were. The same web stuff remained in browser cache, alongside the same cookies.
    There were occasional outliers that didn't come back perfectly, of course, but broadly speaking: It worked very well. Those outliers were few and easy to deal with.
    This required root access. But for a time (years), that was easy.
    (I will never accept any defense of any proclamations that we must be restricted from doing whatever the fuck we want with the hardware that we own. If I can do things with a desktop PC, then I should also be able to do those same things with a pocket computer.)
    catlikesshrimp · 1790862108 · focus · HN ↗
    You can buy an android which can easily be rooted if you want They might start restricting what you can do in your PC. Let's keep both free to modify in any way we want without comparison.
    duskdozer · 1790862675 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, I also used Ti[tanium?] Backup, and now use NeoBackup. Those still don't quite hit the spot for me of a full and reliable backup. It's close in many ways, but I've found system settings to be largely nontransferable, and many times apps would just seem to break or crash after restoring. So I have no idea how people do anything close to it without root, although I suppose it's possible at this point if you use a Google account and apps they probably have something.
    hckrme · 1790862887 · focus · HN ↗
    > If I can do things with a desktop PC, then I should also be able to do those same things with a pocket computer.
    I understand the sentiment behind this argument, but please stop making the argument for freedom to do computing on own devices by making a comparison between desktop PC and pocket computers (mobile devices).
    I believe that the bad-faith actors are just gonna force same state of things on desktop PCs as well moving forward, instead of enabling freedom of compute on mobile devices.
    LWIRVoltage · 1790862949 · focus · HN ↗
    Elsewhere in this very thread I talk about how we need a modern solution for full true image backup for phones; I'm also an example of somebody who could use it, as I have phones where if I was to back up and wipe them I would lose the ability to use some extremely expensive old thermal cameras that work by attaching to them, - if I wiped and reinstalled, even having the apps, they require reaching out to servers for initial authentication that no longer exists. A full image backup would solve this.
    Rooting is now far more difficult unfortunately, and isn't even available mostly; but I don't see a real method to do a full proper image backup of phones today.
    ssl-3 · 1790886710 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  2. __MatrixMan__ · 1790864751 · focus · HN ↗
    You can declaratively manage your phone with something like github.com/devindudeman/nix-android so you'd point at a decoy config file and rebuild before crossing the border and then point at the up-to-no-good config file once across.
    Of course you do have to be able to reference those files somehow, so they have to be online, but if there are no references to them on the device then the border folks would have to somehow know about them and be able to access them in order to link you and your device to the declared configs. There are a lot of ways to hide such a thing.
    Presumably the most sensitive thing here is your social graph and messages. I haven't verified if nix-android handles them in a way that would make sense here, but it's at least plausible that it might.
    vixen99 · 1790883464 · focus · HN ↗
    Exactly. Isn't this the most obvious thing to do?
    duskdozer · 1790921704 · focus · HN ↗
    It is really intriguing, though my small attempt at using nix with home manager on pc failed, so I'm not so confident on getting it working well on android. Especially considering that I do a decent number of apk mods
  3. nxc18 · 1790884264 · focus · HN ↗
    Extremely easy on iPhone with a Mac. Just plug it in.
6. piombisallow · 1790857778 · focus · HN ↗
  Or just take a different phone with you if you're that worried about it.
  1. amelius · 1790867857 · focus · HN ↗
    Or keep your phone in your pocket and give them one of these:
    <a href="https://imgur.com/gallery/history-of-telephone-pre-2000-6YCgYiR" rel="nofollow">https://imgur.com/gallery/history-of-telephone-pre-2000-6YCg...
7. segmondy · 1790864223 · focus · HN ↗
  The challenge is that if you make it easy to restore, then security matters so much or a random person out there is going to restore your entire phone on another device. Privacy needs strong security, and strong security often involves great inconvenience which most people don't want to deal with.
  1. tancop · 1790927766 · focus · HN ↗
    Use hardware attestation with recovery phrase only as a backup. Your phone authenticates itself to the server using its hardware keys, the server sends all the files over a secure connection and your phone restores them. Easier to restore than most cloud based solutions because you don't even need to sign in.
    Attackers would need to know you're using that specific recovery system, get your server address, have a zero day or backdoor on the security chip and they might also need to disassemble your phone. That's a FBI level capability not CBP, it would take days and be impossible to hide. Unless they hack your server but that's a risk with every type of backup.
    segmondy · 1790947204 · focus · HN ↗
    My point is that anyone that can do what you are saying already knows how to travel with their devices securely. I'm talking about regular non techies.
Tangurena2 · 1790856629 · focus · HN ↗
> “In [Fiscal Year] 2025, out of the over 419 million travelers CBP processed at ports of entry, CBP only searched the electronic devices of 55,318 international travelers,” the agency wrote, or 0.0013%.
The harassment is targeted at critics & opponents of the current regime. The message is very clear: Be afraid of us. Be very afraid
There are 33 days remaining until election day. Vote out all the incumbents.
1. ct0 · 1790857250 · focus · HN ↗
  If you think that the current administration is the sole driver of this, and it will end once their term expires, I have a bridge to sell you.
  1. RHSeeger · 1790857474 · focus · HN ↗
    If you think the current administration hasn't pushed this so far beyond, and so much faster, what any previous administration has done - since maybe the red scare - I don't have a bridge to sell you. Because honestly, you shouldn't be anywhere near anything involving public welfare.
    someonebaggy · 1790857501 · focus · HN ↗
    Every administration pushes it beyond what the previous administration did.
    grim_io · 1790857946 · focus · HN ↗
    The "everyone does it" defense is how the worst of the worst get away with it.
    iinnPP · 1790859312 · focus · HN ↗
    You are correct, but everyone does it can ALSO be used to prevent anyone from getting away with it.
    coldtea · 1790860544 · focus · HN ↗
    And the "this one is different" defense is how the slightly less bad get away with it and continue to push the envelopse towards worse.
    ryandrake · 1790866320 · focus · HN ↗
    And, "Both sides are bad" only provides cover to the side that is worse.
    coldtea · 1790886870 · focus · HN ↗
    "Both sides are bad" is the only one that condemns and potentially fights back against both bad actors.
    The "side A is worse" or "side B is worse" only condemns one, and bends over for the other.
    someonebaggy · 1790941068 · focus · HN ↗
    GP is right. In equating a very bad thing and a moderately bad thing you only bring attention away from the very bad thing. This isn't theoretical - it's an empirical observation.
    LtWorf · 1790861623 · focus · HN ↗
    But it makes it clear that voting won't fix this.
    grim_io · 1790862721 · focus · HN ↗
    Are you implying that not voting will somehow lead to a better solution?
    Voting increasingly less corrupt options(as good as we can judge) is the way. What else can you do?
    LtWorf · 1790885476 · focus · HN ↗
    I am implying that protesting and probably creating a new political party are needed to get some kind of actual change.
    someonebaggy · 1790941106 · focus · HN ↗
    Maybe, but due to Duverger's Law it's more likely to occur via a takeover of one of the big two parties.
    infinitezest · 1790859504 · focus · HN ↗
    This is just adding noise. Even if true, it's still very, very bad. Why even bother saying this?
    someonebaggy · 1790859989 · focus · HN ↗
    Because GGP blamed a specific administration.
    raincole · 1790857816 · focus · HN ↗
    > The number of warrantless device searches at the border and the significant invasion of privacy they represent is only increasing. In Fiscal Year 2022, CBP conducted an all-time high of 45,499 device searches.
    <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/federal-judge-makes-history-holding-border-searches-cell-phones-require-warrant" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/federal-judge-makes-hi...
    But sure it's the current administration what pushed this so far beyond. Beyond 40k phones into 50k phones!
    etiennebausson · 1790858364 · focus · HN ↗
    Given that travel hadn't recovered from covid in 2022, that 45k to 55k increase mean even less.
    Has the % of people searched actually decreased?
    I don't trust the current U.S. gov (or any U.S. gov, really), but the figure isn't actually increasing in a significant way. The US. remain as unwelcoming to visitors as they have been since 2001. Nothing to see in this report.
    strictnein · 1790859241 · focus · HN ↗
    > The US. remain as unwelcoming to visitors as they have been since 2001
    Strangely the stats don't back your assertion. Wouldn't being "unwelcoming since 2001" result in a decrease in travel?
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_the_United_States#Visitor_statistics" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_the_United_States#V...
    y1n0 · 1790859721 · focus · HN ↗
    I’d look for a change in slope. A permanent change that adversely affected tourism would decrease the slope, but maybe not so much as to make it negative.
    strictnein · 1790861448 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/international-tourist-trips?tab=slope&time=earliest..2015&country=USA~ESP~ITA~FRA~GBR~DEU~GRC~AUT" rel="nofollow">https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/international-tourist-tri...
    Between 1995 and 2015 (capturing data before and after 2001) the US's change in tourism increased at a faster rate than France, Italy, Greece, Germany, Austria, and the UK. Spain may have increased at a slightly faster pace, but it's close.
    jgwil2 · 1790859822 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    strictnein · 1790861261 · focus · HN ↗
    So it wasn't so bad that the number of people visiting the US decreased, but it was bad enough that it didn't increase as quickly as other places?
    Anyways, let's compare to more "welcoming" places. This shows the slope of the data, so it's pretty easy to compare the changes between countries.
