12 ms·

No one should have to travel in fear

444 points by geofft 8y ago

euphoria83 8y ago
Although it is difficult to do so, maintaining your calm when faced by intimidation by government agents generally works out. Andreas did exactly the right thing - followed his gut calmly then, filed a case in the courts later.
- forgot-my-pw 8y ago
  When did he file a case? It's not mentioned in the blog.
  - blattimwind 8y ago
    > It is in that spirit that I have filed a civil rights complaint with the help of the ACLU against CBP for unlawfully detaining me and violating my constitutional rights.
    - forgot-my-pw 8y ago
      Found the link someone else posted: https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-files-complaint-department-homeland-security-over-unwarranted-interrogation-and-attempted https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-files-complaint-department-...
      - andreasgal 8y ago
        It's a OCRCL complaint: https://www.dhs.gov/office-civil-rights-and-civil-liberties https://www.dhs.gov/office-civil-rights-and-civil-liberties
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    It's an administrative complaint with the Department of Homeland Security, not a legal case. Not sure if this is an area where there is an administrative remedy that needs to be exhausted before filing a lawsuit, or if there is some other reason for the decision to take this approach.
  - ccnafr 8y ago
    March 28, according to the complaint
- rwz 8y ago
  He had a huge benefit of being a US citizen. The worst they could do, is to intimidate and introduce a lot of stress into his life. They can't deny entry into the country to the citizen at the end of the day. As a green card holder with my whole life being here, I can be denied entry for whatever reason. This makes it pretty much impossible for me to maintain my rights and refuse to cooperate in any way.
jbhatab 8y ago
Fantastic that he posted his experience, but it sounded like a pretty standard experience with authorities for many Americans. Genuinely curious why this is news compared to what happens to many other people?
- Mizza 8y ago
  The ACLU is involved: https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-files-complaint-department-homeland-security-over-unwarranted-interrogation-and-attempted https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-files-complaint-department-...
- munchbunny 8y ago
  It doesn't have to be news to be worth posting.
- geofft 8y ago
  As a Global Entry holder myself I expect that because the government has done a background check on me, has my fingerprints, etc., it generally understands that (despite my Indian skin, unshaved stubble, and vote for Hillary) I am not a threat. I have voluntarily subjected myself the government conducting a background check and holding files / information on me in exchange for less hassle. So part of it is that it's baffling they would detain a Global Entry holder and effectively remove his Global Entry status without explanation. (For what it's worth, I helped my family move cross-country by car in summer 2016; we passed a "border" checkpoint in New Mexico or so, on I-10 relatively far from the border, where they stopped each car, asked us if we were citizens, and let us go on our way when I answered yes. That seems like a much more "standard" experience than what's here.) Part of it is denial of a lawyer. As I understand it, you might not have a right to deny the search, but you should still have access to counsel, because the point of legal representation is that they can tell you exactly what rights you do / don't have. Part of it is an apparent government focus on Mozilla. Andreas Gal hasn't been at Mozilla for about four years, but that's what they asked him about. And there was the visa denial for Daniel Stenberg (author of curl) when heading to the Mozilla all-hands: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/07/28/administrative-purgatory/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/07/28/administrative-purgat... And finally, part of it is that it shouldn't be common. It's a good reason for individuals and companies to leave America.
Mizza 8y ago
Is this something we need to petition congress to fix? Do CBP agents have the right to search the electronic devices of US citizens without a search warrant or not?
- CharlesColeman 8y ago
  > Is this something we need to petition congress to fix? Do CBP agents have the right to search the electronic devices of US citizens without a search warrant or not? IIRC, if you're a citizen, they have the power to seize your devices (and anything else you have, for that matter) and temporarily delay/detain you, but not to force you to unlock anything. They can't deny you entry. If you're not a citizen, then they can deny you entry. So you might have to choose to unlock your devices for them to return home to the US or avoid having your travel plans ruined. https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/privacy-borders-and-checkpoints/can-border-agents-search-your-electronic https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/privacy-borders...
  - krastanov 8y ago
    Indeed, they can not "force" you to unlock the device, however they can deny you entry to the country unless you open the device (although it seems this has not been thoroughly tested in the courts).
    - CharlesColeman 8y ago
      > however they can deny you entry to the country unless you open the device I think that's only true for noncitizens, they're required to let citizens in. Sorry, I think I was in the middle of updating my post as you replied.
    - brlewis 8y ago
      The ACLU of Northern California says they cannot deny you entry. https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-us-airports-and-ports-entry https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-r... U.S. Citizens: You only have to answer questions establishing your identity and citizenship (in addition to customs-related questions). Refusal to answer other questions may cause delay, but officials may not deny you entry into the U.S. if you have established your identity and citizenship.
cobbzilla 8y ago
It's horrible but the case-law seems fairly well settled; various courts have ruled that lots of searches that would otherwise violate the 4th Amendment are totally permissible for CBP agents within 100 miles of the border and at customs checkpoints within international airports. I'd love to be surprised if there is a legitimate case here.
- blattimwind 8y ago
  A constitutional right that by basic geography does not apply to ~80 % of the population seems rather moronic.
  - komali2 8y ago
    It's also unconstitutional, which people have been saying about the Patriot act for the last nearly two decades (Jesus how time flies) to no avail.
