Thread

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

411 points · 378 comments · rbanffy

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.
    The decision matrix around these things is often obvious. Most people simply comply. If you want to be one of the few people willing to stand up to these things, then good I commend you. But you're going to have to put in some basic effort.
    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 while simultaneously conceding you know pretty much nothing, and therefore are wasting everyone's time. I'm not asking anyone to become a lawyer but is that really the best evidence they could come up with? It just seems like a basic information literacy failure that should not be encouraged.
    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?
    [deleted] · 1790880207 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    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 ↗
    > Or pretend that I forgot my pin and accidentally lock my phone down
    Err our policing and judicial systems weren't born yesterday. You'll be treated as having refused to unlock/decrypt, as devices are so ubiquitous and people unlock tens or hundreds of times a day.
    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 ↗
    I'm not saying it's an impossible defence. But a jury has rejected the "I forgot it" defence in 3 or so cases IIRC
    I'm just saying the police will unlikely drop their line of questioning after you claim you forgot the PIN. They'd probably then seek to prove you did know it - eg ask where's your boarding pass is, ask if you messaged/called anyone before/during your flight, try to establish the time the phone was last used, reducing the period of forgetting etc
    IANAL/officer of course
    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.
    [deleted] · 1790858430 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  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.
    [deleted] · 1790879087 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.