5 ms·

Prepare your phone before coming through. Backup, wipe and set the password to "I am a panty-sniffing thug". Bonus points for filling it with nothing but articl

by _jal 10y ago

Prepare your phone before coming through. Backup, wipe and set the password to "I am a panty-sniffing thug". Bonus points for filling it with nothing but articles about law enforcement overreach and pictures of pigs. Encourage everyone you know to do similar, or whatever they're comfortable with. Make being a trouble-maker a badge of honor. If you don't fight somehow, you are accepting it.

dominotw 10y ago
> Make being a trouble-maker a badge of honor. don't do this if you are an immigrant, please.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  On the other hand, being jealous of your rights is almost a requirement for citizenship :)
  - merpnderp 10y ago
    I love that line. Thanks.
diminoten 10y ago
Honestly, I do accept it, because I still believe they're trying to do the right thing. I know it's easy to shit on law enforcement, but I still fundamentally believe that they're a force of good. Edit: I'd love to discuss this more with all of you, but I've been told by HN moderation that I am a negative force on this website and discussions like these are why. I hope some day there'll be a place we can talk about this kind of thing civilly, but it's not here and it's not today, unfortunately.
- mikeash 10y ago
  The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I would argue that resisting evil actions by good people is more noble than resisting evil actions by evil people, because you stand a better chance of changing things when they don't intend to be evil. I've never had my phone searched, but if they tried, I'd say, "Good luck cracking my password. Can I go now?"
  - diminoten 10y ago
    Brave words typed onto an Internet forum. I don't think this is an "evil action" to begin with.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      What's "brave" about it? I'm a programmer making a good salary, and all I have to lose is my phone. I can buy another one if they decide to threaten me with seizure. If you don't think it's an evil action, then why are you phrasing it as "I still believe they're trying to do the right thing"? I interpret that as "I think they're doing the wrong thing, but I don't mind because they think it's the right thing." If it's not evil then why not defend the action on its own merits, rather than appealing to the fundamental goodness of the organization?
      - diminoten 10y ago
        Because it's perceived as evil, and I didn't want to litigate that and be a force of negativity on HN.
        maxerickson 10y ago
        Thinking it is appropriate to search phones is at least a solid argument. People might loudly disagree or downvote, but it's a coherent opinion. The idea that trying to do the right thing can justify something is specious nonsense.
        diminoten 10y ago
        It's specious nonsense to try to do the right thing? You can't possibly mean that, right?
        jtmcmc 10y ago
        It's specious nonsense to justify things by saying they are trying to do the right thing.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  It's entirely possible to believe that law enforcement are a net good and also that they do lots of things that they shouldn't. That they are trying to do the right thing doesn't really excuse doing bad things. Lots of evil is carried out by people that think they are trying to do the right thing.
- 1001101 10y ago
  It's a continuum, and everyone has their favorite setting on the dial based on their values and experience. Fortunately, we have the Bill of Rights to say where the max setting is in the US, but, unfortunately, I think they've taken it to 11.
  - DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
    I thought that too, but a series of Supreme Court ruling disagrees with me.
- colbyh 10y ago
  parts aren't the whole, and it's completely justifiable to say "you might be doing this for the right reasons but this particular action is wrong". distrust in a process isn't distrust of the entire agency.
- ska 10y ago
  You can be a bit more nuanced than that without being anti-LEO. I believe law enforcement organization are almost essentially incapable of self-regulating their tendency to accumulate additional powers. I also believe there are clear benefits to limiting these powers. If you accept these premises, it's clear that constraint must be applied from outside of the LEOs themselves. The typical answer to how, is through legislation and oversight. If you don't believe that is being performed effectively, there is a pretty compelling argument for action to improve the system. Historically speaking, "They were trying to do the right thing" is a poor excuse for any number of pretty horrible results.