- ghayes 8y ago
  I believe it gives them a reason to conduct a search, but that still should not include compelling someone to disclose a password, which should be protected by the fifth amendment against self-incrimination.
- CalChris 8y ago
  That wouldn't extend to punatively confiscating his Global Entry card.
- geofft 8y ago
  Sure, but you should still have the right to have a lawyer confirm that for you, no? The entire reason we have the right to legal representation is that individuals are not expected to understand all the case law in the country. A lawyer can totally say "Yeah, they're allowed to search you, unlock your phone"—but the ability to confirm that with a lawyer is an important right.
  - the_watcher 8y ago
autotune 8y ago
It’s good he has the ACLU on his side and is working with them, they are the one non-profit org I actually donate to every month.
dragonwriter 8y ago
Here's the thing: If it was a legitimate search with real public security purpose, there is no excuse for letting him go without completing the search. If it was not a legitimate search with real public purpose, there is no excuse for the threats or retaliation. Irrespective of the legitimacy of the search, the behavior here is unjustifiable.
- hluska 8y ago
  Wonderfully written summary. Great job and great points!
- gotduped 8y ago
  And the beauty of it all is that irrespective of which it was, nothing will ever happen!
- neilv 8y ago
  Some other possibilities come to mind, and perhaps there are more: * It was a legitimate search wrt information available at the time, and then more/better information became available, and it was no longer legitimate. (Assuming a certain definition of "legitimate".) * It was a legitimate search, and cloning and/or compromising the devices took time. (Just devil's advocate, for intellectual curiosity, not disagreeing with public interest concern.)
  - geofft 8y ago
    My reading of https://www.aclunc.org/docs/ACLU-NC_2019-03-28_Letter_re._Electronic_Device_Search_SFO.pdf https://www.aclunc.org/docs/ACLU-NC_2019-03-28_Letter_re._El... is that they didn't take the devices out of his sight/control, they just demanded he unlock them and hand them over. > CBP officers searched Dr. Gal’s wallet and all his luggage, and asked questions about everything they found. When they discovered Dr. Gal’s Apple-issued electronic devices, the officers first asked Dr. Gal to pull up his itinerary on his mobile phone, and then to hand the unlocked device over to CBP. Dr. Gal responded that he would email them the itinerary, but that he would need to speak with a lawyer and his employer before giving CBP officers full access to his mobile phone. ... > Moreover, there was no reason for any CBP officers—TTRT or otherwise—to detain and interrogate Dr. Gal or his devices. Notably, CBP officers did not confiscate and retain Dr. Gal’s devices, which they were authorized to do under the Directive and presumably would have done if they truly felt that they possessed a basis for detaining Dr. Gal or keeping his devices. See Directive, § 5.3.3. Instead, CBP officers proceeded to demand that Dr. Gal provide immediate, unlimited access to his devices.
dmitrygr 8y ago
A tip of my hat to the guy for not relenting and unlocking his devices under threats of violence and staying silent! Well done!
Rafuino 8y ago
Going on a trip in the short term and just got a phone with facial recognition unlock. I think it's important to turn this feature off before returning to the US as it could easily be misused in this exact situation.
- sithadmin 8y ago
  Disable biometric auths of any kind, and turn the phone off before approaching CBP.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Turning the phone off is sufficient for disabling biometric authentication.
- zachr 8y ago
  On an iPhone, you can tap the power button five times consecutively to disable biometric access. However, I think the only way to do this on a MacBook with TouchID is turning it off.
  - bigzyg33k 8y ago
    You could also ensure you turn off the MBP before you enter customs, as it requires a password on startup
komali2 8y ago
Dunno what to do about this. I think TSA is a sham and a waste of my money. I think border control is taking my money and using it to abuse people. I don't think it's ok that I can pay to avoid the poor people line at the airport. I've written my reps and the president, I call about once a month, but it has no measurable effect. Smarter people than me have done audits on TSA and published them in famous newspapers to show how useless they are. There's people fighting against CBP locking up asylum seekers but it still happens. Dunno what to do. Partner and I are considering abandoning the USA.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- DanFeldman 8y ago
  For what its worth, SFO does not use the TSA [0]. The posted article does not mention the TSA at all, only Border Patrol and Customs agents. I've had terrible TSA experiences at other airports, but never a problem with the security at SFO. [0] https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article224308380.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/artic...
  - closetohome 8y ago
    CBP is a waste of oxygen too. They're so incompetent the TSA could do their job and we wouldn't notice the difference.
    - 420codebro 8y ago
      Real compelling argument.
- zachberger 8y ago
  You don't have to pay to bypass the lines. The free "Mobile Passport" app allows you to go into a line is almost as quick as Global Entry.
  - 8y ago
caprese 8y ago
> The customs agents did however keep my Global Entry card as a punishment ????? You never need your global entry card at airport customs because your flight information is encoded to your passport, which the machine scans. Was that supposed to be punishment? Why did he even have it? Does the Global Entry number still work and automatically give you TSA Pre on the new tickets you purchase?
- tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago
  I'd assume that they also revoked Global Entry, which they can do arbitrarily and I'd be surprised if "you didn't comply with our arbitrary demands" wasn't explicitly listed as one of the specific examples of reasons for revoking it.
  - caprese 8y ago
    > I'd assume that they also revoked Global Entry instead of assuming can we get an answer? OP? ACLU? The author mentioned he has taken flights since then, he should be able to answer if he still gets TSA Pre, nobody's asked yet its just as likely that they literally only took the card from him.
    - andreasgal 8y ago
      They found the card with my passport. They took the card, and a few days later my status was revoked as well.
