Thread

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

411 points · 378 comments · rbanffy

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 ↗
    This is meaningless without a denominator. How much has international tourism increased in those years? What percentage of international tourists visited the US before and after 2001?
    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 ↗
    [dead]
    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.
    [deleted] · 1790867468 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    brandon272 · 1790862163 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37267299">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37267299
    (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 ↗
    [dead]
    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
    [deleted] · 1790866428 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    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.
    > "From 2014 through 2023, the South region had the most line-of-duty deaths yearly compared to other regions. There was a 38% decrease in line-of-duty deaths in the region in 2023 (20 deaths) compared to 2022 (32 deaths). Last year marked the lowest number of line-of-duty deaths in the South since 2015 (19 deaths)."
    <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-officers-killed-and-assaulted-in-the-line-of-duty-2023-special-report-and-law-enforcement-employee-counts" rel="nofollow">https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-officer...
    Felonious Deaths vs Accidental Deaths
    <a href="https://le.fbi.gov/cjis-division/cjis-link/statistics-on-law-enforcement-officer-deaths-in-the-line-of-duty-from-january-through-september-2024" rel="nofollow">https://le.fbi.gov/cjis-division/cjis-link/statistics-on-law...
    > "A look at police crime statistics shows that fatal attacks on police officers are relatively rare. While violent acts against police officers are increasing overall—last year the statistics recorded 38,960 cases, a rise of 0.8 percent—no more than two police officers have been killed in the line of duty in any year since 2011." (Translated)
    <a href="https://www.bazonline.ch/die-schiessen-369707652687" rel="nofollow">https://www.bazonline.ch/die-schiessen-369707652687
    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.
    Also, right to have a gun should involve right to not be shot by a cop just because you own a gun.
    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.
    [deleted] · 1790861975 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    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.
    [deleted] · 1790862326 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    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.
    [deleted] · 1790875607 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    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...
    The USA is definitely not thevonly one. Great Britain has also an extensive history of tyranical privacy-violating border crossing.
    As is Israel and Russia.
    The point is, the deeper you look, the better you understand how wide-spread the practice is.
    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 ↗
    You're getting downvoted because you didn't anticipate and properly defend yourself against angry people who don't understand the is/aught fallacy. They mistake "is this true?" for "this should be true". Actually, it's not even the is/aught fallacy, it's something weirder. I have yet to figure it out. Still working on that one.
    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.
    During the last quarter of century, 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.
    Israel is a country that long before 9/11 had extremely effective methods for testing travelers at border control, and unlike the Americans they kept their methods unchanged after 9/11. Unlike USA, they have never relied on technical means, like X-ray scanners or SSD/HDD searching, but they have relied on trained humans who interviewed the travelers and assessed whether they lie about their purpose or not.
    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. [deleted] · 1790867857 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
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. I was one of two people in a 30+ person group who knew how to, for eg, set up breakout rooms, keep virtual attendees engaged, automate email sends, etc. if there's one thing movement organizers are generally bad at it's knowing how to use the technical tools to actually stay organized
  you can also be the person who gets them to move off of Google and onto at-least Proton (though ideally something like Cryptpad). anybody with a halfway-competent understanding of OpSec could've prevented a lot of the things that led to the doxxing of individuals and people leaving the movement due to harassment
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.
    [deleted] · 1790870188 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  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.
    [deleted] · 1790885790 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    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' that 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 ↗
    Yup. In the UK you can be arrested for almost anything, have silence used against you, subject to warrant-less search of your home, compelled to decrypt devices, stopped in your vehicle for any reason etc. They have an angle for everything. Our legal system has accumulated a ton of narrowly defined powers
    But then again we don't fear police and ICE shooting us dead and our government wasn't subject to a coup in 2021, so there is that. Swings and roundabouts

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.