    <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/international-tourist-trips?tab=slope&time=earliest..2015&country=USA~ESP~ITA~FRA~GBR~DEU~JPN~GRC~AUT~KOR" rel="nofollow">https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/international-tourist-tri...
    If you have data that shows otherwise, feel free to share it.
    y-curious · 1790858808 · focus · HN ↗
    There is no recovering from this stat drop to the person you’re responding to. Well done. 45k pre trump is surprisingly high
    adhadion · 1790859589 · focus · HN ↗
    I really doubt the previous administration was trying to deprive people of their liberty based on their political beliefs. The current administration very clearly is. I can't speak to any changes in the phone search policy, but your right to freedom of expression is gone at the federal level.
    <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/caught-in-crackdown-ice-cbp-doj-trump-arrests-convictions" rel="nofollow">https://www.propublica.org/article/caught-in-crackdown-ice-c...
    Stingertough · 1790859723 · focus · HN ↗
    Ok moron.
    coldtea · 1790860480 · focus · HN ↗
    >I really doubt the previous administration was trying to deprive people of their liberty based on their political beliefs
    Well, not for pro-themselves ones at least.
    user_7832 · 1790860621 · focus · HN ↗
    Both things are simultaneously possible: * This admin is actively hostile in a specific way (eg towards immigrants) * All govts have been hostile for a (very) hot minute (see: patriot act, snowden stuff that happened across different presidents).
    And a bonus: * This is not a new thing, a is related to why people occasionally talk about "the swamp"/the "deep state"/"3 letter agencies". NSA has self interest to stay alive regardless of admin.
    And this aspect (of "some parts of the govt aren't really affected by the elected reps) isn't a new thing at all either - see: Yes (Prime) Minister.
    EinsDueTresFour · 1790867468 · focus · HN ↗
    I often recommend Yes (Prime) Minister to colleagues when trying to illustrate to them that much of what is happening now matches a pattern of what happened before.
    brandon272 · 1790862163 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3726729">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3726729
    (2023)
    <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5192749">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5192749
    (2013)
    There have been discussions on HN about this topic across administrations. That is not to say that there aren’t differences in degree, but the government has long maintained that it has special rights to conduct searches at the border that would not be permitted elsewhere.
    hsuduebc2 · 1790857916 · focus · HN ↗
    Well they did but I would be willing to bet that their successors will not remove laws allowing this. They may relieve it little bit but why would they remove such potentially valuable tool?
    Government always want to have as much control as it can possibly acquire.
    mapotofu · 1790858244 · focus · HN ↗
    Many of us have been warning that the systems built by presidents before Trump, would be abused by a president like Trump, and here we are. I think the critics of the system are the ones with public welfare in mind and ask you to take a deep breath.
    iinnPP · 1790859415 · focus · HN ↗
    Indeed. We are the ultimate problem.
    KellyCriterion · 1790858430 · focus · HN ↗
    Well, at least did no Government before Trump demolish the US reputation in such a short time of 1.5y, so Im happy to hear about your bridge :-)
  2. order-matters · 1790858869 · focus · HN ↗
    they said vote out ALL incumbents
    iinnPP · 1790859104 · focus · HN ↗
    I also have a bridge to sell you.
    order-matters · 1790859276 · focus · HN ↗
    so then what, we just dont vote? no one said it would fix everything/anything, but signals of change need to be sent
    iinnPP · 1790859627 · focus · HN ↗
    If everyone avoided the ballot box? I imagine that coming to pass would indicate that the change has indeed already happened.
    You can't vote out of this, you can only organize across groups and control your way out.
    I'm happy to hear the alternative where you manage to vote incumbents out without the cooperation needed to actually fix the problem.
    npongratz · 1790859708 · focus · HN ↗
    But you see, they just have to vote harder!
    order-matters · 1790864033 · focus · HN ↗
    are you aware that voting takes about an hour one time on one day - so whatever it is youre thinking we do 'instead', we can still do as well? of which you havent suggested anything other than to sell people bridges
    iinnPP · 1790866428 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, very. That's the point I am making exactly. Voting isn't the target.
    I am saying that if you can organize to vote out the incumbents, doing so wouldn't accomplish the supposed goal.
    So yes, voting, even at a second-long time commitment, is less consequential than the required organization.
    iinnPP · 1790866961 · focus · HN ↗
    The comment is meant to illustrate that I don't think their statement is different enough to contradict.
    The lack of effort to vote is obvious. As is what happens when you vote out all of the incumbents.
    It's not a solution, that is obvious. Mostly because it's not suggesting anything concrete, either.
    My suggestion is quite a bit more concrete. It's grounded in reality. The level of organization required to vote out ALL incumbents, is better used actually solving the problem.
    I wouldn't presume to present such a solution, as I am only me. I would happily suggest voting in specific people over voting out the incumbents, at the very least.
    order-matters · 1790869501 · focus · HN ↗
    oh i think the disconnect is that the statement "vote out all incumbents" is much more of an expression of sentiment for individual consideration as a baseline and not an attempt to organize and control the vote to get exactly that output by treating voters like programmable robots, which is not democratic anyway
    iinnPP · 1790874758 · focus · HN ↗
    So, you're attributing a bunch of ideas to me that I never expressed. Making some pretty wild assumptions along the way.
    I speak literally. It's much less cognitively exhausting. How does one effectively navigate the minds of others anyway?
    All I'm doing is an expression of sentiment for individual consideration.
    order-matters · 1790949908 · focus · HN ↗
    idk man youre pretty difficult to talk to, by making a bunch of assumptions under the guise of taking something literally. not even sure what i attributed to you, nor do you need to navigate the minds of others. its more just hearing the feeling being expressed and not assuming a large stance being taken with logistics and organization involved
  3. lenerdenator · 1790860743 · focus · HN ↗
    "The previous administration is only doing what the last administration did!" seems to be the rallying cry of the Trump administrations.
    If Obama and Biden really did suck that much, and if Trump's the savior that they claim, he should be doing less of it, not more.
    Of course, that's blatantly ignoring the whole premise of Trump - a wannabe dictator implementing totalitarianism for the far-right in exchange for an opportunity to use the presidency for his personal gain in direct violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution - but that would be the improvement, not just the targeting of people you don't like with the same tactics.
2. petcat · 1790857424 · focus · HN ↗
  I will be curious to see statistics from past years. I'm wondering if this is a new thing. I'm pretty sure US customs and border patrol have always had this power. I think basically every country exercises this power
  1. anal_reactor · 1790857738 · focus · HN ↗
    The core issue is that on one hand, police needs power to protect the citizens, but at the same time the power might corrupt them.
    echelon · 1790858323 · focus · HN ↗
    This is why state powers need judicial oversight.
    There are some instances where powers need to be exercised in a hurry, but there should always be proper reporting and a paper trail, with stiff reprimanded for misuse or abuse of the system. Accidents can happen, but they should be infrequent and should follow protocol.
    It would be great if citizens had more direct involvement in these cases too. I don't see why egregious abuses shouldn't be tried by jury.
    Police and intelligence agency employees should be held to a higher standard than civilians (like military personnel are subject to UCMJ), and breeches of protocols should lead to harsher punishments imposed upon them. It would be fine to pay them more if it required more training and accountability.
    someonebaggy · 1790860133 · focus · HN ↗
    In most of Europe, police carry guns. But they are afraid to fire those guns, because there will be a disciplinary process and they are likely to lose their job or go to jail if they can't show there was no other alternative. But if there is a situation where it is necessary to fire the gun, it will be.
    echelon · 1790861417 · focus · HN ↗
    In the US, anyone can own a gun. Police have to perform a different risk calculus than in Europe.
    Police officers are 30x more likely to be murdered in the US South than in, say, Germany.
    catlikesshrimp · 1790861668 · focus · HN ↗
    You just changed 45x to 30x. What is the source?
    echelon · 1790861913 · focus · HN ↗
    45x included accidents. I'll compile the citations, one moment.
    greedo · 1790864101 · focus · HN ↗
    Your comparison to Germany with "30x" the risk is pointless when less than two are murdered per year. Measure that against police misconduct that results in bodily harm/death per year.
    watwut · 1790865339 · focus · HN ↗
    Most line-of-duty deaths are caused by traffic accidents. Cops spend a lot of time on the streets, they are more likely to by hit by a car then shot.
    mc32 · 1790862761 · focus · HN ↗
    Also in Europe more cops have K-9s and aren’t afraid to sick them on suspects.
    everforward · 1790866306 · focus · HN ↗
    They don’t get tried in part because of Qualified Immunity (which has some rationality but I think we’ve taken it much too far), and in part because the structure of the system doesn’t incentivize it.
    The people who would charge the officers are the same people who rely on the police to provide evidence. Both groups work closely together. Malfeasance by police typically provides the prosecution with evidence they want or people to charge. There’s no incentive other than morality to charge them, and a lot of reasons to find a way to rationalize it as untrue, or necessary, or whatever.
    pstuart · 1790859734 · focus · HN ↗
    > police needs power to protect the citizens
    Those terms need to be clearly defined. SCOTUS has declared that the police actually have no duty to protect and to serve the people.
    And with an overwhelming amount of evidence, the police operate with effectively no accountability and repeated demonstrate that they abuse their powers freely.
