Protecting Electronic Devices and Stored Information from Customs Searches
Mar 8, 2017, 12:42 am
#106
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: CPH
Programs: Delta SM
Posts: 497
I think you misunderstand how cloud storage works. Often it is seamlessly integrated into the phone/tablets operating system. Pictures, Facebook messenger data, e-mail messages and the like seamlessly spring forth when connected to Wifi or a cellular network. Certainly things like documents stored in a Dropbox-like account could be seen as off-site storage, but even there, the seamless integration with your operating system and thumbnails as placeholders makes the question of where your physical phone ends and where your "cloud phone" begins interesting.
Mar 8, 2017, 2:09 am
#107
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: HEL
Programs: lots of shiny metal cards
Posts: 14,105
Removing the relevant apps from your phone would go a long way solving the cloud "issue" - no app, no synchronization, no data on the phone/tablet.
If paranoid, have two apple accounts set up. One that you actually use (and sync your data, backups, contacts, etc) and one that you don't and have only mahjong and solitaire
. Cleanse your phone before boarding, log out of your daily use account, log in to the alternative account.
Relog in, reinstall apps and sync again later.
If paranoid, have two apple accounts set up. One that you actually use (and sync your data, backups, contacts, etc) and one that you don't and have only mahjong and solitaire
. Cleanse your phone before boarding, log out of your daily use account, log in to the alternative account.Relog in, reinstall apps and sync again later.
Mar 14, 2017, 5:49 am
#109
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,099
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...h-your-n732746
The article linked above is truly frightening. Apparently the courts have rendered the 4th Amendment moot.
American Citizens: U.S. Border Agents Can Search Your Cellphone
"They said if I need a lawyer, then I must be guilty of something," said Elsharkawi, and Egyptian-born Muslim and naturalized U.S. citizen. After four hours of questioning in detention, he unlocked his smartphone and, after a search, was eventually released. Elsharkawi said he intends to sue the Department of Homeland Security.
The article linked above is truly frightening. Apparently the courts have rendered the 4th Amendment moot.
Mar 14, 2017, 6:13 am
#110
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Spire Ambassador, Radisson Gold, Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 3,622
Courts have not rendered the 4th Amendment moot. The statement by Ms. Callahan that "the Fourth Amendment, even for U.S. citizens, doesn't apply at the border" is a grossly inaccurate, lazy and untrue statement.
Law enforcement officers are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment from conducting unreasonable searches, either at the border or away from the border.
However, courts have ruled that certain types of searches are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment at the border, like searches of your luggage, and on the spot searches of any unlocked electronic devices.
The guy who refused to hand the CBP officer his phone was wrong, just like you would be wrong if you crossed a border and refused to hand the CBP officer your luggage.
However, there is no obligation to unlock your phone for them. No American should voluntarily unlock his or her phone for a CBP officer, just like no American should ever consent to a search of his house or car by a police officer.
These articles all refer to CBP officers "demanding" phone passwords, but the CBP internal records will say that in each case the traveler voluntarily entered the password of his own freewill.
Law enforcement officers are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment from conducting unreasonable searches, either at the border or away from the border.
However, courts have ruled that certain types of searches are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment at the border, like searches of your luggage, and on the spot searches of any unlocked electronic devices.
The guy who refused to hand the CBP officer his phone was wrong, just like you would be wrong if you crossed a border and refused to hand the CBP officer your luggage.
However, there is no obligation to unlock your phone for them. No American should voluntarily unlock his or her phone for a CBP officer, just like no American should ever consent to a search of his house or car by a police officer.
These articles all refer to CBP officers "demanding" phone passwords, but the CBP internal records will say that in each case the traveler voluntarily entered the password of his own freewill.
Mar 14, 2017, 6:40 am
#111
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...h-your-n732746
The article linked above is truly frightening. Apparently the courts have rendered the 4th Amendment moot.