      - geofft 8y ago
        Are you in the process of trying to get it reinstated, or not yet? (The ACLU letter doesn't seem to include a demand for reinstating it, but I guess you'd be approaching it in some other way)
      - caprese 8y ago
        Insightful, think one of those travel sites like thepointsguy would rally support for clarity?
_bxg1 8y ago
Border Patrol has become the KGB. Hopefully this will reach a boiling point soon and they'll harass someone important enough to get the gears actually moving toward ending this madness.
- crazy_monkey 8y ago
  Yah, peeps r going to the gulag 4 sure...
- hopler 8y ago
  No. If they find someone important they just let him go with an apology. Penn Jillette fought them years ago and refused their apology; it went nowhere.
rajbot 8y ago
> The agents proceeded to search my belongings and demanded that I unlock my smartphone and laptop. This was rather concerning for me. My phone and laptop are property of my employer and contain unreleased software and proprietary information. I’ve signed a non-disclosure agreement promising not to give anyone access. His employer is Apple. I was always worried about this same scenario when traveling with an Apple-owned laptop..
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  Maybe keep the card of Apple's lawyers on your person. If you're in a situation like this, have them call the number. Or clarify Apple's policy on this before traveling.
  - rajbot 8y ago
    His request to call his employer or an attorney was denied: > I asked the agents if I could speak to my employer or an attorney before unlocking my devices. This request seemed to aggravate the customs officers. They informed me that I had no right to speak to an attorney at the border despite being a U.S. citizen, and threatened me that failure to immediately comply with their demand is a violation of federal criminal code 18 USC 111.
    - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
      I missed that point. Thank you for correcting me.
  - barkingcat 8y ago
    Calling a lawyer was specifically denied in this case.
- techslave 8y ago
  if his employer is apple then he is fine to unlock. all such employers require you to follow border agent instructions. that said he may be in violation of a policy not to travel with proprietary info
_bxg1 8y ago
Every time an article like this pops up (seems like a couple times a month now), I'm validated in my decision to donate monthly to the ACLU. They're always mentioned as fighting this stuff on the front lines.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  Every time an article like this pops up I am validated in my decision to no longer travel to the United States.
  - _bxg1 8y ago
    Touche
  - 14 8y ago
    This is the part I don't get. Surely they realize there are a large portion of people that will avoid that county just on principle that they may be hassled at the border. I can imagine that these policies have cost them millions of dollars. Imagine going to a county and being turned around all because you had an employers laptop you promised not to unlock for anyone. Or how about a personal laptop with naked pictures of your wife and kids bathing. Especially when we know it is all security theater. So I am with you. I will avoid the USA for now until the climate changes.
    - _bxg1 8y ago
      These power-tripping thugs don't think that far ahead. They only care about exercising authority in their tiny little hundred-foot-long kingdom.
      - jacobush 8y ago
        Thugs will be thugs but the problem is with those who put them there
    - smoe 8y ago
      Pretty much all Europeans I know working in Latin America that travel home 1-2 a year, avoid flights that go trough US airports even tough it would often be the cheapest options by quite some margin. For me not having to deal with US borders is worth the up to 300 USD difference in flight price. I did it once back in 2008 for a flight from Costa Rica to Switzerland via Miami and was caught completely by surprise that, unlike every other airport in the world I have been prior, Miami (US in general?) did not have a separate transit area, and that I had to go trough the whole customs and migration circus for a 3 hour layover.
throwawaystale 8y ago
He's saying he was targeted because he's known to disapprove of the Trump administration? Please. If anything, it was considerably worse prior to 2016. A better question would be why someone technically knowledgeable would be carrying a laptop through airline security at all. As soon as it's out of your hands, you have to assume it's been blown, security-wise. Far better to just buy a burner Chromebook at your destination.
- geofft 8y ago
  Taking a laptop through airport security as a carry-on doesn't involve letting it out of your hands. (I assume they do not hire hobbits to hide inside the X-ray machine and implant hardware on your motherboard.)
  - throwawaystale 8y ago
    Let's just say I have a lot or respect for the possibilities I'm aware of, together with a general sense that there's a lot that I don't know. In any case, just because you usually get your laptop handed right back, it doesn't follow that you always will. If it matters to you, buy that burner.
    - geofft 8y ago
      Even so: 1. I can expect that there's a chance that my laptop will be taken from me (and perhaps returned modified or perhaps taken permanently) while still not being okay with that. It's one thing to expect a right to be violated; it's another thing to give up. 2. It's not unreasonable to travel with a laptop while expecting a small chance that it's taken, in which case you'll buy a new one and restore from backup, instead of buying a burner every time.
      - throwawaystale 8y ago
        1. Indeed, I'm only talking about is, not ought. Please do complain. Leave Trump out, though. Nothing he can do about it, and if he seriously tried, he'd wake up with a horse's head in his bed. 2. If you truly believe your laptop is clean and encryption sufficiently uncrackable, go ahead. I don't think I'm that smart, myself.
techslave 8y ago
i love how “the time is long overdue”. everyone says that when it happens to them. he’s not wrong, but we need more folks that don’t sit around as if it’s someone else’s problem.
withinrafael 8y ago
How does a layperson without retained counsel handle this? Is there an ACLU hotline? Do I need to be prepared with a number in my wallet?
- _bxg1 8y ago
  They didn't even give him the chance to make a call. You're completely helpless unless you've done your research and come up with a game plan ahead of time.
telesilla 8y ago