    So yes, laws without teeth are pointless but the state's monopoly on violence should only be granted when it can be demonstrated to not be abused.
    pessimizer · 1790868660 · focus · HN ↗
    This is not the issue. The police are tools.
    The question is whether the people who control the police are subject to democratic processes. They are not. We live in an oligarchy whose control over the government is exercised through two small private clubs who have written themselves into the law. To which it has been decided that infinite money can be donated, that money given without explicit quid pro quo is simply a gift, and that money given after something has been done is simply a "gratuity."*
    It's an evil country, and the most lucrative middle-class profession is to generate daily the vocabulary to justify its evil acts.
    I can tell you who doesn't ever get searched at the border. In fact, I bet you could tell me. Peter Thiel doesn't get searched at the border. Kamala Harris doesn't get searched at the border. Jeffrey Epstein never got searched at the border. Tom Cruise doesn't get searched at the border.
    [*] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._United_States" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._United_States
    usrbinbash · 1790869157 · focus · HN ↗
    That would be a fine argument, if anyone had proof that invasive search practices actually made peoples lifes noticeably safer.
    And yet, almost every single time such practices are implemented, nothing about actual safety changes...but a whole lot about surveillance does.
    "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security will lose both.
    -- Benajmin Franklin, paraphrased
    anal_reactor · 1790923588 · focus · HN ↗
    > That would be a fine argument, if anyone had proof that invasive search practices actually made peoples lifes noticeably safer.
    El Salvador. Case closed.
    "Mama! Poo-poo!"
    — Adolf Hitler, as a toddler
  2. Lendal · 1790857949 · focus · HN ↗
    "It has always been this way, this is normal" is the typical first response to tyranny. It puts you on their side, which is fine if that's where you want to be. Just be aware of it. If you think it's wrong, you definitely don't want to be taking the side of "it's normal," because whether or not it's normal is irrelevant when your government is doing immoral and tyrannical behavior in your name.
    strictnein · 1790858607 · focus · HN ↗
    Weird response to a pretty benign question.
    Asking whether or not something is new or how frequently it's been done in the past isn't saying it's acceptable nor does it put them on the side of tyranny. In fact, a sign of tyranny would be a significant uptick in the number of these searches, and how else would you be able to see that worrying signal without answering the question they asked?
    soco · 1790859194 · focus · HN ↗
    The best moment to fix this was yesterday. The second best time to fix it is now.
    strictnein · 1790860197 · focus · HN ↗
    Ok? That cliche is true of every single problem on Earth.
    chaps · 1790864009 · focus · HN ↗
    Sometimes it's helpful to write things or say things out loud even if they're obvious. Like my comment right now.
    mingus88 · 1790866056 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s not even true if you want to be pedantic about it
    The quote is actually “the best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago. The second best time is today”
    29 years ago, 28 years ago … all better than today. There are an infinite number of times better (and worse) than today.
    johnofthesea · 1790859849 · focus · HN ↗
    > Weird response to a pretty benign question.
    How was this question:
    > I think basically every country exercises this power
    strictnein · 1790860093 · focus · HN ↗
    You quoted something that wasn't part of the question, which was "I'm wondering if this is a new thing".
    Their impression was that it wasn't and that other countries do similar things. Stating your understanding of a situation helps guide discussion and helps people answer your inquiries. Doing that should be encouraged, not somehow treated as an endorsement of tyranny.
    singleshot_ · 1790861975 · focus · HN ↗
    Where do you see a question? Poster made two inane statements.
    p_j_w · 1790865166 · focus · HN ↗
    > how else would you be able to see that worrying signal without answering the question they asked?
    Was anyone ever refused entry because they had an image poking fun at Kamala Harris? There, your question has been answered.
    totallymike · 1790858715 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    mc32 · 1790861922 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure but that means November will have no impact on what CPB does. It’s always happened and will continue to happen just like stock trading with insider information by congress members will continue to happen regardless of November results. The vote came up and it was voted down and I don’t see that changing. I don’t see the spying on citizens changing. The NSA spied on Congress and they did nothing about it.
    It’s disingenuous to imply that November will have an effect on either of those topics.
    gilrain · 1790862195 · focus · HN ↗
    Actually and very obviously, what's happening now is new and worse.
    dmitrygr · 1790862558 · focus · HN ↗
    My math teacher used to say that “obviously” means “I don’t know how to prove” and “trivially” means “tenuously at best”. Thanks for the demo of this in action.
    It’s been a thing since 1789: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
    sixothree · 1790862829 · focus · HN ↗
    Enough alarm bells are ringing to suggest that this is not normal. The persecution of political enemies isn't even a veiled threat, they are spoken outright in public.
    mc32 · 1790862996 · focus · HN ↗
    Right like the ~400 subpoenas on Republican lawmakers by Jack S with the tenuous linkage to the Jan riot. You might have reason to subpoena 10 or even 30 lawmakers who may have had some linkage but going after ~400 seems dubious.
    mschuster91 · 1790863193 · focus · HN ↗
    An event like the Jan 6th putsch attempt would, in pretty much every democracy that has got some sense of self-preservation, result in at the very least intense public hearings, and outside of the European Union that bans the death penalty under all circumstances, followed by the chief perpetrators getting strung up at the same gallows they brought to hang Mike Pence off of.
    The fact that barely any consequences came for those instigating the putsch, except a few of those dumb enough to do stuff like parade around in front of cameras, is completely inexcusable.
    mc32 · 1790863847 · focus · HN ↗
    The brought a mock up of a gallows -the same kind other protesters bring to anti-Trump rallies. Should we punish people who went into the Congressional buildings? Yes! (Keep in mind we have hosted protests in Congress too) Do they need to subpoena ~400 lawmakers and $10 donors to the campaign? I think it’s obvious that that is overreach and intimidation.
    mschuster91 · 1790864068 · focus · HN ↗
    > The brought a mock up of a gallows -the same kind other protesters bring to anti-Trump rallies.
    I'm not aware of this being a widespread practice at anti-Trump rallies.
    > Do they need to subpoena ~400 lawmakers and $10 donors to the campaign? I think it’s obvious that that is overreach and intimidation.
    Well... it's not unlikely that there might have been "inside help" from lawmakers and/or their staff or even general Congressional staff. The purpose of an investigation is to go, dig deep and fully take apart whatever conspiracy there was.
    As for the donors - anti-terrorist laws in pretty much every country don't care if it was just a $10 donation. Donate to a cause that ends up being terrorists, be labeled as a terrorism supporter.
    serf · 1790866186 · focus · HN ↗
    the gallows mockup was one of the reasons for the reaction to the Jan 6th stuff.[0] , although as far as what political party the owning group is using it for or against is sort of up for grabs.
    [0]: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/us/politics/jan-6-gallows.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/us/politics/jan-6-gallows...
    mc32 · 1790888976 · focus · HN ↗
    Rioting is not terrorism. Terrorism usually involves conspiracy and planning they're typically not one-time, ad-hoc events. I know governments all over the world like to go overboard with that terms since Sep 11 because it's a get-them for free kind of card, but to me it means actual infliction of terror. A mock gallows is not. If it were, lots of protests with burning effigies, etc. could quite possibly be considered terroristic events.
    moshegramovsky · 1790867465 · focus · HN ↗
    The biggest mistake of Joe Biden's life was not making sure that Trump was in handcuffs on the afternoon of January 20th, 2021.
    [deleted] · 1790863583 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    amanaplanacanal · 1790867533 · focus · HN ↗
    Subpoenas are an investigating tool. It's part of gathering the data. I think you may be confused. It's not in any way a punishment.
    Do you think at that point he had it out for Republicans in general? Republican congressmen were appalled by what happened on Jan 6th, and it was only because they thought Trump would just go away that he wasn't convicted in the Senate.
    Trying to frame that investigation as some sort of political witch hunt is ridiculous.
    orochimaaru · 1790871746 · focus · HN ↗
    I guess the question is whether the reporting is politically motivated because someone doesn’t like the current admin or grounded in historical fact.
    I get what you’re saying and agree. But if there is no statistically significant jump in the number from historical data for previous administrations then I can conclude that the reporting is politically motivated.
  3. alistairSH · 1790858495 · focus · HN ↗
    Only new-ish because cell phones are now not only ubiquitous but also contains troves of typically private information. Historically, individuals didn't have their entire lives, financial details, personal details, etc on their bodies when traveling. The border exception to the 4th was used primarily for enforcing customs/trade regulations. That carve out is now used to harass citizens.
    ryandrake · 1790867548 · focus · HN ↗
    Not to blame the victim, but maybe we should not be keeping so much personal information about our lives on a device that is at risk like this. A border patrol agent who gains access to my phone is going to be pretty disappointed to find basically nothing about me on it.
  4. gortok · 1790859812 · focus · HN ↗
    It has always been this way; but for the hundreds of years before computers that fit in the palm of your hand that have your entire life on them, it was to ensure you weren’t bringing dangerous goods or produce into the country. It was a physical search of physical items.
    The issue now is that my entire life is literally on my phone.
    The issue now is that there is a 100-mile ‘border search exception’ in place. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
    Now, within 100 miles of the border, should CBP choose to, they can search me without a warrant and search everything in my phone, and even retain it if they’d like. If I want to challenge that, I need tens of thousands of dollars and time.