American Citizens: U.S. Border Agents Can Search Your Cellphone
The article linked above is truly frightening. Apparently the courts have rendered the 4th Amendment moot.
Mar 14, 2017, 8:18 am
#112
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,099
Courts have not rendered the 4th Amendment moot. The statement by Ms. Callahan that "the Fourth Amendment, even for U.S. citizens, doesn't apply at the border" is a grossly inaccurate, lazy and untrue statement.
Law enforcement officers are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment from conducting unreasonable searches, either at the border or away from the border.
However, courts have ruled that certain types of searches are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment at the border, like searches of your luggage, and on the spot searches of any unlocked electronic devices.
The guy who refused to hand the CBP officer his phone was wrong, just like you would be wrong if you crossed a border and refused to hand the CBP officer your luggage.
However, there is no obligation to unlock your phone for them. No American should voluntarily unlock his or her phone for a CBP officer, just like no American should ever consent to a search of his house or car by a police officer.
These articles all refer to CBP officers "demanding" phone passwords, but the CBP internal records will say that in each case the traveler voluntarily entered the password of his own freewill.
Law enforcement officers are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment from conducting unreasonable searches, either at the border or away from the border.
However, courts have ruled that certain types of searches are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment at the border, like searches of your luggage, and on the spot searches of any unlocked electronic devices.
The guy who refused to hand the CBP officer his phone was wrong, just like you would be wrong if you crossed a border and refused to hand the CBP officer your luggage.
However, there is no obligation to unlock your phone for them. No American should voluntarily unlock his or her phone for a CBP officer, just like no American should ever consent to a search of his house or car by a police officer.
These articles all refer to CBP officers "demanding" phone passwords, but the CBP internal records will say that in each case the traveler voluntarily entered the password of his own freewill.
I am of the opinion that if a person is going to be crossing the border, particularly on a regular basis, that having safe electronic devices that can be turned over without concern would be a good position to take. I would be very concerned about what spyware government could/would load on any device that is taken out of my sight. I certainly have nothing to hide but I also don't think government should have carte blanch to search my personal records without cause. Stated in the article I referenced, "They said if I need a lawyer, then I must be guilty of something," is concerning to me. I think most lawyers would recommend to not talk to police without counsel yet the police are assuming guilt if someone takes such a position. Also the police can be dishonest, lie, or do other things to make it seem that not cooperating fully is criminal in itself. The mood at the border seems to have moved to a very adversarial encounter in recent years at least to some number of citizens and visitors attempting to enter the country.
I think its time to reel in not only CBP but all other federal agencies.
Mar 14, 2017, 8:39 am
#113
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
"One of the officers calls out to me and says, 'Hey, give me your phone,'" recalled Shibly. "And I said, 'No, because I already went through this.'"
The officer asked a second time..
Within seconds, he was surrounded: one man held his legs, another squeezed his throat from behind. A third reached into his pocket, pulling out his phone. McCormick watched her boyfriend's face turn red as the officer's chokehold tightened.
The officer asked a second time..
Within seconds, he was surrounded: one man held his legs, another squeezed his throat from behind. A third reached into his pocket, pulling out his phone. McCormick watched her boyfriend's face turn red as the officer's chokehold tightened.
Mar 14, 2017, 8:49 am
#114
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Some 5,000 such searches in all of 2015 recorded by DHS; then some 25,000 such searches in 2016; and then in just one very short month of February 2017, DHS does some 5,000 such searches?
That means we may be looking at over 55k such US border searches in 2017.
Should we take this as a sign that the US government has been buying lots of software/hardware (even crooked stuff) to pry even further into the daily lives of ordinary US citizens? Either way, there are plenty of other signs that 1984 was off by a few decades.
Mar 14, 2017, 8:52 am
#115
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Austin, Texas
Programs: Airline nobody. Sad!
Posts: 26,062
There are some interesting numbers in there:
Some 5,000 such searches in all of 2015 recorded by DHS; then some 25,000 such searches in 2016; and then in just one very short month of February 2017, DHS does some 5,000 such searches?