- cmurf 10y ago
  That is supposed to be true, but it's difficult to grant this level of trust when they don't trust the public. There is no transparency in this process, and there's no agreement on whether it's even legal. It's normal for people to reduce their level of trust in others who initiate a trust reduction arbitrarily. Of course the individual alone knows whether they are trust worthy, so the instance they're treated with suspicion, they know whether it's misplaced, and it goes directly to competency and motive, and the mere questioning of why the searches are happening means trust has been reduced.
- s73ver 10y ago
  I don't care if they believe they're a force for good or not. They're still being shitty, and they should be shat on. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Then tell people why you think so. What real value do you think is achieved by allowing CBP to arbitrarily poke around cell phones being brought into the country that are not at all hidden? How much liberty from unreasonable search and seizure do we have to endure for the infinitesimal possibility that some good will come from these searches, you know, just like all the good that comes of TSA searches (I know for a fact I've taken pocket knives and multitools and hammers through airport security on multiple occasions). Yes, you can argue that, legally, at the border, there are different standards for reasonability and a requirement thereof. But I'd like to hear a cogent argument for why that is, and how that plays into the need for such a thing.
mikeash 10y ago
I always turn my phone off before going through customs. This temporarily disables fingerprint unlocking and requires my password instead. My understanding is that it is legally possible to compel you to unlock your phone with a fingerprint, but not possible to compel you to provide your password. If they threaten to seize my phone, I'll let them. I have plenty of spares and can afford a new one if it comes down to it. Of course, many people don't have the means to make this a practical approach.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  > My understanding is that it is legally possible to compel you to unlock your phone with a fingerprint, but not possible to compel you to provide your password. True for police, but less clear for border crossings. http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/02/16/border-agent-unlock-phone http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/02/16/border-agent-unloc... > They don't even need a warrant. It's clear the government does not need a warrant to search the phone based on a constitutional law, a set of cases called the Border Search Exceptions.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    The fact that they don't need a warrant is irrelevant when there are technological measures which require your cooperation to make it happen. The question is, what happens if you don't cooperate? For fingerprint authentication, I believe it's been established that they can hold you until you cooperate. For passwords, they can't. "The second question is, can they detain you until you hand over your passcode? They probably have some power to detain you for a little bit — maybe for an hour or two — not forever. They can't hold at the border and say, ‘Alright, you're living here until you hand over your passcode.’" Then the question is whether they can follow up with some sort of punishment after the fact if you continue to refuse. According to that article, it hasn't been established yet, but I'm confident that it would come out in my favor, and furthermore that they would think similarly and not even try it.
    - LyndsySimon 10y ago
      As far as I can figure, if your phone is powered off and requires a passcode to run, the only thing they can do is confiscate your device. They cannot bar a US citizen from entry into the country - even if you have no passport or identification, they can only fine you for entering without it. If they confiscate your device I'm not sure how long they can keep it off the top of my head, but I would operate under the assumption that you're not getting it back. There are legal remedies for this sort of warrantless seizure, but I'm guessing that there's a mechanism through which they could charge the phone itself with a crime in order to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, a'la asset forfeiture.