You're not alone. I've cut my U.S. travel significantly in the last years due to what I've experienced as hostile border agents for reasons I could never quite figure out but probably related to my nomadic lifestyle. I'm not a U.S. citizen but I do come from a "friendly" nation and it's shameful some of the things that have been said to me in an effort to catch me out in a lie that didn't exist.
GeekyBear 8y ago
Glen Greenwald started writing about this back in 2012. >One of the more extreme government abuses of the post-9/11 era targets U.S. citizens re-entering their own country, and it has received far too little attention. With no oversight or legal framework whatsoever, the Department of Homeland Security routinely singles out individuals who are suspected of no crimes, detains them and questions them at the airport, often for hours, when they return to the U.S. after an international trip, and then copies and even seizes their electronic devices (laptops, cameras, cellphones) and other papers (notebooks, journals, credit card receipts), forever storing their contents in government files. No search warrant is needed for any of this. No oversight exists. And there are no apparent constraints on what the U.S. Government can do with regard to whom it decides to target or why. https://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/ https://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_de... Laura Poitras, the documentary filmmaker whose story was told in the above link faced several dozen of these incidents between the Bush and the Obama years. Interestingly, Edward Snowden learned who Poitras was from this series of stories, and Poitras' experiences with repeated searches and seizures led to her learning enough about encryption so that when Snowden decided to contact the press and become a whistleblower, Poitras was the first journalist he attempted to contact who knew enough to be able to exchange encryption keys and communicate with him directly.
brlewis 8y ago
They informed me that I had no right to speak to an attorney at the border despite being a U.S. citizen, and threatened me that failure to immediately comply with their demand is a violation of federal criminal code 18 USC 111. The Justice dept refutes the part about 18 USC 111. A forcible act must be involved, not passive resistance: https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1565-forcible-act-required-18-usc-111-application-statute-threats https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1565-for...
jedberg 8y ago
Immigration lawyers: What is the right thing to do when you are detained at the border as a US citizen?
throw2016 8y ago
This is becoming too common. Laura Poitras has documented her harassment as have multiple others activists and journalists. The idea of opaque no fly and other secret lists, secret processes and demanding to go through people's personal papers is totalitarian. If this happened in China or for instance Venezuela there is instant global outrage about 'freedom' and yet every time the exact same thing happens in the UK or the US the outrage is quickly replaced by legalese and apologism. Surely if people cared so much about any of these values they would severely push back when it happens in their own backyard but we rarely see that, just more demonizing others which quickly loses meaning and becomes complicit in the descent to a quasi police state. Many who make sweeping statement about 'democracy' and 'freedom' seem to be severely disconnected from things on the ground as those those who use these 'freedoms' in any serious way in terms of actual activism or critical journalism however slight end up on some kind of list and singled out for harassment. [1] [1] https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/25/the-tsas-role-as-journalist-harasser-and-media-watchdog/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/25/the-tsas-role-as-jou...
mindfulhack 8y ago
This needs to be challenged to the Supreme Court level whereby it is deemed unconstitutional for TSA agents to detain and seize people and their possessions without actual demonstrable cause relating to national security and/or the spirit of the law(s) governing their policies and procedure. If overly broad legislation is being abused against the spirit and intention of it, then the court needs to step in to legally to rule that this cannot be done, so long as such finding is in line with the constitution.
- hopler 8y ago
  Won't happen until Donald Trump's justices retire.
  - masonic 8y ago
    Justices? Trump has nominated exactly one.
    - mclehman 8y ago
      Gorsuch and Kavanaugh make two.
    - erik_seaberg 8y ago
      And this ridiculous customs policy probably dates back to the Clinton administration. I know it was perennial ragebait on Slashdot.
prawn 8y ago
Border responses are little different to the support the average person gets from a tech giant. You get the response you get and that’s it. You need deep pockets, serious friends or an online furore or you have no choice but to remain oblivious. As with the tech giants, for the decent people caught up by mistake, it’s frustrating and terrifying.
the_fonz 8y ago
It's analogous to police "searching" a homeless person by throwing, tearing up and destroying all of their property without even reasonable suspicion... they do it and get away with murdering people time-after-time because they can under a thinly-duplicitous cover of qualified immunity (at least in the US). Although police at the borders don't have to have any reasonable suspicion for searches, racial profiling, secret watch lists and targeted intimidation are a likely consequent of an unfettered military-industrial complex that long since ceased to do more than security theater and carry water for the corporate elites. So it should come with zero surprise that such an empire's law enforcement acts with impunity however it pleases and only ensures to "serve and protect" the rich elites' and their property, effectively creating a socioeconomic apartheid of gated communities and post-apocalyptic anarchist favelas, both in terms of geography and public discrimination, that tears a society apart into a failed, third-world, backwards country.
gcbw2 8y ago
> but agents confiscated Gal's Global Entry card The irony (and borderline hypocrisy) of a "privacy advocate" who have a Global Entry card.
dirkg 8y ago
CBP/TSA/DHS are thugs who have virtually unlimited power, zero accountability, and relish the chance to abuse their power. Its no different from cops celebrating killing innocent people. The US media is a joke, they drump up fear without holding anyone in govt accountable, and the people are stupid, no one cares about this kind of thing, they'd rather believe the usual nonsense about 'keeping us safe'.