That means we may be looking at over 55k such searches in 2017.
Should we take this as a sign that the government has been buying lots of software/hardware to pry even further into the daily lives of ordinary US citizens? Either way, there are plenty of other signs that 1984 was off by a few decades.
Some 5,000 such searches in all of 2015 recorded by DHS; then some 25,000 such searches in 2016; and then in just one very short month of February 2017, DHS does some 5,000 such searches?
That means we may be looking at over 55k such searches in 2017.
Should we take this as a sign that the government has been buying lots of software/hardware to pry even further into the daily lives of ordinary US citizens? Either way, there are plenty of other signs that 1984 was off by a few decades.
Originally Posted by From the article linked previously
The more aggressive tactics of the past two years, two senior intelligence officials told NBC News, were sparked by a string of domestic incidents in 2015 and 2016 in which the watch list system and the FBI failed to stop American citizens from conducting attacks. The searches also reflect new abilities to extract contact lists, travel patterns and other data from phones very quickly.
Mar 14, 2017, 9:00 am
#116
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
This says it about expanded capabilities:
https://www.dhs.gov/publication/mobi...ce-acquisition
They say "if you build it, they will come". We should say, "if they buy it, they will use it".
https://www.dhs.gov/publication/mobi...ce-acquisition
They say "if you build it, they will come". We should say, "if they buy it, they will use it".
Mar 14, 2017, 9:57 am
#117
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: CLT
Programs: Pre✓, Delta DM, Hilton LT Diamond, Mariott Plat, PC Gold, National EE, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,655
I recently saw this story about cell phone searches and it brought me to this thread.
The erosion of our civil rights and liberties is so sad.
We have become such a fascist state.
Phone please is the modern version of "Papiere, Bitte." (Translation: "Papers, Please.")
The erosion of our civil rights and liberties is so sad.
We have become such a fascist state.
Phone please is the modern version of "Papiere, Bitte." (Translation: "Papers, Please.")
Last edited by KenTarmac; Mar 14, 2017 at 10:07 am
Mar 14, 2017, 10:16 am
#118
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,099
This says it about expanded capabilities:
https://www.dhs.gov/publication/mobi...ce-acquisition
They say "if you build it, they will come". We should say, "if they buy it, they will use it".
https://www.dhs.gov/publication/mobi...ce-acquisition
They say "if you build it, they will come". We should say, "if they buy it, they will use it".
Mar 14, 2017, 11:44 am
#119
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 729
The ACLU posted this summary today.
From the link:
Does that case apply to CBP? CBP has the authority to make arrests. It seems illogical that a citizen would have more protections after an arrest than before an arrest. Also, IANAL.
Before a vacation, I usually transfer photos from my phone to an external hard drive simply to make more room for new photos.
From the link:
...The Supreme Court recognized this reality when it ruled in 2014 that the Constitution requires the police to obtain a warrant to search the smartphone of someone under arrest....
If I were a CBP officer, before any search of a passenger's phone, I would ask the passenger "Have you deleted any data, apps, emails, or photos from this phone in anticipation of your arrival in the USA?"
Consider what you would do if asked that. Lie to the officer? That's a felony.
Consider what you would do if asked that. Lie to the officer? That's a felony.
Last edited by TWA884; Mar 14, 2017 at 4:45 pm Reason: Merge consecutive posts
Mar 14, 2017, 12:06 pm
#120
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Spire Ambassador, Radisson Gold, Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 3,622
The ACLU posted this summary today.
From the link:
Does that case apply to CBP? CBP has the authority to make arrests. It seems illogical that a citizen would have more protections after an arrest than before an arrest. Also, IANAL.
From the link:
Does that case apply to CBP? CBP has the authority to make arrests. It seems illogical that a citizen would have more protections after an arrest than before an arrest. Also, IANAL.