5 ms·

Ignorant question for those who have had to transit the US border (it has been many years for me) - are these device searches now routine? I.e. do they automati

by yborg 9y ago

Ignorant question for those who have had to transit the US border (it has been many years for me) - are these device searches now routine? I.e. do they automatically request access to any locked smartphone, etc?

paulsutter 9y ago
From https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-updated-border-search-electronic-device-directive-and https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-rele...: > In FY17, ... Approximately 0.007 percent of arriving international travelers processed by CBP officers (more than 397 million) had their electronic devices searched I would guess devices are searched at the border for parallel reconstruction (to find information they already know without disclosing details about surveillance)
- tptacek 9y ago
  You would guess that based on what evidence? Just first principles, in the sense that if you ran an DOJ and a CBP with what you believe the same objectives as the real DOJ and CBP, that's what you'd do?
  - paulsutter 9y ago
    Two reasons: (1) There were posts on HN around the time of the Snowden news of border agents presenting private emails, in one instance someone was traveling as a tourist but had email inviting them to perform as a musician (2) In individual stories I read of searched phones, the agent already knew where to look (for example, went directly to an app with discussion arranging paid hookups) We already know that parallel reconstruction is common for surveillance used by law enforcement (DEA, local police using Stingray, etc) so that seems more believable than random spot checks on .007% of people.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      We know that parallel reconstruction is "common"? Can you back that up with evidence?
      - paulsutter 9y ago
        Google “parallel reconstruction stingray” or “parallel reconstruction dea” Nothing prevents police or prosecutors from using inadmissible evidence, they just can’t produce it in court.
        tptacek 9y ago
        That's categorically false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
        paulsutter 9y ago
        You should read your own link. Parallel reconstruction is an explicit exception to that rule. I would be thrilled if you can debunk parallel reconstruction, but that doctrine is the very reason for it. From your link: “The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if: - it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source”
        tptacek 9y ago
        We're mis-communicating. You said: Nothing prevents police or prosecutors from using inadmissible evidence, they just can’t produce it in court. That statement by itself is clearly false. The police cannot illegally search you and use that evidence as a means to find additional evidence, and then present that evidence in court as if it was untainted. What I gather you meant now was that parallel construction allows them to do this. Parallel construction is the process by which unlawful evidence is used to direct the attention of LEOs, who, after plainly observing some other crime or probable cause indicator, then conduct a search. I know what parallel construction is, but what I do not know is why you believe the process is common. Do you have any evidence for the frequency with which it is used? The revelation that it had ever happened was a major news story just a few years ago. Is it your belief that it was common practice, and that even though there are something like 500,000 working law enforcement agents in the US, somehow the secret never got out until recently? To be very clear: I believe parallel construction has happened and will happen again in the future, but I do not believe it is routine or that any process at CBP is tuned to amplify it.
microcolonel 9y ago
Rather unusual, especially when it comes to crossing the northern land border, and especially crossing that land border with more than one person in the vehicle. It's fairly unusual for them to perform any search or inspection at the Canadian land border for Canadian or United States citizens or residents. I suspect that persons who are from nations which are considerably less diplomatically positive with the United States, and especially who have specific grounds for suspicion related to their identity or documents, would bear the brunt of searches in general and electronic device searches in particular.

by yborg 9y ago

paulsutter 9y ago

From https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-updated-border-search-electronic-device-directive-and https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-rele...: > In FY17, ... Approximately 0.007 percent of arriving international travelers processed by CBP officers (more than 397 million) had their electronic devices searched I would guess devices are searched at the border for parallel reconstruction (to find information they already know without disclosing details about surveillance)

tptacek 9y ago
You would guess that based on what evidence? Just first principles, in the sense that if you ran an DOJ and a CBP with what you believe the same objectives as the real DOJ and CBP, that's what you'd do?
- paulsutter 9y ago
  Two reasons: (1) There were posts on HN around the time of the Snowden news of border agents presenting private emails, in one instance someone was traveling as a tourist but had email inviting them to perform as a musician (2) In individual stories I read of searched phones, the agent already knew where to look (for example, went directly to an app with discussion arranging paid hookups) We already know that parallel reconstruction is common for surveillance used by law enforcement (DEA, local police using Stingray, etc) so that seems more believable than random spot checks on .007% of people.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    We know that parallel reconstruction is "common"? Can you back that up with evidence?
    - paulsutter 9y ago
      Google “parallel reconstruction stingray” or “parallel reconstruction dea” Nothing prevents police or prosecutors from using inadmissible evidence, they just can’t produce it in court.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        That's categorically false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
        paulsutter 9y ago
        You should read your own link. Parallel reconstruction is an explicit exception to that rule. I would be thrilled if you can debunk parallel reconstruction, but that doctrine is the very reason for it. From your link: “The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if: - it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source”
        tptacek 9y ago
        We're mis-communicating. You said: Nothing prevents police or prosecutors from using inadmissible evidence, they just can’t produce it in court. That statement by itself is clearly false. The police cannot illegally search you and use that evidence as a means to find additional evidence, and then present that evidence in court as if it was untainted. What I gather you meant now was that parallel construction allows them to do this. Parallel construction is the process by which unlawful evidence is used to direct the attention of LEOs, who, after plainly observing some other crime or probable cause indicator, then conduct a search. I know what parallel construction is, but what I do not know is why you believe the process is common. Do you have any evidence for the frequency with which it is used? The revelation that it had ever happened was a major news story just a few years ago. Is it your belief that it was common practice, and that even though there are something like 500,000 working law enforcement agents in the US, somehow the secret never got out until recently? To be very clear: I believe parallel construction has happened and will happen again in the future, but I do not believe it is routine or that any process at CBP is tuned to amplify it.

microcolonel 9y ago

Rather unusual, especially when it comes to crossing the northern land border, and especially crossing that land border with more than one person in the vehicle. It's fairly unusual for them to perform any search or inspection at the Canadian land border for Canadian or United States citizens or residents. I suspect that persons who are from nations which are considerably less diplomatically positive with the United States, and especially who have specific grounds for suspicion related to their identity or documents, would bear the brunt of searches in general and electronic device searches in particular.