444 points by geofft 8y ago

Although it is difficult to do so, maintaining your calm when faced by intimidation by government agents generally works out. Andreas did exactly the right thing - followed his gut calmly then, filed a case in the courts later.

forgot-my-pw 8y ago
When did he file a case? It's not mentioned in the blog.
- blattimwind 8y ago
  > It is in that spirit that I have filed a civil rights complaint with the help of the ACLU against CBP for unlawfully detaining me and violating my constitutional rights.
  - forgot-my-pw 8y ago
    Found the link someone else posted: https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-files-complaint-department-homeland-security-over-unwarranted-interrogation-and-attempted https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-files-complaint-department-...
    - andreasgal 8y ago
      It's a OCRCL complaint: https://www.dhs.gov/office-civil-rights-and-civil-liberties https://www.dhs.gov/office-civil-rights-and-civil-liberties
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  It's an administrative complaint with the Department of Homeland Security, not a legal case. Not sure if this is an area where there is an administrative remedy that needs to be exhausted before filing a lawsuit, or if there is some other reason for the decision to take this approach.
- ccnafr 8y ago
  March 28, according to the complaint
rwz 8y ago
He had a huge benefit of being a US citizen. The worst they could do, is to intimidate and introduce a lot of stress into his life. They can't deny entry into the country to the citizen at the end of the day. As a green card holder with my whole life being here, I can be denied entry for whatever reason. This makes it pretty much impossible for me to maintain my rights and refuse to cooperate in any way.

jbhatab 8y ago

Fantastic that he posted his experience, but it sounded like a pretty standard experience with authorities for many Americans. Genuinely curious why this is news compared to what happens to many other people?

Mizza 8y ago
The ACLU is involved: https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-files-complaint-department-homeland-security-over-unwarranted-interrogation-and-attempted https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-files-complaint-department-...
munchbunny 8y ago
It doesn't have to be news to be worth posting.
geofft 8y ago
As a Global Entry holder myself I expect that because the government has done a background check on me, has my fingerprints, etc., it generally understands that (despite my Indian skin, unshaved stubble, and vote for Hillary) I am not a threat. I have voluntarily subjected myself the government conducting a background check and holding files / information on me in exchange for less hassle. So part of it is that it's baffling they would detain a Global Entry holder and effectively remove his Global Entry status without explanation. (For what it's worth, I helped my family move cross-country by car in summer 2016; we passed a "border" checkpoint in New Mexico or so, on I-10 relatively far from the border, where they stopped each car, asked us if we were citizens, and let us go on our way when I answered yes. That seems like a much more "standard" experience than what's here.) Part of it is denial of a lawyer. As I understand it, you might not have a right to deny the search, but you should still have access to counsel, because the point of legal representation is that they can tell you exactly what rights you do / don't have. Part of it is an apparent government focus on Mozilla. Andreas Gal hasn't been at Mozilla for about four years, but that's what they asked him about. And there was the visa denial for Daniel Stenberg (author of curl) when heading to the Mozilla all-hands: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/07/28/administrative-purgatory/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/07/28/administrative-purgat... And finally, part of it is that it shouldn't be common. It's a good reason for individuals and companies to leave America.

Mizza 8y ago

Is this something we need to petition congress to fix? Do CBP agents have the right to search the electronic devices of US citizens without a search warrant or not?

CharlesColeman 8y ago
> Is this something we need to petition congress to fix? Do CBP agents have the right to search the electronic devices of US citizens without a search warrant or not? IIRC, if you're a citizen, they have the power to seize your devices (and anything else you have, for that matter) and temporarily delay/detain you, but not to force you to unlock anything. They can't deny you entry. If you're not a citizen, then they can deny you entry. So you might have to choose to unlock your devices for them to return home to the US or avoid having your travel plans ruined. https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/privacy-borders-and-checkpoints/can-border-agents-search-your-electronic https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/privacy-borders...
- krastanov 8y ago
  Indeed, they can not "force" you to unlock the device, however they can deny you entry to the country unless you open the device (although it seems this has not been thoroughly tested in the courts).
  - CharlesColeman 8y ago
    > however they can deny you entry to the country unless you open the device I think that's only true for noncitizens, they're required to let citizens in. Sorry, I think I was in the middle of updating my post as you replied.
  - brlewis 8y ago
    The ACLU of Northern California says they cannot deny you entry. https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-us-airports-and-ports-entry https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-r... U.S. Citizens: You only have to answer questions establishing your identity and citizenship (in addition to customs-related questions). Refusal to answer other questions may cause delay, but officials may not deny you entry into the U.S. if you have established your identity and citizenship.

cobbzilla 8y ago

It's horrible but the case-law seems fairly well settled; various courts have ruled that lots of searches that would otherwise violate the 4th Amendment are totally permissible for CBP agents within 100 miles of the border and at customs checkpoints within international airports. I'd love to be surprised if there is a legitimate case here.

