4 ms·

>and then restore after they get to where they want to be It seems like the clear workaround is to ask travelers if this is the case, and to ask for their pass

>and then restore after they get to where they want to be It seems like the clear workaround is to ask travelers if this is the case, and to ask for their passwords to any popular sites that provide this service. A clean laptop workspace* is suspicious on its own. I suppose you could lie about it, gamble that they would have no way of knowing that you're lying. But that's not a fun game to play long term.

gregmac 7y ago
> It seems like the clear workaround is to ask travelers if this is the case, and to ask for their passwords to any popular sites that provide this service. A clean laptop desktop is suspicious on its own. So someone wanting to hide something will simply create false 'clean' accounts they can provide access to, while keeping the stuff they want hidden, hidden. Meanwhile, innocent people are getting their security compromised and privacy violated. Even worse, the authorities could claim the sites they did provide passwords to are 'too clean' and thus they must be hiding something and hold them ... until they give up passwords to accounts that may not even exist? When I was in public school, the school blocked several popular sites from the school network. As an unintended result, it provided me a great education about DNS, forward and reverse proxy servers, VPNs, and related tech as I figured out the dozens of ways to work around the blocks. Think the same thing wouldn't happen here? All you're left with is catching only the stupidest criminals, violating the privacy of innocent people, more than likely finding a bunch of false positives of whatever you're looking for, and at the same time forcing the actual criminals to become smarter about their opsec (making it harder to catch them -- in general, not just at the border) and still not catching them.
duxup 7y ago
I'm not sure legally that would work all that well. I think it is unlikely they'd ask for every account. I'm sure someone has asked for passwords, but legally I don't see that working long term / it being a serious hassle. If the thing simply isn't there on the device, generally speaking as far as a typical border search goes I think legally it ends there. Otherwise your workaround would work for ... everything as it is now, but that's not how they operate at scale.
gnopgnip 7y ago
The point of the lawsuit is that the border search is only supposed to be for contraband being imported, not a general law enforcement search
TheAceOfHearts 7y ago
Use a password manager: you can't give them what you don't know. Oh, and obviously avoid carrying your password vaults with you when crossing the border.
wahern 7y ago
The purpose of border checks is to prevent use of the border for unlawful purposes. Whatever lawful or unlawful activity you're performing on a domestic server, there would be no nexus with the act of crossing a border and therefore under no theory I'm aware of would the government have any additional power to search data not present on your person or personal effects. It's 2019, people. "The network is the computer" was 20 years ago. Kubernetes is the new Linux. Why are people keeping sensitive personal data on a personal computer, the same computer they presumably use to browse the web, and the same one they're worried will be unlawfully accessed at borders or foreign destinations. ssh is still a thing and Wayland hasn't even killed X Windows, yet. I have my own physical servers (pcengines APUs are cheap and reliable; I have like 4 running at the moment), and smartcards to authenticate for remote access to my colocated, locked-down machines.

gregmac 7y ago

> It seems like the clear workaround is to ask travelers if this is the case, and to ask for their passwords to any popular sites that provide this service. A clean laptop desktop is suspicious on its own. So someone wanting to hide something will simply create false 'clean' accounts they can provide access to, while keeping the stuff they want hidden, hidden. Meanwhile, innocent people are getting their security compromised and privacy violated. Even worse, the authorities could claim the sites they did provide passwords to are 'too clean' and thus they must be hiding something and hold them ... until they give up passwords to accounts that may not even exist? When I was in public school, the school blocked several popular sites from the school network. As an unintended result, it provided me a great education about DNS, forward and reverse proxy servers, VPNs, and related tech as I figured out the dozens of ways to work around the blocks. Think the same thing wouldn't happen here? All you're left with is catching only the stupidest criminals, violating the privacy of innocent people, more than likely finding a bunch of false positives of whatever you're looking for, and at the same time forcing the actual criminals to become smarter about their opsec (making it harder to catch them -- in general, not just at the border) and still not catching them.

duxup 7y ago

I'm not sure legally that would work all that well. I think it is unlikely they'd ask for every account. I'm sure someone has asked for passwords, but legally I don't see that working long term / it being a serious hassle. If the thing simply isn't there on the device, generally speaking as far as a typical border search goes I think legally it ends there. Otherwise your workaround would work for ... everything as it is now, but that's not how they operate at scale.

gnopgnip 7y ago

The point of the lawsuit is that the border search is only supposed to be for contraband being imported, not a general law enforcement search

TheAceOfHearts 7y ago

Use a password manager: you can't give them what you don't know. Oh, and obviously avoid carrying your password vaults with you when crossing the border.

wahern 7y ago

The purpose of border checks is to prevent use of the border for unlawful purposes. Whatever lawful or unlawful activity you're performing on a domestic server, there would be no nexus with the act of crossing a border and therefore under no theory I'm aware of would the government have any additional power to search data not present on your person or personal effects. It's 2019, people. "The network is the computer" was 20 years ago. Kubernetes is the new Linux. Why are people keeping sensitive personal data on a personal computer, the same computer they presumably use to browse the web, and the same one they're worried will be unlawfully accessed at borders or foreign destinations. ssh is still a thing and Wayland hasn't even killed X Windows, yet. I have my own physical servers (pcengines APUs are cheap and reliable; I have like 4 running at the moment), and smartcards to authenticate for remote access to my colocated, locked-down machines.