    This is the very definition of an unreasonable search; but to change that we have to change the politicians and change the judiciary. It’s up to us, but until we get it changed, we may as well consider the 4th amendment a dead letter, and that means trouble for all of us.
    moron4hire · 1790861692 · focus · HN ↗
    Wikipedia's map is wrong. The "border" includes international airports. There is very little of the population that is not within 100 miles of this "border."
    The map also does not show Hawai'i, which would be one green blob, there is no part of Hawai'i not 100 miles from the border. All of the New England states are similarly small enough to be completely covered, even by the erroneous picture of the physical border.
    You basically get a few, mostly uninhabited spots out in the West that aren't covered.
    Asmod4n · 1790862326 · focus · HN ↗
    I know of no western country which puts its citizens in jail when they want to cross the border for not liking the hairstyle of their president.
    ryandrake · 1790867170 · focus · HN ↗
    > It has always been this way; but for the hundreds of years before computers that fit in the palm of your hand that have your entire life on them
    Or, maybe it might help to stop putting our entire lives on our phones.
    If a border patrol agent coerces access to my phone, they're not going to find much. A few default apps, Lyft, an a music player. They're not going to find any social media, any photo album full of personal pictures, any banking apps or really anything that helps them understand what kind of person I am. I'm not going to like them going through it, but the blast radius is limited.
    And that's me, a regular Joe, not wanted by Interpol. If you're at high risk, you should already have normalized this "app minimalism" mentality.
    willmarch · 1790868859 · focus · HN ↗
    Why should people give up their right to free expression and being secure in their papers simply because you have voluntarily given up that right in advance?
    usrbinbash · 1790868875 · focus · HN ↗
    Here's the thing:
    People SHOULD be allowed to put their entire lives on phones if they want to.
    People SHOULD NOT have to worry about governments using that against them.
    ryandrake · 1790869765 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree with both of those things! I'm just suggesting a precaution. People SHOULD be able to cross the road without getting run over, but we look both ways as a precaution. We shouldn't have to, but we do.
    robotresearcher · 1790875607 · focus · HN ↗
    If I don’t want the Man to mess with me I can be locally defensive, but it’s also good to keep an eye on the power we allow the Man. Working both ends concedes neither.
    BeetleB · 1790886100 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't disagree with any of your concerns.
    However:
    > The issue now is that my entire life is literally on my phone.
    Is something you should fix. And not because of border searches.
    m463 · 1790898451 · focus · HN ↗
    This is probably true of everyone's phone. Most phones will have a comprehensive profile of who you are, where you live, where you frequent, who you associate with, and what you like to do. Along with specifics even you don't realize.
    BeetleB · 1790903722 · focus · HN ↗
    It has a lot, but nowhere close to my own life.
    I do most online stuff from a PC.
  5. franga2000 · 1790862024 · focus · HN ↗
    I've been hearing about the US searching phones for many years, but not a single time for any other (non-dictatorship) country. The advice for travelling to the US in my circles is "wipe your device, install some believable bullshit, restore from backup when you're through". Not for any other "normal" country.
    machomaster · 1790863673 · focus · HN ↗
    37signals has been having border crossing guidance at least since 2020. <a href="https://github.com/kspr9/basecamp-37signals-handbook/blob/master/international-travel-guide.md" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/kspr9/basecamp-37signals-handbook/blob/ma...
    usrbinbash · 1790868956 · focus · HN ↗
    > The advice for travelling to the US in my circles is
    There's a much simpler advice:
    "Don't."
  6. phendrenad2 · 1790865218 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    ryandrake · 1790866430 · focus · HN ↗
    > They mistake "is this true?" for "this should be true".
    For some reason, HN commenters constantly struggle with this (simple) concept.
  7. adrian_b · 1790866202 · focus · HN ↗
    It is pretty certain that not every country exercises this power, though it seems that a few other English-speaking countries also do this.
    In many hundreds of border controls through many countries of Europe and Asia, including in places with tight security like Israel, I have never seen any case of searching for information in any belongings of the travelers, like computers or smartphones or even notebooks or the like.
    bsammon · 1790871054 · focus · HN ↗
    > I have never seen any case of searching for information in any belongings of the travelers,
    "I have never seen" is very different from "it doesn't happen".
    I'm pretty sure in many countries, border control agents do their worst stuff out of sight of the public.
    Lumich · 1790880375 · focus · HN ↗
    « unlike the Americans they kept their methods unchanged after 9/11 »
    That's a good one :) It shows a couple things, like:
    • a certain independence from Uncle Sam (like they displayed when they bombed the USS Liberty in 1967)
    • that their own population was already sufficiently propagandized into paranoia mode (fear and loathing of “evil muslims”) in order to never make peace and keep the hate up
    • and of course that they knew there was nothing to worry about wrt the 9/11 hoax
  8. SmirkingRevenge · 1790871051 · focus · HN ↗
    GPT compiled stats, treat with caution:
    Fiscal Year | Device Searches | Travelers at POEs | Rate | Equivalent ------------|-----------------|--------------------|------------|------------ 2012 | 5,085 | 351.6M | 0.00145% | 1 in 69,200 2013 | 5,709 | 362.3M | 0.00158% | 1 in 63,500 2014 | 6,029 | 375.0M | 0.00161% | 1 in 62,200 2015 | 8,503 | 383.2M | 0.00222% | 1 in 45,100 2016 | 19,033 | 390.6M | 0.00487% | 1 in 20,500 2017 | 30,200 | 397.4M | 0.00760% | 1 in 13,200 2018 | 33,296 | 413.9M | 0.00804% | 1 in 12,400 2019 | 40,913 | 410.3M | 0.00997% | 1 in 10,000 2020 | 32,038 | ~238M | 0.0135% | 1 in 7,420 2021 | 37,450 | ~179M | 0.0209% | 1 in 4,780 2022 | 45,499 | ~316.7M | 0.0144% | 1 in 6,960 2023 | 41,767 | >394M | ~0.0106% | ~1 in 9,440 2024 | 47,047 | >420M | ~0.0112% | ~1 in 8,940 2025 | 55,318 | >419M | ~0.0132% | ~1 in 7,570
    The Biden years are a bit of a scramble - covid and the aftermath - but the trend line goes up
    These stats aren't also capturing who gets stopped and why, which is pretty important, especially given the current government.
3. JensenTorp · 1790858371 · focus · HN ↗
  Unfortunately you have made it about politics, so half the people won't listen to you, and half will agree without understanding the problem of the situation.
  1. phoghed · 1790859606 · focus · HN ↗
    Brother on what planet is the customs and border agency of your government doing a warrantless search of your devices not political?
    JensenTorp · 1790865517 · focus · HN ↗
    Surely you understand that making it about "Trump" implies you can fix it by voting, which you can't, because the laws were there under Democrat administrations too.
    As soon as you say "Trump man bad" then the underlying discussion that needs to be had is lost.
    jobs_throwaway · 1790865863 · focus · HN ↗
    It is obviously political, but the same practices happened under Biden and Obama. It is very clearly a both-sides issue, and I'm not sure how voting for dems is supposed to help.
    aqme28 · 1790866661 · focus · HN ↗
    He didn't say to vote for dems.
    xdennis · 1790867154 · focus · HN ↗
    He said "current regime". He obviously means the previous regime didn't do this (as if Snowden didn't happen under Obama).
    throwforfeds · 1790867907 · focus · HN ↗
    Not OP, but I wouldn't so sure to read that intent into it. There are plenty of people on the left that are critical of the dems. We can both be critical of this practice under Obama as well as under Trump. Voting out incumbents, to me, would mean getting rid of all the officials that have been complacent in this practice, on both sides.
  2. Pigo · 1790866519 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm definitely seeing a lot more politics on here lately. I still come here after all these years to get a break from politics.
  3. ncr100 · 1790867857 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
4. totallymike · 1790858879 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
5. harikb · 1790864585 · focus · HN ↗
  Technically the law applies to '100 miles of a port of entry' [1] so they can use it to come into your home too, obviously selective homes. Most population of US lives within '100 miles of a port of entry' [2]
  [1] <a href="https://www.help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-1253?language=en_US" rel="nofollow">https://www.help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-1253?language=en_...
  [2] <a href="https://www.southernborder.org/100_mile_border_enforcement_zone" rel="nofollow">https://www.southernborder.org/100_mile_border_enforcement_z...
  1. wang_li · 1790867145 · focus · HN ↗
    They cannot enter a home without probable cause or a warrant. And outside of an actual port of entry, say at a random checkpoint they set up, they can only check IDs and look into cars the same as regular police. To perform an actual search of a vehicle in those circumstances still requires a warrant. From your first link at the cbp.gov website:
    >Border Patrol checkpoints do not give Border Patrol Agents carte blanche to automatically search persons and their vehicles, other than in the manner described above. To conduct a legal search under the Fourth Amendment, the agents must develop particularly probable cause to conduct a lawful search. Probable cause can be developed from agent observations, records checks, non-intrusive canine sniffs, and other established means. Motorist's may consent to a search but are not required to do so.
    pessimizer · 1790867815 · focus · HN ↗
    Your quote makes clear that no warrant is required, or even likely to ever be used, as long as "agent observations," "records checks," and "canine sniffs" are an option.
