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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.