blattimwind 8y ago
A constitutional right that by basic geography does not apply to ~80 % of the population seems rather moronic.
- komali2 8y ago
  It's also unconstitutional, which people have been saying about the Patriot act for the last nearly two decades (Jesus how time flies) to no avail.
ghayes 8y ago
I believe it gives them a reason to conduct a search, but that still should not include compelling someone to disclose a password, which should be protected by the fifth amendment against self-incrimination.
CalChris 8y ago
That wouldn't extend to punatively confiscating his Global Entry card.
geofft 8y ago
Sure, but you should still have the right to have a lawyer confirm that for you, no? The entire reason we have the right to legal representation is that individuals are not expected to understand all the case law in the country. A lawyer can totally say "Yeah, they're allowed to search you, unlock your phone"—but the ability to confirm that with a lawyer is an important right.
- the_watcher 8y ago

autotune 8y ago

It’s good he has the ACLU on his side and is working with them, they are the one non-profit org I actually donate to every month.

dragonwriter 8y ago

Here's the thing: If it was a legitimate search with real public security purpose, there is no excuse for letting him go without completing the search. If it was not a legitimate search with real public purpose, there is no excuse for the threats or retaliation. Irrespective of the legitimacy of the search, the behavior here is unjustifiable.

hluska 8y ago
Wonderfully written summary. Great job and great points!
gotduped 8y ago
And the beauty of it all is that irrespective of which it was, nothing will ever happen!
neilv 8y ago
Some other possibilities come to mind, and perhaps there are more: * It was a legitimate search wrt information available at the time, and then more/better information became available, and it was no longer legitimate. (Assuming a certain definition of "legitimate".) * It was a legitimate search, and cloning and/or compromising the devices took time. (Just devil's advocate, for intellectual curiosity, not disagreeing with public interest concern.)
- geofft 8y ago
  My reading of https://www.aclunc.org/docs/ACLU-NC_2019-03-28_Letter_re._Electronic_Device_Search_SFO.pdf https://www.aclunc.org/docs/ACLU-NC_2019-03-28_Letter_re._El... is that they didn't take the devices out of his sight/control, they just demanded he unlock them and hand them over. > CBP officers searched Dr. Gal’s wallet and all his luggage, and asked questions about everything they found. When they discovered Dr. Gal’s Apple-issued electronic devices, the officers first asked Dr. Gal to pull up his itinerary on his mobile phone, and then to hand the unlocked device over to CBP. Dr. Gal responded that he would email them the itinerary, but that he would need to speak with a lawyer and his employer before giving CBP officers full access to his mobile phone. ... > Moreover, there was no reason for any CBP officers—TTRT or otherwise—to detain and interrogate Dr. Gal or his devices. Notably, CBP officers did not confiscate and retain Dr. Gal’s devices, which they were authorized to do under the Directive and presumably would have done if they truly felt that they possessed a basis for detaining Dr. Gal or keeping his devices. See Directive, § 5.3.3. Instead, CBP officers proceeded to demand that Dr. Gal provide immediate, unlimited access to his devices.

dmitrygr 8y ago

A tip of my hat to the guy for not relenting and unlocking his devices under threats of violence and staying silent! Well done!

Rafuino 8y ago

Going on a trip in the short term and just got a phone with facial recognition unlock. I think it's important to turn this feature off before returning to the US as it could easily be misused in this exact situation.

sithadmin 8y ago
Disable biometric auths of any kind, and turn the phone off before approaching CBP.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Turning the phone off is sufficient for disabling biometric authentication.
zachr 8y ago
On an iPhone, you can tap the power button five times consecutively to disable biometric access. However, I think the only way to do this on a MacBook with TouchID is turning it off.
- bigzyg33k 8y ago
  You could also ensure you turn off the MBP before you enter customs, as it requires a password on startup

komali2 8y ago

Dunno what to do about this. I think TSA is a sham and a waste of my money. I think border control is taking my money and using it to abuse people. I don't think it's ok that I can pay to avoid the poor people line at the airport. I've written my reps and the president, I call about once a month, but it has no measurable effect. Smarter people than me have done audits on TSA and published them in famous newspapers to show how useless they are. There's people fighting against CBP locking up asylum seekers but it still happens. Dunno what to do. Partner and I are considering abandoning the USA.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
DanFeldman 8y ago
For what its worth, SFO does not use the TSA [0]. The posted article does not mention the TSA at all, only Border Patrol and Customs agents. I've had terrible TSA experiences at other airports, but never a problem with the security at SFO. [0] https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article224308380.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/artic...
- closetohome 8y ago
  CBP is a waste of oxygen too. They're so incompetent the TSA could do their job and we wouldn't notice the difference.
  - 420codebro 8y ago
    Real compelling argument.
zachberger 8y ago
You don't have to pay to bypass the lines. The free "Mobile Passport" app allows you to go into a line is almost as quick as Global Entry.
- 8y ago

caprese 8y ago

> The customs agents did however keep my Global Entry card as a punishment ????? You never need your global entry card at airport customs because your flight information is encoded to your passport, which the machine scans. Was that supposed to be punishment? Why did he even have it? Does the Global Entry number still work and automatically give you TSA Pre on the new tickets you purchase?

tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago
I'd assume that they also revoked Global Entry, which they can do arbitrarily and I'd be surprised if "you didn't comply with our arbitrary demands" wasn't explicitly listed as one of the specific examples of reasons for revoking it.
- caprese 8y ago
  > I'd assume that they also revoked Global Entry instead of assuming can we get an answer? OP? ACLU? The author mentioned he has taken flights since then, he should be able to answer if he still gets TSA Pre, nobody's asked yet its just as likely that they literally only took the card from him.
  - andreasgal 8y ago
    They found the card with my passport. They took the card, and a few days later my status was revoked as well.
    - geofft 8y ago
      Are you in the process of trying to get it reinstated, or not yet? (The ACLU letter doesn't seem to include a demand for reinstating it, but I guess you'd be approaching it in some other way)
    - caprese 8y ago
      Insightful, think one of those travel sites like thepointsguy would rally support for clarity?