    I'm sure that "other established means" are a very restrictive requirement if they fail to have an "observation."
    wang_li · 1790868421 · focus · HN ↗
    These are criteria that any police officer can use, a dog sniff outside your vehicle, a big bag of pills labeled "methamphetamine" sitting on your dashboard, an outstanding warrant when they run your id after a lawful stop. If they abuse them you have the right to argue for dismissal of evidence in court and if appropriate you can sue for damages and collect lots of cash from whatever level of government was the abusive one. Tort liability is a thing.
    Sure, they can lie about probable cause, but they would then have that evidence thrown out in any case that derived from the search. Similarly, I can kick in your door and search your house and your only recourse is violence or the legal system. The whole question here is not whether a search is possible, but whether there is any legal consequences of it.
6. mmooss · 1790866873 · focus · HN ↗
  > Vote out all the incumbents.
  If you vote out all the incumbents then you encourage them to ignore you. You will vote against them whether they support, ignore, or oppose what you want. Also, removing the people who agree with you makes it harder to form a majority for your cause.
7. paimapi · 1790867286 · focus · HN ↗
  this 100-mile border rule has been on the books for a while long before Trump. and people have been saying for a while that it could lead to fascist actions against individuals. if you give an institution the power to silence its critics it will use it eventually regardless of how 'just' it claims to be. it's not really a single-party-does-it-wrong issue, at least not since neoliberals took over the left-wing party
  which is to say - you sure can vote. but if you really want to do something, there's plenty of local hacktivist groups around doing things like logging ALPRs to maps, attending townhalls to yell at pro-surveillance councilmembers, and the like
  my experience with those groups is that anybody who's remotely tech savvy and/or a spreadsheet whiz is a godsend. if there's one thing movement organizers are generally bad at it's knowing how to use the technical tools to actually stay organized
8. arcanemachiner · 1790868008 · focus · HN ↗
  Every president since 9/11 has extended the state of emergency that allowed this shit to happen in the first place.
  Good luck with that vote.
  1. glenpierce · 1790868243 · focus · HN ↗
    Only one has weaponized it against their critics. They are not the same.
    arcanemachiner · 1790870188 · focus · HN ↗
    As if that was not the inevitable outcome of setting up such a system in the first place.
  2. bloomingeek · 1790871620 · focus · HN ↗
    <Good luck with that vote.> I know plenty of people who won't vote because of an attitude like this, this is one of the reasons we, in America, are in the political nightmare we're in. yes, we only get one vote apiece, but that vote must be cast to defeat the poisonous stain that has infected the GOP. If you disagree, at least vote for the Constitution.
9. pjmlp · 1790868126 · focus · HN ↗
  Assuming that the election actually works.
  What about having UN observers on the ground to ensure fair elections, like the countries this administration is so found of?
  1. generalizations · 1790870020 · focus · HN ↗
    We already established precedent (Biden election results disputes) that we don't get to question how fair the elections are.
    saveferris · 1790873221 · focus · HN ↗
    Are you suggesting the other side didnt get to dispute that Biden won? There were literally a 100 lawsuits, all of them lost except like 1 on some random technical issue that had zero impact to the results.
    Some states had quite a deep dive, forensic audits, the whole thing. <a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-wisconsin-presidential-elections-state-elections-madison-9a2f172dd8074668ded26bd5b0b41fbb" rel="nofollow">https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-wisconsin-presidential-...
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Maricopa_County_presidential_ballot_audit" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Maricopa_County_president...
    The 2020 election was probably the most scrutinized in history. How is that not being able to question a fair election?
    Steltek · 1790873402 · focus · HN ↗
    Except this time, the regime in charge taking public action to tamper and interfere with elections, including threats of intimidation at polling stations. Red state governments are outright gloating that they're gerrymandering their districts based on party lines to retain power.
    Even if Dems take the House and Senate, this can't be called a fair election.
    Detrytus · 1790885790 · focus · HN ↗
    The US have not had a single fair election in its entire history. First it was due to exclusion of women, slaves, Native Americans from voting. Then both parties started their own shenaningans: Republicans with gerrymandering and Democrats with importing illegal immigrants so that their states have more seats in Congress.
    cthalupa · 1790874392 · focus · HN ↗
    What do you mean you don't get to question how fair the elections are? The sitting president of the entire country has questioned and investigated them. No one has stopped questioning and investigating them. People literally stormed the capital over it and had effectively zero real long term consequences in the overwhelming majority of cases. Dozens and dozens of lawsuits, none of which amounted to anything, even when they were in front of Trump appointee judges.
    The precedent, if anything, is that we will tolerate people upending the whole public discourse and portions of the government for years over nonsense that never had any evidence of anything occurring on a level that would impact the elections.
    Meanwhile, Trump has spent the entire administration trying to restrict the ability for demographics that won't vote for him from being able to vote. Openly. Sometimes honestly, but mostly also blaming all of it on the election he lost and claiming it's to stop the voter fraud that never actually occurred.
    The precedent that was set is that questioning the election can become dogma for a political party no matter if there is absolutely zero evidence of what they are saying happened.
10. carefree-bob · 1790869294 · focus · HN ↗
  While I can't really object to voting out all the incumbents, let's be realistic -- that is not going to change the fact that when you cross a border you are going to be subject to having your belongings searched, and that this search will be very targeted, applying to less than a fraction of a percent of border crossers. It does not matter which nation you are entering, it's been this way for at least 100 years. The idea that border crossings are just places where you are waved through is a libertarian fantasy.
  It is worth pointing out that both when you enter a prison and when you enter a country, you are subject to getting searched. My parents now avoid traveling through the UK because they have been searched even though they are just transiting through the airport.
11. rdbl27 · 1790873087 · focus · HN ↗
  "Critics and opponents of the current regime" who travel overseas includes far more than 55k people every single day.
  A more honest way of interpreting that data is: "even if you are a vocal critic of the current regime, it's extremely unlikely anyone will ever search your phone at the border."
12. geye1234 · 1790873991 · focus · HN ↗
  Do border guards in most countries require a warrant to search you? Rhetorical question.
  In the UK, HMRC can search your house without a warrant if they have 'reasonable suspicion' if goods that are 'liable to forfeiture' are likely to be moved or destroyed. See Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, section 161. Anything seized can be used against you in court. In 2014, HMRC described this power as 'frequently used'.[0] CBP doesn't have that power and it's unthinkable they'd be given it.
  Why is the far more limited CBP power (which it shares with almost every border force in the world) mentioned here every 2 weeks or so, while HMRC's very broad power to search your house is ignored?
  [0] <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7e1bbae5274a2e87daf98e/HMRC_Powers_of_Entry_Review_Report__Final_-_Nov_2014.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7e1bbae5274...
  1. gib444 · 1790881608 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
tantalor · 1790856794 · focus · HN ↗
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.
It's self explanatory.
1. LadyCailin · 1790857317 · focus · HN ↗
  Haha, as if the constitution matters anymore.
2. someothherguyy · 1790857417 · focus · HN ↗
  > It's self explanatory.
  if only so <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774699" rel="nofollow">https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=693326075362777...
3. hermannj314 · 1790858205 · focus · HN ↗
  It is not self-explanatory how to define the weasel word "unreasonable"
  1. singleshot_ · 1790863864 · focus · HN ↗
    I defy you to go to law school with that attitude, sir
    hermannj314 · 1790865295 · focus · HN ↗
    Torres v. Madrid (5-3)
    Carpenter v. United States (5-4)
    Collins v. Virginia (8-1)
    Barnes v. Felix (9-0)
    These are all Supreme Court cases that were specifically about the 4th amendment and happened in the last 10 years.
    The 4th amendment is over 200 years old and yet requires constant supervision by the Supreme Court to define the word reasonable or to police the lower courts understanding of precedent.
    So you are wrong, with whatever presumption you are making that the word "unreasonable" is well defined.
    singleshot_ · 1790949825 · focus · HN ↗
    I defy you to read my post without understanding a single lick of it. It is remarkable how far away from the point you landed.
    The entire point of my post -- nay, the entire point of the jury system in the United States -- is that until a jury is empaneled, the word "reasonable" may as well have no meaning whatsoever. No one is ever going to define that word short of a jury. You may think you know what is reasonable, they may think they have set forth reasonability in the law, but the only judge that's ever going to make an applicable decision on the word is a juror.
    The Supreme Court may decide whether a reasonable jury could have come to a certain conclusion (about whether something was reasonable) but the Supreme Court is also not the place to look for this definition.
    Good luck in your studies.
4. wat10000 · 1790858242 · focus · HN ↗
  I’m always confused when people say this. It’s vague as heck! That one little word in there, “unreasonable,” makes it completely up for interpretation.
  1. bad_haircut72 · 1790858566 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you think this is a reasonable use of power?
    ceejayoz · 1790859462 · focus · HN ↗
    Plenty will say yes. We know this.
    One of the Constitution's big failings is this sort of thing; deeply vague wording. What counts as interstate commerce? What counts as reasonable? What's considered press activity? What's considered illegal speech?
    If you were writing a new one today, you'd define some stuff more.
    bad_haircut72 · 1790860457 · focus · HN ↗
    Im asking you though.
    ceejayoz · 1790861722 · focus · HN ↗
    No, you're asking someone else; I'm just pointing out why it's a bit of a pointless ask.
    everforward · 1790866796 · focus · HN ↗
    Thats partially that we insist on interpreting it in this contorted lens of “how the founding fathers meant it”, when words like “reasonable” seem like they’re clearly meant to reflect the current opinion of the populace. If people find it unreasonable, it is, and vice versa.
