4 ms·

Isn't it possible that searching your phone at the border is security theater? I think it's likely that the US already has permanent, remote access to most phon

Isn't it possible that searching your phone at the border is security theater? I think it's likely that the US already has permanent, remote access to most phones.

saagarjha 7y ago
> Isn't it possible that searching your phone at the border is security theater? I mean, many people believe that many of the things that the TSA or CBP do are a security theater. > I think it's likely that the US already has permanent, remote access to most phones. There seems to be a large number of cases where law enforcement were denied access to a device and seemingly were stymied by this fact (detaining the owner, etc.) What makes you think that they're doing this just because?
- javajosh 7y ago
  >What makes you think that they're doing this just because? I don't think they'd do it "just because". I think the NSA has access to all devices, but they don't necessarily share that access with lower-level agencies. And yet, the NSA wouldn't want people to know that they have such good access, and so it would be necessary to a) not act on everything, and b) maintain the appearance that they don't have that access. I think it's likely if only because of the complexity of devices, and the fact that it is easy to hide both intentional and unintentional flaws that would permit access. Certainly there is a huge motivation to use modern devices as part of a panopticon network, which would give anyone a huge advantage in almost every aspect of life - economically, politically, and militarily. Plus, with new and egregiously powerful exploits constantly being found in the wild, who knows what's possible with the total cooperation of manufacturers?
  - lolc 7y ago
    > the NSA wouldn't want people to know that they have such good access Yes, that is not positive evidence however. > it is easy to hide both intentional and unintentional flaws Easy in what way? I don't think it is easy to plant flaws nor easy to keep them hidden. > Certainly there is a huge motivation to use modern devices Doesn't mean it's possible. > who knows what's possible with the total cooperation of manufacturers? Why assume "total cooperation"? The manufacturers have their reputation to lose.
  - godelski 7y ago
    I think there's a difference. Could the NSA get into any phone? I'm pretty sure they could. Did the NSA do a massive attack and introduce backdoors? I don't think so. I think that large of a scale thing would be likely noticed and it would have to involve a lot of players that would need to keep silent. Players that don't work for the US government or in the US. It's pretty obvious that it's hard to keep secrets.
JTbane 7y ago
> I think it's likely that the US already has permanent, remote access to most phones. Even if they did, they would be reluctant to use it as it would reveal their hand.
dangus 7y ago
I think it's security theater in the sense that it really sounds quite inefficient to me.

Isn't it possible that searching your phone at the border is security theater? I think it's likely that the US already has permanent, remote access to most phones.

saagarjha 7y ago

> Isn't it possible that searching your phone at the border is security theater? I mean, many people believe that many of the things that the TSA or CBP do are a security theater. > I think it's likely that the US already has permanent, remote access to most phones. There seems to be a large number of cases where law enforcement were denied access to a device and seemingly were stymied by this fact (detaining the owner, etc.) What makes you think that they're doing this just because?

javajosh 7y ago
>What makes you think that they're doing this just because? I don't think they'd do it "just because". I think the NSA has access to all devices, but they don't necessarily share that access with lower-level agencies. And yet, the NSA wouldn't want people to know that they have such good access, and so it would be necessary to a) not act on everything, and b) maintain the appearance that they don't have that access. I think it's likely if only because of the complexity of devices, and the fact that it is easy to hide both intentional and unintentional flaws that would permit access. Certainly there is a huge motivation to use modern devices as part of a panopticon network, which would give anyone a huge advantage in almost every aspect of life - economically, politically, and militarily. Plus, with new and egregiously powerful exploits constantly being found in the wild, who knows what's possible with the total cooperation of manufacturers?
- lolc 7y ago
  > the NSA wouldn't want people to know that they have such good access Yes, that is not positive evidence however. > it is easy to hide both intentional and unintentional flaws Easy in what way? I don't think it is easy to plant flaws nor easy to keep them hidden. > Certainly there is a huge motivation to use modern devices Doesn't mean it's possible. > who knows what's possible with the total cooperation of manufacturers? Why assume "total cooperation"? The manufacturers have their reputation to lose.
- godelski 7y ago
  I think there's a difference. Could the NSA get into any phone? I'm pretty sure they could. Did the NSA do a massive attack and introduce backdoors? I don't think so. I think that large of a scale thing would be likely noticed and it would have to involve a lot of players that would need to keep silent. Players that don't work for the US government or in the US. It's pretty obvious that it's hard to keep secrets.

JTbane 7y ago

> I think it's likely that the US already has permanent, remote access to most phones. Even if they did, they would be reluctant to use it as it would reveal their hand.

dangus 7y ago

I think it's security theater in the sense that it really sounds quite inefficient to me.