_bxg1 8y ago

Border Patrol has become the KGB. Hopefully this will reach a boiling point soon and they'll harass someone important enough to get the gears actually moving toward ending this madness.

crazy_monkey 8y ago
Yah, peeps r going to the gulag 4 sure...
hopler 8y ago
No. If they find someone important they just let him go with an apology. Penn Jillette fought them years ago and refused their apology; it went nowhere.

rajbot 8y ago

> The agents proceeded to search my belongings and demanded that I unlock my smartphone and laptop. This was rather concerning for me. My phone and laptop are property of my employer and contain unreleased software and proprietary information. I’ve signed a non-disclosure agreement promising not to give anyone access. His employer is Apple. I was always worried about this same scenario when traveling with an Apple-owned laptop..

JustSomeNobody 8y ago
Maybe keep the card of Apple's lawyers on your person. If you're in a situation like this, have them call the number. Or clarify Apple's policy on this before traveling.
- rajbot 8y ago
  His request to call his employer or an attorney was denied: > I asked the agents if I could speak to my employer or an attorney before unlocking my devices. This request seemed to aggravate the customs officers. They informed me that I had no right to speak to an attorney at the border despite being a U.S. citizen, and threatened me that failure to immediately comply with their demand is a violation of federal criminal code 18 USC 111.
  - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
    I missed that point. Thank you for correcting me.
- barkingcat 8y ago
  Calling a lawyer was specifically denied in this case.
techslave 8y ago
if his employer is apple then he is fine to unlock. all such employers require you to follow border agent instructions. that said he may be in violation of a policy not to travel with proprietary info

_bxg1 8y ago

Every time an article like this pops up (seems like a couple times a month now), I'm validated in my decision to donate monthly to the ACLU. They're always mentioned as fighting this stuff on the front lines.

jacquesm 8y ago
Every time an article like this pops up I am validated in my decision to no longer travel to the United States.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  Touche
- 14 8y ago
  This is the part I don't get. Surely they realize there are a large portion of people that will avoid that county just on principle that they may be hassled at the border. I can imagine that these policies have cost them millions of dollars. Imagine going to a county and being turned around all because you had an employers laptop you promised not to unlock for anyone. Or how about a personal laptop with naked pictures of your wife and kids bathing. Especially when we know it is all security theater. So I am with you. I will avoid the USA for now until the climate changes.
  - _bxg1 8y ago
    These power-tripping thugs don't think that far ahead. They only care about exercising authority in their tiny little hundred-foot-long kingdom.
    - jacobush 8y ago
      Thugs will be thugs but the problem is with those who put them there
  - smoe 8y ago
    Pretty much all Europeans I know working in Latin America that travel home 1-2 a year, avoid flights that go trough US airports even tough it would often be the cheapest options by quite some margin. For me not having to deal with US borders is worth the up to 300 USD difference in flight price. I did it once back in 2008 for a flight from Costa Rica to Switzerland via Miami and was caught completely by surprise that, unlike every other airport in the world I have been prior, Miami (US in general?) did not have a separate transit area, and that I had to go trough the whole customs and migration circus for a 3 hour layover.

throwawaystale 8y ago

He's saying he was targeted because he's known to disapprove of the Trump administration? Please. If anything, it was considerably worse prior to 2016. A better question would be why someone technically knowledgeable would be carrying a laptop through airline security at all. As soon as it's out of your hands, you have to assume it's been blown, security-wise. Far better to just buy a burner Chromebook at your destination.

geofft 8y ago
Taking a laptop through airport security as a carry-on doesn't involve letting it out of your hands. (I assume they do not hire hobbits to hide inside the X-ray machine and implant hardware on your motherboard.)
- throwawaystale 8y ago
  Let's just say I have a lot or respect for the possibilities I'm aware of, together with a general sense that there's a lot that I don't know. In any case, just because you usually get your laptop handed right back, it doesn't follow that you always will. If it matters to you, buy that burner.
  - geofft 8y ago
    Even so: 1. I can expect that there's a chance that my laptop will be taken from me (and perhaps returned modified or perhaps taken permanently) while still not being okay with that. It's one thing to expect a right to be violated; it's another thing to give up. 2. It's not unreasonable to travel with a laptop while expecting a small chance that it's taken, in which case you'll buy a new one and restore from backup, instead of buying a burner every time.
    - throwawaystale 8y ago
      1. Indeed, I'm only talking about is, not ought. Please do complain. Leave Trump out, though. Nothing he can do about it, and if he seriously tried, he'd wake up with a horse's head in his bed. 2. If you truly believe your laptop is clean and encryption sufficiently uncrackable, go ahead. I don't think I'm that smart, myself.

techslave 8y ago

i love how “the time is long overdue”. everyone says that when it happens to them. he’s not wrong, but we need more folks that don’t sit around as if it’s someone else’s problem.

withinrafael 8y ago

How does a layperson without retained counsel handle this? Is there an ACLU hotline? Do I need to be prepared with a number in my wallet?