    I don’t think “interstate commerce” is unclear at all. That’s one where started with an end goal in mind and rationalized everything in between. There is no sane English reading of that passage that resembles the current interpretation at all. We just repeatedly mentally Google Translated it to Spanish and back until it was vague enough to allow what we wanted.
    goatlover · 1790880137 · focus · HN ↗
    That's what lawyers and judges are for. To argue over and interpret the meaning of laws, regulations, contracts, constitutions. It's all human wording and concepts, which are not deterministic, one-time interpretable things that a compiler would understand. They have to be understood in context of legal history and contemporary culture.
    The law isn't computer science as much as Silicon Valley would like to make it so.
    wat10000 · 1790880371 · focus · HN ↗
    That's beside the point. Even within that framework, clear wording makes a huge difference. The fact that you have to convince a human with your argument means there's always some room for interpretation, but that room gets a lot smaller when the law is worded clearly.
    Detrytus · 1790884931 · focus · HN ↗
    There's no such thing as 100% "clear wording". Philosophers and linguists have been debating meaning of every word for thousand of years now and they are still nowhere near reaching a consensus. Human languages are funny like that.
    ceejayoz · 1790887048 · focus · HN ↗
    > That's what lawyers and judges are for. To argue over and interpret the meaning of laws, regulations, contracts, constitutions.
    That doesn't mean we can't learn from mistakes and make certain things clearer.
    I think the Founding Fathers would've had some thoughts on Flock cameras and Facebook.
    wat10000 · 1790872888 · focus · HN ↗
    What's the point of asking this here? Regardless of whether or not I think this is reasonable, my point about the wording being vague and subjective stands.
  2. singleshot_ · 1790863893 · focus · HN ↗
    I have some astoundingly bad news for you about the entire system of trial by jury which is that virtually the entire thing depends on twelve average people defining the word "reasonable" in the context of your offense.
5. b3lvedere · 1790858322 · focus · HN ↗
  They just make it a probable cause. Problem solved for them.
  1. mrtesthah · 1790886844 · focus · HN ↗
    The courts decide that and evidence admitted on illegal grounds can be rejected on that basis.
    b3lvedere · 1790921298 · focus · HN ↗
    Ah yes, the famous courts. Who pays them again?
    mrtesthah · 1790996603 · focus · HN ↗
    Taxpayers pay both cops and judges. Are you alleging a conspiracy of taxpayers to violate rights?
6. someonebaggy · 1790860236 · focus · HN ↗
  It only self-explains what it says, not what the police actually do.
7. gosub100 · 1790865795 · focus · HN ↗
  Constitution-free zone. It's self explanatory.
8. bborud · 1790879035 · focus · HN ↗
  It isn’t.
  1. goatlover · 1790879534 · focus · HN ↗
    What isn't self-explanatory in that 4th Amendment quote?
    bborud · 1791107018 · focus · HN ↗
    What the fourth amendment does not explain is how it is actually applied. I would encourage you to look into how border crossings are different.
9. BeetleB · 1790885537 · focus · HN ↗
  As is the fact that the courts have ruled (multiple times?) that they have the right to do this at the borders.
crispyambulance · 1790856964 · focus · HN ↗
I wonder if there's a way for "targets" of CBP to easily maintain phones that can be toggled between their "real work" profile and some boring anodyne "CBP-safe" profile?
Locking/disabling the phone, I think, only creates suspicion as we've seen in a previous case not long ago. But if phones can have a cloud back-ups, shouldn't it be possible to have TWO different "back-ups" that can be chosen at will?
1. LadyCailin · 1790857277 · focus · HN ↗
  With the current political climate, that might be tantamount to destruction of evidence or contempt, and be the worst of all options. The problem isn’t any particular technical thing, it’s that the US government has become authoritarian and fascist, there is no legal “gotcha” that will ultimately work here.
  1. adhadion · 1790858687 · focus · HN ↗
    (Allegedly) hiding evidence that a person accused of vandalism has read the wrong books will get you 30 years in federal prison these days.
    <a href="https://freedom.press/issues/texas-man-sentenced-to-30-years-for-transporting-pamphlets/" rel="nofollow">https://freedom.press/issues/texas-man-sentenced-to-30-years...
  2. someonebaggy · 1790860281 · focus · HN ↗
    It's only illegal if you get caught.
  3. maxerickson · 1790863267 · focus · HN ↗
    If nothing matters, people who have reason to use technical countermeasures aren't really taking extra risk by doing it.
LWIRVoltage · 1790857236 · focus · HN ↗
Copying from another comment I made on this:
#1. The download and restore backup method would work for people in general- except it doesn't capture what people would need. Exmaple: I have some thermal cameras that rely on old 32 bit apps that do not run on anything android 12 onwards- If i wipe those old phones, and restore- the apps often wanted to reach out to a server for initial activation- they would fail upon reinstall and i'd be out of the apps that are required to control my cameras and related equipment,which is worth several thousand, and has no equivalent spec wise and form factor today in 2026. And it'd be all dead weight and rendered useless.
( competitors today do not compete now- for example try finding a 640*480 30 hz or better form factor thermal camera that attaches to phones - they dont exist anymore)
\The solution is full imaging- but there isnt a real way to fully image phones and restore backups today. There used to be it seems- but not really with the latest stuff at the time of this post
.
On another note:Veracrypt- The weakness of truecrypt and veracrypt, Their strongest counter, the hidden OS option only worked if you converted your computer to MBR, which means you can't have a hard drive too large. Making a UEFI hidden OS has not been done yet, but all computers are this now.
And the Hidden Volume option- isn't 'as' useful, and of course, your OS might make a copy and put it somewhere, you have to be careful. As a example: Any time I open a file, using the software tool Everything to search and confirm this- you can easily see Windows makes copies and temp files and whatnot in randomly named locations- that's the sort of software and OS behavior that will screw people over.( The year of the Linux desktop isn't here yet..)
Solution:We need fully image-backup capable Phones. I mean fully. Not just backing up some apps- as this refuses to backup apps you have that are no longer on app stores, or that Play Protect doesn't like, etc. We need to be able to fully image a device, a forensic image backup, for phones that people can use, then encrypt and upload so they are good if they lose a phone.
Next- Plausible deniability is a way forward- but you need multiple profiles, that are cryptographically indistinguishable, along with the phone being hardened so GreyKey /Cellebrite won't be able to exploit a way in. This needs to be built this way from the ground up ideally, eventually.
There has been research about making devices that treat all block space the same way so you can't tell if someone has 1, or 50 profiles or partitions, etc- and even stuff that overlaps. Often it needs to be fixed size partitions, but it is apparently NOT impossible to create. I am aware of Shufflecake attempting to make a solution for Linux, and yes, a Hidden OS option that is forensic- invisible.
But nothing has come out yet - and especially, nothing in this vein for phones.
It would be nice to see the day where, if you travel to a hostile country, you can tell them you have just one profile, and if they ask, you could theoretically mention a 2nd, and then show it- but you might have 3 more - and they'd all be immune to forensic inspection if the system is built right.(Yes, there's often issues you have to be careful of ,like setting this up so you dont destroy data when in other profiles, but that's not as important)
This is how you solve this problem in the long run-make computing devices impossible to analyze, but standardized.
1. Ylpertnodi · 1790857903 · focus · HN ↗
  > It would be nice to see the day where, if you travel to a hostile country,
  ...or, returning to one.
2. pjc50 · 1790858492 · focus · HN ↗
  > 640*480 30hz or better form factor thermal camera that attaches to phones - they dont exist anymore
  Huh. ITAR?
  1. LWIRVoltage · 1790862438 · focus · HN ↗
    No, the market simply is producing quantities of low end thermals now, resolution isn't quite where it was at. This includes ones produced by European, Chinese and Israeli companies, over the past decade. ITAR does not prohibit owning or importing tech like this, just exporting ( which would require export licenses, etc)- but the US part of the market is not competitive, the best tech now in this field available to consumers- is foreign , as of now- so ITAR has lost importance in terms of preventing high end tech from getting out - we don't have the high end tech at this time, nor are developing on the cutting edge.
3. Anonyneko · 1790858598 · focus · HN ↗
  We tech guys keep thinking of tech solutions, but as someone who reluctantly has to cross a border of an even more hostile country every now and then, you have to remember that border agents are not stupid and will mark you as suspicious if your open profile does not look real enough or there are traces of encryption on the device. Being paranoid about security is a huge red flag.
  The only thing you can do is travel with a clean device on which you maintain a completely innocuous social presence, such as chats with parents and non-foreign friends, and some social media with normie activity. Even that would not be enough if you're an activist or otherwise personally targeted, as your real accounts are already known in that case and your only option is not to travel at all, but it reduces your chances of getting in trouble (or arrested, depending on the target country). Though it still won't help in the long run as security services collect and organize more and more data about everyone.
  1. LWIRVoltage · 1790862619 · focus · HN ↗
    The full image backup solution solves that, as you never have to travel with your stuff and can upload and download it-
    But also, things like the hidden OS, or shufflecake - they're building these so they're would be no traces. Which is why I said this sort of thing needs to be standardized - if every phone or device naturally gets extremely high levels of security, and it's built in by default to all of them- it's not unusual anymore, is suspicious. And stems the overall ongoing data collection on everyone that you highlighted.
mexicocitinluez · 1790857328 · focus · HN ↗
I remember going down a rabbit hole of Youtube border security videos (like the TV show "Cops" but for customs and the border) and was shocked at how much power they have. It doesn't seem to be uniquely American either as the show takes place in Canada and Australia as well.