by _jal 10y ago

dominotw 10y ago

> Make being a trouble-maker a badge of honor. don't do this if you are an immigrant, please.

LyndsySimon 10y ago
On the other hand, being jealous of your rights is almost a requirement for citizenship :)
- merpnderp 10y ago
  I love that line. Thanks.

diminoten 10y ago

Honestly, I do accept it, because I still believe they're trying to do the right thing. I know it's easy to shit on law enforcement, but I still fundamentally believe that they're a force of good. Edit: I'd love to discuss this more with all of you, but I've been told by HN moderation that I am a negative force on this website and discussions like these are why. I hope some day there'll be a place we can talk about this kind of thing civilly, but it's not here and it's not today, unfortunately.

mikeash 10y ago
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I would argue that resisting evil actions by good people is more noble than resisting evil actions by evil people, because you stand a better chance of changing things when they don't intend to be evil. I've never had my phone searched, but if they tried, I'd say, "Good luck cracking my password. Can I go now?"
- diminoten 10y ago
  Brave words typed onto an Internet forum. I don't think this is an "evil action" to begin with.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    What's "brave" about it? I'm a programmer making a good salary, and all I have to lose is my phone. I can buy another one if they decide to threaten me with seizure. If you don't think it's an evil action, then why are you phrasing it as "I still believe they're trying to do the right thing"? I interpret that as "I think they're doing the wrong thing, but I don't mind because they think it's the right thing." If it's not evil then why not defend the action on its own merits, rather than appealing to the fundamental goodness of the organization?
    - diminoten 10y ago
      Because it's perceived as evil, and I didn't want to litigate that and be a force of negativity on HN.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Thinking it is appropriate to search phones is at least a solid argument. People might loudly disagree or downvote, but it's a coherent opinion. The idea that trying to do the right thing can justify something is specious nonsense.
        diminoten 10y ago
        It's specious nonsense to try to do the right thing? You can't possibly mean that, right?
        jtmcmc 10y ago
        It's specious nonsense to justify things by saying they are trying to do the right thing.
maxerickson 10y ago
It's entirely possible to believe that law enforcement are a net good and also that they do lots of things that they shouldn't. That they are trying to do the right thing doesn't really excuse doing bad things. Lots of evil is carried out by people that think they are trying to do the right thing.
1001101 10y ago
It's a continuum, and everyone has their favorite setting on the dial based on their values and experience. Fortunately, we have the Bill of Rights to say where the max setting is in the US, but, unfortunately, I think they've taken it to 11.
- DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
  I thought that too, but a series of Supreme Court ruling disagrees with me.
colbyh 10y ago
parts aren't the whole, and it's completely justifiable to say "you might be doing this for the right reasons but this particular action is wrong". distrust in a process isn't distrust of the entire agency.
ska 10y ago
You can be a bit more nuanced than that without being anti-LEO. I believe law enforcement organization are almost essentially incapable of self-regulating their tendency to accumulate additional powers. I also believe there are clear benefits to limiting these powers. If you accept these premises, it's clear that constraint must be applied from outside of the LEOs themselves. The typical answer to how, is through legislation and oversight. If you don't believe that is being performed effectively, there is a pretty compelling argument for action to improve the system. Historically speaking, "They were trying to do the right thing" is a poor excuse for any number of pretty horrible results.
cmurf 10y ago
That is supposed to be true, but it's difficult to grant this level of trust when they don't trust the public. There is no transparency in this process, and there's no agreement on whether it's even legal. It's normal for people to reduce their level of trust in others who initiate a trust reduction arbitrarily. Of course the individual alone knows whether they are trust worthy, so the instance they're treated with suspicion, they know whether it's misplaced, and it goes directly to competency and motive, and the mere questioning of why the searches are happening means trust has been reduced.
s73ver 10y ago
I don't care if they believe they're a force for good or not. They're still being shitty, and they should be shat on. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
FireBeyond 10y ago
Then tell people why you think so. What real value do you think is achieved by allowing CBP to arbitrarily poke around cell phones being brought into the country that are not at all hidden? How much liberty from unreasonable search and seizure do we have to endure for the infinitesimal possibility that some good will come from these searches, you know, just like all the good that comes of TSA searches (I know for a fact I've taken pocket knives and multitools and hammers through airport security on multiple occasions). Yes, you can argue that, legally, at the border, there are different standards for reasonability and a requirement thereof. But I'd like to hear a cogent argument for why that is, and how that plays into the need for such a thing.

mikeash 10y ago

I always turn my phone off before going through customs. This temporarily disables fingerprint unlocking and requires my password instead. My understanding is that it is legally possible to compel you to unlock your phone with a fingerprint, but not possible to compel you to provide your password. If they threaten to seize my phone, I'll let them. I have plenty of spares and can afford a new one if it comes down to it. Of course, many people don't have the means to make this a practical approach.

ceejayoz 10y ago
> My understanding is that it is legally possible to compel you to unlock your phone with a fingerprint, but not possible to compel you to provide your password. True for police, but less clear for border crossings. http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/02/16/border-agent-unlock-phone http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/02/16/border-agent-unloc... > They don't even need a warrant. It's clear the government does not need a warrant to search the phone based on a constitutional law, a set of cases called the Border Search Exceptions.
- mikeash 10y ago
  The fact that they don't need a warrant is irrelevant when there are technological measures which require your cooperation to make it happen. The question is, what happens if you don't cooperate? For fingerprint authentication, I believe it's been established that they can hold you until you cooperate. For passwords, they can't. "The second question is, can they detain you until you hand over your passcode? They probably have some power to detain you for a little bit — maybe for an hour or two — not forever. They can't hold at the border and say, ‘Alright, you're living here until you hand over your passcode.’" Then the question is whether they can follow up with some sort of punishment after the fact if you continue to refuse. According to that article, it hasn't been established yet, but I'm confident that it would come out in my favor, and furthermore that they would think similarly and not even try it.
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    As far as I can figure, if your phone is powered off and requires a passcode to run, the only thing they can do is confiscate your device. They cannot bar a US citizen from entry into the country - even if you have no passport or identification, they can only fine you for entering without it. If they confiscate your device I'm not sure how long they can keep it off the top of my head, but I would operate under the assumption that you're not getting it back. There are legal remedies for this sort of warrantless seizure, but I'm guessing that there's a mechanism through which they could charge the phone itself with a crime in order to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, a'la asset forfeiture.