_bxg1 8y ago
They didn't even give him the chance to make a call. You're completely helpless unless you've done your research and come up with a game plan ahead of time.

telesilla 8y ago

You're not alone. I've cut my U.S. travel significantly in the last years due to what I've experienced as hostile border agents for reasons I could never quite figure out but probably related to my nomadic lifestyle. I'm not a U.S. citizen but I do come from a "friendly" nation and it's shameful some of the things that have been said to me in an effort to catch me out in a lie that didn't exist.

GeekyBear 8y ago

Glen Greenwald started writing about this back in 2012. >One of the more extreme government abuses of the post-9/11 era targets U.S. citizens re-entering their own country, and it has received far too little attention. With no oversight or legal framework whatsoever, the Department of Homeland Security routinely singles out individuals who are suspected of no crimes, detains them and questions them at the airport, often for hours, when they return to the U.S. after an international trip, and then copies and even seizes their electronic devices (laptops, cameras, cellphones) and other papers (notebooks, journals, credit card receipts), forever storing their contents in government files. No search warrant is needed for any of this. No oversight exists. And there are no apparent constraints on what the U.S. Government can do with regard to whom it decides to target or why. https://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/ https://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_de... Laura Poitras, the documentary filmmaker whose story was told in the above link faced several dozen of these incidents between the Bush and the Obama years. Interestingly, Edward Snowden learned who Poitras was from this series of stories, and Poitras' experiences with repeated searches and seizures led to her learning enough about encryption so that when Snowden decided to contact the press and become a whistleblower, Poitras was the first journalist he attempted to contact who knew enough to be able to exchange encryption keys and communicate with him directly.

brlewis 8y ago

They informed me that I had no right to speak to an attorney at the border despite being a U.S. citizen, and threatened me that failure to immediately comply with their demand is a violation of federal criminal code 18 USC 111. The Justice dept refutes the part about 18 USC 111. A forcible act must be involved, not passive resistance: https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1565-forcible-act-required-18-usc-111-application-statute-threats https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1565-for...

jedberg 8y ago

Immigration lawyers: What is the right thing to do when you are detained at the border as a US citizen?

throw2016 8y ago

This is becoming too common. Laura Poitras has documented her harassment as have multiple others activists and journalists. The idea of opaque no fly and other secret lists, secret processes and demanding to go through people's personal papers is totalitarian. If this happened in China or for instance Venezuela there is instant global outrage about 'freedom' and yet every time the exact same thing happens in the UK or the US the outrage is quickly replaced by legalese and apologism. Surely if people cared so much about any of these values they would severely push back when it happens in their own backyard but we rarely see that, just more demonizing others which quickly loses meaning and becomes complicit in the descent to a quasi police state. Many who make sweeping statement about 'democracy' and 'freedom' seem to be severely disconnected from things on the ground as those those who use these 'freedoms' in any serious way in terms of actual activism or critical journalism however slight end up on some kind of list and singled out for harassment. [1] [1] https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/25/the-tsas-role-as-journalist-harasser-and-media-watchdog/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/25/the-tsas-role-as-jou...

mindfulhack 8y ago

This needs to be challenged to the Supreme Court level whereby it is deemed unconstitutional for TSA agents to detain and seize people and their possessions without actual demonstrable cause relating to national security and/or the spirit of the law(s) governing their policies and procedure. If overly broad legislation is being abused against the spirit and intention of it, then the court needs to step in to legally to rule that this cannot be done, so long as such finding is in line with the constitution.

hopler 8y ago
Won't happen until Donald Trump's justices retire.
- masonic 8y ago
  Justices? Trump has nominated exactly one.
  - mclehman 8y ago
    Gorsuch and Kavanaugh make two.
  - erik_seaberg 8y ago
    And this ridiculous customs policy probably dates back to the Clinton administration. I know it was perennial ragebait on Slashdot.

prawn 8y ago

Border responses are little different to the support the average person gets from a tech giant. You get the response you get and that’s it. You need deep pockets, serious friends or an online furore or you have no choice but to remain oblivious. As with the tech giants, for the decent people caught up by mistake, it’s frustrating and terrifying.

the_fonz 8y ago

It's analogous to police "searching" a homeless person by throwing, tearing up and destroying all of their property without even reasonable suspicion... they do it and get away with murdering people time-after-time because they can under a thinly-duplicitous cover of qualified immunity (at least in the US). Although police at the borders don't have to have any reasonable suspicion for searches, racial profiling, secret watch lists and targeted intimidation are a likely consequent of an unfettered military-industrial complex that long since ceased to do more than security theater and carry water for the corporate elites. So it should come with zero surprise that such an empire's law enforcement acts with impunity however it pleases and only ensures to "serve and protect" the rich elites' and their property, effectively creating a socioeconomic apartheid of gated communities and post-apocalyptic anarchist favelas, both in terms of geography and public discrimination, that tears a society apart into a failed, third-world, backwards country.

gcbw2 8y ago

> but agents confiscated Gal's Global Entry card The irony (and borderline hypocrisy) of a "privacy advocate" who have a Global Entry card.

dirkg 8y ago

CBP/TSA/DHS are thugs who have virtually unlimited power, zero accountability, and relish the chance to abuse their power. Its no different from cops celebrating killing innocent people. The US media is a joke, they drump up fear without holding anyone in govt accountable, and the people are stupid, no one cares about this kind of thing, they'd rather believe the usual nonsense about 'keeping us safe'.