ACLU files suit on behalf of Apple employee for not giving access to phone/laptop
Apr 9, 2019, 12:18 pm
#16
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,668
The markers that generate a non-random SSSS could also generate additional screening at the back end, although of course SSSS is just about a search at the departure airport.
I think CBP is much less interested in the physical form of the phone once you're off the plane than it is the contents/cloud materials. From a counterterrorism perspective, a phone containing instructions/information about 'what to do next" would be fairly appealing.
I think CBP is much less interested in the physical form of the phone once you're off the plane than it is the contents/cloud materials. From a counterterrorism perspective, a phone containing instructions/information about 'what to do next" would be fairly appealing.
Apr 9, 2019, 3:22 pm
#17
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
This is the first published incident I recall where a US citizen actually stood his ground and refused to unlock the device in spite of the threats (and the case isn't otherwise polluted by the traveler already confessing that there is contraband on the device, previously providing the code, etc.) That makes in an interesting case to analyze and potentially an interesting case if the ACLU can do something with it. The other cases I recall, including the Stockton mayor (2015) and Sidd Bikkannavar (2017), unlocked their devices and later said they were "forced" to do so.
Was Andreas Gal subject to lesser intimidation than the other cases, or did he just manage to resist the interrogation/threats long enough that CBP gave up? (I personally think it should be a criminal offense for LEOs to lie to suspects about if a specific action is a crime.)
Even if no legal action goes anywhere (I'm confident CBP will find a way to say that Global Entry is a completely revocable privilege for any arbitrary reason or non-reason), any publicity this case gets damages the ability of CBP intimidate US citizens into unlocking devices.
Was Andreas Gal subject to lesser intimidation than the other cases, or did he just manage to resist the interrogation/threats long enough that CBP gave up? (I personally think it should be a criminal offense for LEOs to lie to suspects about if a specific action is a crime.)
Even if no legal action goes anywhere (I'm confident CBP will find a way to say that Global Entry is a completely revocable privilege for any arbitrary reason or non-reason), any publicity this case gets damages the ability of CBP intimidate US citizens into unlocking devices.
Apr 9, 2019, 10:52 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
An individual is ineligible to participate in Global Entry if CBP, at its sole discretion, determines that the individual presents a potential risk for terrorism, criminality (such as smuggling), or is otherwise not a low-risk traveler. This risk determination will be based in part upon an applicant's ability to demonstrate past compliance with laws, regulations, and policies. Reasons why an applicant may not qualify for participation include:
Apr 10, 2019, 12:34 am
#19
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SNA
Programs: Bonvoy LTTE/AMB, AmEx Plat, National EE, WN A-List, CLEAR+, Covid-19
Posts: 4,964
Apr 10, 2019, 12:24 pm
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
What was expected, or what he deserved?
The language you quote does not lead to the conclusion you draw.
The language you quote does not lead to the conclusion you draw.
Apr 10, 2019, 12:52 pm
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
GE revocation.
It does not have to be - as always, CBP has its own discretion.
Apr 10, 2019, 1:34 pm
#22
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,631
I may be. What I meant was the actions of CBP being "retaliatory" about removing his GE privileges.
Apple employee detained by US border agents over his iPhone and laptop speaks out
Gal charged that his stop by CBP agents may be because of his work at Mozilla and the company's views on opposing the government’s warrantless mass surveillance.
"In the past two years I've been very outspoken on the Trump administration's policies on social media, particularly with respect to Customs and Border Protection and immigration," said Gal.
"In the past two years I've been very outspoken on the Trump administration's policies on social media, particularly with respect to Customs and Border Protection and immigration," said Gal.
Apr 10, 2019, 2:32 pm
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Dr. Gal suspects that he was singled out for a search of his electronic devices and was subsequently detained in retaliation for his outspokenness.
Apr 10, 2019, 2:51 pm
#24
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,631
According to the photos in the linked ABC News article, he was arriving at SFO on an SAS flight from CPH and his appearance is that of average Caucasian male.
Apr 11, 2019, 10:32 am
#25
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
You didn't answer my question. Did he deserve GE revocation in your view, or was that simply the expected result of his actions.
They have to follow the CFR. The CFR gives them discretion to act within the CFR. They cannot act in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
Apr 12, 2019, 9:55 am
#26
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, AA, DL
Posts: 7,418
With your phone you have immediate access to the contents of the device and what is directly accessible via cloud. Now, if there were separate password protection for that (i.e., you unlock phone but refuse to enter gmail password) I can see how it gets harder to justify further search.
More generally, I'm not sure physical analogies always helpful to digital matters.
Apr 12, 2019, 10:01 am
#27
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, AA, DL
Posts: 7,418
Put differently, I think CBP would have a hard time justifying the following: "We revoked his GE privileges because he refused to comply with our unlawful request/demand."
Apr 12, 2019, 11:19 am
#29
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the path to perdition
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 4,785
Critically, Dr. Gal never refused to provide the passcodes to access the electronic devices in his possession, he only asked that he be allowed to consult with an attorney to ensure that he would not violate non-disclosure agreements with his employer. In the interactions with CBP officers, Dr. Gal repeated many times that he would comply with any legal requirement, but that he needed to consult with an attorney to understand his rights before he could do so.