They'll go through everything: phones, journals, mail. They'll straight up call people in someone's phone and question them if they think it's relevant.
someothherguyy · 1790858277 · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/border-searches" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/issues/border-searches
smalltorch · 1790858341 · focus · HN ↗
I don't like this. I think about a year ago when there was a big push for chat control in the EU, almost like an instinct, I started working on ways to be more soverign with my data.
I'm just a regular guy who really has nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean I need to be complacent with just allowing a future I don't like be propped up in front of my eyes.
What I've come to realize is there is really no safer place for your data and communications than just your own home. At the very least, I would like a judge to review the evidence of my alledged wrong doing before the government can raid my castle and get what they need.
Why do I, as a regular citizen feel the need to invoke and create my own protections on personal data and communications?
There's something deep inside me that feels the need to be prepared for this odd future where the government feels they have the right to access everything. It's deeply troubling on many fronts.
1. nekusar · 1790859250 · focus · HN ↗
  > I'm just a regular guy who really has nothing to hide
  Yeah, you do.
  Post your nudes.
  Post your full financial details.
  Post your whole medical history.
  Post every crime you might have committed, even as a juvenile.
  Post all your credit cards and bank account details.
  Hmmmm, so you ARE hiding those, eh? Quit framing this as "nothing to hide", because we ALL have things we hide... Not because they're illegal or anything, but because it protects us.
  1. smalltorch · 1790860280 · focus · HN ↗
    Sorry, but its not 'I have nothing to hide so who cares'...it's 'I have nothing to hide, and you also have absolutely no right to access my data and I will make that as hard as I possibly can.'
    This is different than arguing 'I have nothing to hide and also because of that you get free reign to everything'?
    But really, I don't take nudes cause why?, my financials are remarkably average, I have no medical history that I care about people knowing (broke my hand once), I've haven't broken any law's, I don't use credit cards...?
    That doesn't mean you are allowed to access my devices on whims, track my daily movements relentlessly.
    treyd · 1790861943 · focus · HN ↗
    So why does the government get to do all of those things? Especially when they've already demonstrated that they're not very good at using them to achieve the stated goal of improving security.
  2. swader999 · 1790863405 · focus · HN ↗
    Exactly and if they can't keep FBI data locked down how are they going to keep what they harvest from the plebes. You really want your insurer, landlord, employer, bank knowing all this?
  3. deltoidmaximus · 1790872838 · focus · HN ↗
    We live in a world where McDonald's is using AI to dynamically price hamburgers. Every piece of information about your life is something you might want to hide just to avoid being screwed over harder financially than you otherwise would.
    You medical history will be used to avoid hiring you to keep health insurance costs down, even if it's illegal. Your gambling or alcohol addiction will be used to target you with for gambling or alcohol advertisements even if they made that illegal. Your financial status will be used to mark up prices of things you need to buy, like how airlines used to show higher prices when you connected with an iPhone.
2. rdm_blackhole · 1790860086 · focus · HN ↗
  > I'm just a regular guy who really has nothing to hide
  I think you are wrong. We all have things to hide.
  A joke between friends taken out of context. Your angry messages to a spouse or parent after a fight happened between you and them could be used out of context also. And what about your YouTube history and playlist or your web history...
  > just your own home
  Your home can be searched and all your devices at home can be seized as well. Granted it's probably a higher threshold than having everything on your phone but it's no a panacea either.
  1. smalltorch · 1790860862 · focus · HN ↗
    >Your home can be searched and all your devices at home can be seized as well.
    You need a warrant to search my home. That's my whole point. Warrantless access is the issue.
    Get a warrant, and I will happily show you anything you want. Nothing will be found because at the end of the tunnel, I actually have nothing to hide, I'm just a regular guy is my point.
    rdm_blackhole · 1790861148 · focus · HN ↗
    > You need a warrant to search my home.
    I agree that is why I said that it was higher threshold to get access to your data but warrants can be obtained for many different reasons and not always good ones either.
    All I am saying is that if they want your data, they'll get it. It's just easier at the border.
    smalltorch · 1790861745 · focus · HN ↗
    >All I am saying is that if they want your data, they'll get it. It's just easier at the border.
    That's fine, and I will do everything I can to make it as difficult as possible, not because I have something to hide at the end of the day, but because screw that what a terrible future to pass on to the next generation.
    IAmBroom · 1790867939 · focus · HN ↗
    You would do well to learn from Cardinal Richelieu's quote:
    "Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, and I will find something in them which will hang him."
3. 6DM · 1790862552 · focus · HN ↗
  I disagree with this framing. Privacy is never been about having something to hide. There's a big difference between having something to hide and it just not being someone else's business. It also implies a kind of light criminality imo.
  I don't hide my bank details it's just none of your business.
  This is me exercising personal control, preventing misuse and exploitation, and protecting the little dignity I have left this centry.
  1. smalltorch · 1790862894 · focus · HN ↗
    We are in alignment. I'm probably just not conveying it correctly.
    6DM · 1790865822 · focus · HN ↗
    I figured, but I think it's worth pointing out.
4. phendrenad2 · 1790865792 · focus · HN ↗
  This feeling is exactly what led to people leaving Europe to found what later became the United States. The Bill of Rights is basically a laundry list of things the King did to his servants - staging troops in their homes, rifling through their papers, stealing ideas, taking property without compensation, trying people in secret trials without a jury, trying people over and over until they got a conviction (or an acquittal if the accused was a friend of the King), levying huge bail amounts to prevent the accused from working so they would agree to plead guilty, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT (one of the King's favorites), and laws being made/removed at the whim whenever they benefitted the King.
  All of that is coming back, probably. So enjoy that!
pezezin · 1790858360 · focus · HN ↗
Which government?
chriscrisby · 1790858832 · focus · HN ↗
The Government can search anyone or any thing that is attempting to enter the Country for any reason.
If you’re just now getting upset about this then you need to check your political bias becise that’s the only thing that’s changed.
raincole · 1790859014 · focus · HN ↗
> “In [Fiscal Year] 2025, out of the over 419 million travelers CBP processed at ports of entry, CBP only searched the electronic devices of 55,318 international travelers,” the agency wrote, or 0.0013%.
And...
> In Fiscal Year 2020, CBP processed more than 238 million travelers at U.S. ports of entry. During that same period of time, CBP conducted 32,038 border searches of electronic devices, representing less than .014 percent of arriving international travelers.[1]
In other words, now it's as likely[0] to get your phone searched as in 2020. It's interesting how the media shapes people's perspective, isn't it?
[0]: 0.001% less likely, so just marginal error.
[1]: <a href="https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics-fy22" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistic... not sure it reports 2020's data here though.
1. ceejayoz · 1790859388 · focus · HN ↗
  > In other words, now it's as likely to get your phone searched as in 2020.
  Do you think these are random searches?
2. IAmBroom · 1790867672 · focus · HN ↗
  Your math doesn't line up. 0.0013% is ten times less than 0.014%.
  If there is a spurious zero, .013% is a 7% change from 0.014%, not 0.001%.
  1. notpushkin · 1790878476 · focus · HN ↗
    32038 / 238000000 ≈ 0.01346134454% 55318 / 419000000 ≈ 0.01320238663%
3. sethammons · 1790957602 · focus · HN ↗
  Good thing nobody is working on automation that could pump those numbers. Oh, wait, they are.
  How is your argument any different than Stalin killing only X people that he was suspicious of or the KGB only being able to target N people due to not having more manpower?
  I think 0.001% is too high. These are not accidental; these are intentional. That you personally haven't been targeted is only limited by the ability of them to to more, which is continually changing
micromacrofoot · 1790859362 · focus · HN ↗
lol no they can't, I forgot the password
1. OutOfHere · 1790869004 · focus · HN ↗
  You have the right to say that, but if you do, they will seize the phone for a few months to send it to a lab for analysis. If you're lucky, they'll mail it back to you.
numlock86 · 1790859430 · focus · HN ↗
> "land of the free"
Amazing development from idea, vision and lyrics to the current status quo.
1. someonebaggy · 1790860386 · focus · HN ↗
  The more free they have to tell you you are, the less free you actually are. In the DPRK they drill it into you constantly. In China, a few times a day. In the USA, only once a day.
monster_truck · 1790859561 · focus · HN ↗
I don't travel with any of my shit anymore, I take my old phone/laptop with nothing but music, separate debit/credit cards, tickets/itenerary, and whatever other little things. No contacts, no icloud, no saved passwords, etc. Been doing it for over a decade.
TSA once gave me SSSS for 5 years after they tried making me answer a survey that asked me to prioritize things like "health", "safety", "privacy" as a ranked list and I refused to do that. Fuck em and anyone dumb enough to work for them. I was already used to showing up 4 hours early because they always make me take every single synth/sequencer/etc out so they can swipe it down to check for terrorism particles
I also get groped every single time because my dick shows up on the scanner. So goddamned worthless
rdm_blackhole · 1790859719 · focus · HN ↗
I responded to comments on this thread or on other threads but just in case you think this is a US thing only, it is not.
The UK border agents (technically counter-terrorism) can stop you at the border, force you into a room, ask for your passwords to all your devices and you don't have the right to refuse.
