5 ms·

As a general comment to so many of the follow-ups to this post: You really, really don't want to get into a rules-lawyering match with Federal fucking prosecut

by rosser 9y ago

As a general comment to so many of the follow-ups to this post: You really, really don't want to get into a rules-lawyering match with Federal fucking prosecutors over whether "clever technological solution" counts as "hiding" something or not. They have all of the guns in this situation, and you have a demonstrably inaccurate understanding of the relevant statute. You WILL lose.

hypersoar 9y ago
More than that, everyone is getting up on the wording of the particular hypothetical question posed above. It could easily be replaced with "Did you remove any data from your device so that we wouldn't be able to see it?", or "Did you enable Travel Mode in 1Password?", or even "Please sign this form affirming that you have not hidden anything from us or employed anything from this list of loopholes thought up by cheeky engineers." Your adversary here is a group of humans. Not a Bash script.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  > Your adversary here is a group of humans. Not a Bash script. This is an awfully good summary. There are a thousand different questions that would invalidate this, and the idea that maybe-possibly-sort-of outwitting one question solves the problem is insane. Any reasonable plan has to be prepared for a question that can't be invaded - whether that means "yes, here's the data", or "yes, but I can't get the data", or "no comment, I want a lawyer".
sethev 9y ago
If the question is "are you hiding any information" then the obvious (and true) answer is no. If the question is "did you use travel mode for 1password" then that's a very different question. Unless you can point out a statute that requires you to travel with certain information on your device it's hard for me to see the problem. Your position seems to be that if you were carrying your checkbook (as an American) and then decided against it because you were worried someone might get your bank account number then you somehow risk getting into a debate over technicalities with a border agent. I would strongly recommend not getting into that debate as well by not bringing it up.
- xg15 9y ago
  I don't think searches of accounts are in any way excusable either, but for the purpose of rules-lawyering: You have deliberately chosen to make certain information not available during the search period and are planning to make it available again once the search is over. I can absolutely see how that counts as "hiding".
  - chii 9y ago
    Therefore, if you had a device to withdraw money remotely that required entering your pin, and if the security agent asked you for your pin, would you provide it? What if my laptop had similar capabilities?
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      The bank PIN isn't really comparable as government agents can access bank info (in UK at least); the only purpose of the PIN is money withdrawal - surely there is no situation where a border agent would be legally asking for that PIN? If it's going to bother you why not just use a dumb device and a VPN to access your sensitive data?
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    And crucially, "can see how" is all that matters here. If the argument isn't prima facie absurd, then you get to go to court with the government, where you won't win and will face horrible harms even if you somehow do. "But I'm technically right!" doesn't count here, only "but there's reason to dispute that".
Youareweakhn 9y ago
Haha, your life matters more than standards. Weak cunts everywhere in this thread
kakarot 9y ago
This is especially true if you allow them to frame the action as "hiding". L First you must ask them to not use loaded terminology like "hiding" when dealing with information you own and don't feel like accessing. Don't answer "yes" or "no" to whether you're hiding something. If you use their words then they have a huge advantage.
- rosser 9y ago
  I'm gonna bet that trying to "language-lawyer" how your CBP agent phrases their questions is a one-way ticket to a private interview, because that's not suspicious at all.
  - kakarot 9y ago
    You don't have to explain yourself to them. They don't know the legalities involved, they are grunts. Just tell them simply that you will only answer the question a single time, and the answer is no, and you will ignore future questions about the matter. And ask for your lawyer. If you aren't going to allow access into your personal devices to begin with, you're probably getting that interview regardless.
sorokod 9y ago
Looks like there is a business opportunity for an airport located on-demand lawyer practice.
- mcv 9y ago
  It honestly sounds like it would be irresponsible to travel to the US without a lawyer with you. In fact, sometimes the US sounds like you need a lawyer on hand at all times.
  - leesalminen 9y ago
    It's a pretty good rule of thumb.

by rosser 9y ago

hypersoar 9y ago

More than that, everyone is getting up on the wording of the particular hypothetical question posed above. It could easily be replaced with "Did you remove any data from your device so that we wouldn't be able to see it?", or "Did you enable Travel Mode in 1Password?", or even "Please sign this form affirming that you have not hidden anything from us or employed anything from this list of loopholes thought up by cheeky engineers." Your adversary here is a group of humans. Not a Bash script.

Bartweiss 9y ago
> Your adversary here is a group of humans. Not a Bash script. This is an awfully good summary. There are a thousand different questions that would invalidate this, and the idea that maybe-possibly-sort-of outwitting one question solves the problem is insane. Any reasonable plan has to be prepared for a question that can't be invaded - whether that means "yes, here's the data", or "yes, but I can't get the data", or "no comment, I want a lawyer".

sethev 9y ago

If the question is "are you hiding any information" then the obvious (and true) answer is no. If the question is "did you use travel mode for 1password" then that's a very different question. Unless you can point out a statute that requires you to travel with certain information on your device it's hard for me to see the problem. Your position seems to be that if you were carrying your checkbook (as an American) and then decided against it because you were worried someone might get your bank account number then you somehow risk getting into a debate over technicalities with a border agent. I would strongly recommend not getting into that debate as well by not bringing it up.

xg15 9y ago
I don't think searches of accounts are in any way excusable either, but for the purpose of rules-lawyering: You have deliberately chosen to make certain information not available during the search period and are planning to make it available again once the search is over. I can absolutely see how that counts as "hiding".
- chii 9y ago
  Therefore, if you had a device to withdraw money remotely that required entering your pin, and if the security agent asked you for your pin, would you provide it? What if my laptop had similar capabilities?
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    The bank PIN isn't really comparable as government agents can access bank info (in UK at least); the only purpose of the PIN is money withdrawal - surely there is no situation where a border agent would be legally asking for that PIN? If it's going to bother you why not just use a dumb device and a VPN to access your sensitive data?
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  And crucially, "can see how" is all that matters here. If the argument isn't prima facie absurd, then you get to go to court with the government, where you won't win and will face horrible harms even if you somehow do. "But I'm technically right!" doesn't count here, only "but there's reason to dispute that".

Youareweakhn 9y ago

Haha, your life matters more than standards. Weak cunts everywhere in this thread

kakarot 9y ago

This is especially true if you allow them to frame the action as "hiding". L First you must ask them to not use loaded terminology like "hiding" when dealing with information you own and don't feel like accessing. Don't answer "yes" or "no" to whether you're hiding something. If you use their words then they have a huge advantage.

rosser 9y ago
I'm gonna bet that trying to "language-lawyer" how your CBP agent phrases their questions is a one-way ticket to a private interview, because that's not suspicious at all.
- kakarot 9y ago
  You don't have to explain yourself to them. They don't know the legalities involved, they are grunts. Just tell them simply that you will only answer the question a single time, and the answer is no, and you will ignore future questions about the matter. And ask for your lawyer. If you aren't going to allow access into your personal devices to begin with, you're probably getting that interview regardless.

sorokod 9y ago

Looks like there is a business opportunity for an airport located on-demand lawyer practice.

mcv 9y ago
It honestly sounds like it would be irresponsible to travel to the US without a lawyer with you. In fact, sometimes the US sounds like you need a lawyer on hand at all times.
- leesalminen 9y ago
  It's a pretty good rule of thumb.