You also don't have the right to have a lawyer be in a room with you and you are compelled to answer all their questions and finally they do not need to tell you why they stopped you.
Then, if you are lucky they return your devices 7 days later after they have been through everything or they can keep them forever if they find something suspicious.
This guy (who is a British citizen) went through it last year and talks about the whole procedure: <a href="https://youtu.be/991kRp8KUmo?si=-5S1uLE7K9KG_gNj" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/991kRp8KUmo?si=-5S1uLE7K9KG_gNj
frunklooper · 1790860031 · focus · HN ↗
China can search it remotely
ocd · 1790860566 · focus · HN ↗
American society should have done something about the excessive power these agents have had for a long time at the border and in the travel authority. The things they would ask, and their attitudes and behavior were almost like drug induced paranoia with confabulations.
Neighboring the country in Canada, the US seemed like shorthand for USSR when it came to the border and travel. This sort of policy will make the US unpopular and inhospitable for conferences or any other important gatherings that it's taken for granted.
tdsanchez · 1790860572 · focus · HN ↗
Carry a burner old phone and ship your actual. Be prepared to smash the phone or otherwise brutalize it if they demand to search it, then let them have at it.
1. criddell · 1790863348 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
2. artisinal · 1790867931 · focus · HN ↗
  If you have an iPhone Air you can smuggle it inside your prison pocket while you carry a burner.
WaitWaitWha · 1790861274 · focus · HN ↗
reading the article
> The agent took the phone away and only returned after approximately 45 minutes, during which Kennedy believes that data on the phone was copied. He was then released with no charges.
Does the owner, Mr. Kennedy has actual knowledge/proof if the phone was copied, or this is a guess? Might be missing from the article.
tamimio · 1790862471 · focus · HN ↗
I know the focus is on him getting searched and all, but I think what’s important is the auto-tagging or flagging of people based on something like a post made online or similar. This is far worse as it implicates mass surveillance, mass AI use to automate what should be done after due diligence, and how that obviously can and will he used politically as opposed to criminally.
sokoloff · 1790862537 · focus · HN ↗
> “In [Fiscal Year] 2025, out of the over 419 million travelers CBP processed at ports of entry, CBP only searched the electronic devices of 55,318 international travelers,” the agency wrote, or 0.0013%.
By my math, that's a little over 0.013% (ten times the cited figure).
gorgoiler · 1790862765 · focus · HN ↗
”[the CBP agent] said if I didn’t give them my phone, my interrogation was going to take much longer and they could retain my phone indefinitely”
I would take a punt at filing a complaint about that. Threatening someone with selective enforcement must fall short of professional standards at CBP, as stated on their .gov page:
<a href="https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/exhibit_08_-_cbp_directive_51735-013b_standards_of_conduct.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/exhibit_08_-...
1. chatmasta · 1790864456 · focus · HN ↗
  They’d probably say it wasn’t selective enforcement, because the phone scan is a faster way to complete their investigation compared to an interrogation. It’s the same disclaimer used for a manual search when you opt out of the body scanner.
2. ubermonkey · 1790876663 · focus · HN ↗
  It's funny you think that CBP has any real professional standards that any of their agents would possibly be held to if it were inconvenient for the agency, at least under this administration.
farceSpherule · 1790864090 · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
Cider9986 · 1790866691 · focus · HN ↗
IANAL. This is my understanding.
For US citizens entering the US: If you're concerned about protecting your data from this threat, you should use GrapheneOS (or less good would be a latest iPhone in lockdown mode and BFU) and not talk to the police. The 5th amendment does not seem to have an exception at the border, so you can't legally be compelled to hand over your password by border agents (there's not strong case law here). They can lie, they can detain you, search you, they can seize your stuff. You shouldn't be the one arguing with them, you should be silent (besides identification) and ask for an attorney (you don't have a right to an attorney at a routine search). As a US citizen, you can refuse and still enter.
GrapheneOS has demonstrated to be robust against physical access even in AFU [1]. It's still a good idea to shut down / restart because BFU is much more secure. To maintain convenience while avoiding reliance on the rate limiting of the secure element, you can use a long random passphrase as your primary unlock (you enter it every time the device is in BFU) and a fingerprint with a second factor pin as the secondary unlock.
Even if you factory reset your phone and backed up data (to an E2EE cloud provider, over Tor and memorized the credentials), you should still not disclose your password because it could allow evidence to be planted or your device to be compromised. Nothing you say to the border agents can help you in court, it can only be used against you.
The duress pin is generally not how you should handle a situation like this. You do not need the duress pin to prevent access, its purpose is if you're being physically coerced as well as to give the attacker the dillema of whether to enter a coerced password (it even gives this benefit for people that don't use the duress password).
Sure, if police are behaving illegally and the information that would be disclosed is worth the possible punishment, then that's a personal decision.
[1] Based on leaked Cellebrite documentation, GrapheneOS was the best performing device against AFU attacks. It also has a customizable reboot timer to bring the device back to BFU after a set time of not unlocking. The options are between 10 minutes and 72 hours of unlocking and 18 hours is the default iirc. Apple and Google added this to their phones after GrapheneOS without the option to customize. Theirs are set at 72 hours.
1. JTbane · 1790877050 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
  1. Cider9986 · 1790877536 · focus · HN ↗
    I think Lockdown mode on Android just requires your primary password and hides notifications. It doesn't bring the device to BFU. Much better to shutdown/restart.
    <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/1qv8y7d/what_does_the_lockdown_button_do/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/1qv8y7d/what_do...
    JTbane · 1790885262 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  2. popalchemist · 1790880064 · focus · HN ↗
    Lockdown mode prevents access via USB as well.
2. superxpro12 · 1790877356 · focus · HN ↗
  I just read an article today claiming that some police contractor had bypadded the BFU protection on iphones. They were managing to keep the phone in AFU state... somehow. worth a read.
3. ActorNightly · 1790878224 · focus · HN ↗
  There was a case where someone was charged with erasing evidence using this method. While its unlikely they would be convicted, its still not something you wanna go through as they can put you through the ringer and fuck up your plans at a great monetary cost to you.
  The thing is, they do these searches not because they are "evil" - definitely not morally upstanding people, but at the end of the day, its still a job and they are following some guidance. When they encounter an uncooperative person, a) it makes their monotonous job more exciting, and b) an uncooperative person is more likely to be guilty, which means more excitement.
  As such, if you care about privacy, just get a degoogled phone, and use the web interface for all the communication stuff that you need, including phone. Then just clear browser data and cache before you land. If you get one that supports usb OTG or screen mirroring, you can also get a lapdock and use that as your laptop.
  Then, if they detain you and ask for your devices, you can just give them everything and let them have at it. Because you are cooperative, and the phone did not reset with the pin like the Graphene OS one, they are way more likely to let you go
deadbabe · 1790870101 · focus · HN ↗
Why stop at a phone? What about laptops
swframe2 · 1790873015 · focus · HN ↗
James Bond level villian system activated:
1. figure out how to make money by breaking government in a way no one can agree to fix
2. pay politicians to make breaking government legal
3. run political ads claiming the other side is the villian
4. buy that island you've had your eye on
Charly_HW · 1790876793 · focus · HN ↗
Plese dont be on the side of the border agents, you didnt know they exist until 2001.
1. rbanffy · 1790876959 · focus · HN ↗
  I believe the most important requisite for anyone to occupy a position of power is not wanting to do so.
  It's a red flag when someone actually wants to have power over other people, the more, the redder.
tehnoslow · 1790878869 · focus · HN ↗
It seems to me that it's like this everywhere now
tombert · 1790883328 · focus · HN ↗
You know, I've been looking for an excuse to play with an Ubuntu phone. Maybe I can justify buying one purely for travel so that nothing terribly interesting is on there.
Granted, even if they seized my phone now I don't think they'd find much terribly interesting stuff on there outside of a concern at how many lolcow "Documentaries" I watch.
kitplummer · 1790883884 · focus · HN ↗
Am I the only one wondering why anyone would keep "sensitive" information on a phone?? Let alone taking that "sensitivity" with you where ever you go? And across a border with out-of-control control?
Or am I the only one who thinks that there is equal risk of someone inserting "sensitive" information into any device - for whatever purpose - without the phone's owner even knowing.
Zero trust peeps. Zero trust.
3eb7988a1663 · 1790884476 · focus · HN ↗
Legally, would I be safer if I shipped an encrypted phone/hard-drive/laptop through USPS? Does that have more/fewer legal protections than being on my person when you cross the border? Is there a distinction between USPS and UPS?
1. mmmlinux · 1790886207 · focus · HN ↗
  the difference is they don't also have you who knows the password in their custody if they intercept the phone from the mail. At boarder check you're stuck and you have to do what they say.
[deleted] · 1790887139 · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
commandersaki · 1790887614 · focus · HN ↗
I don't get this article, the person being searched could've refused? They wilfully yielded.
pylua · 1790901897 · focus · HN ↗
If a border patrol agent downloads your data, including data you have copyrighted, is that illegal ?
jazzyjackson · 1790909895 · focus · HN ↗
Get a flip phone and don’t do things on it, let them search :)
thewileyone · 1790930996 · focus · HN ↗
Sounds like a potential attack vector for a compromised phone ... just saying ...
1. pvaldes · 1790934737 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.