4 ms·

This directive was issued in January of this year, what is relevance of being posted today? I love all the instances where it says, we will not do this or infr

This directive was issued in January of this year, what is relevance of being posted today? I love all the instances where it says, we will not do this or infringe in this way... unless it is a matter of national security, which we don't have to disclose to you. So basically, do what you want as long as you write it up properly. And this part: 5.3 Review and Handling of Passcode-Protected or Encrypted Information 5.3.1 Travelers are obligated to present electronic devices and the information contained therein in a condition that allows inspection of the device and its contents. If presented with an electronic device that is protected by a passcode, encryption, or other security mechanism, an officer may request the individual's assistance in presenting the electronic device and the information contained therein in a condition that allows inspection of the device and its contents. Passcodes or other means of access may be requested and maintained for the duration of the search if needed to facilitate the examination of an electronic device or information contained on an electronic device, including information on the device that is accessible through software applications present on the device that is being inspected or has been detained, seized, or retained in accordance with this Directive. I had thought (and Supreme Court ruled) you could not be compelled to unlock an encrypted device, which is why I always powered mined down before crossing. That goes against the obligated to present devices in a condition that allows inspection portion.

mtremsal 4mo ago
I think the context is just mass international travel due to the US hosting the World Cup, no?
- 1over137 4mo ago
  co-hosting
dylan604 4mo ago
> I had thought (and Supreme Court ruled) you could not be compelled to unlock an encrypted device, which is why I always powered mined down before crossing. Does that apply to non-citizens? If a CBP officer doesn't like you as a non-citizen, like your lack of cooperation during an interview, they could just deny your visa and your entry into the US. If you're a citizen, they can't deny your re-entry. They can delay you for however long and ruin your day and even keep your devices, but you get to go home.
- phoronixrly 4mo ago
  I think assuming that the CBP will adhere to the law is based on a pretty outdated mindset. I'd say at least since the current management, but more likely since 9/11...
  - thankyoufriend 4mo ago
    I'd even call it a delusional mindset. For context, CBP and ICE were both formed in 2003. Jenn Budd has several books on this topic if you want to understand why a growing number of people want to abolish CBP, ICE, and even the entire DHS, which itself was formed only a year prior in 2002. These are very recent organizations in our nation's history, and if we're fine putting things like the Dpt of Education on the chopping block, why not DHS?
    - asveikau 4mo ago
      I personally remember that people were calling the DHS a mistake since 2002. I also, as a DC native, was utterly shocked when I first heard "normies" taking DHS seriously as an entity. A friend mentioned DHS was hiring, and I thought to myself ... "wait, but isn't that place bullshit?" Among a certain set of people, it had a bad reputation from day one.
- gruez 4mo ago
  >> I had thought (and Supreme Court ruled) you could not be compelled to unlock an encrypted device >Does that apply to non-citizens? If a CBP officer doesn't like you as a non-citizen, like your lack of cooperation during an interview, they could just deny your visa and your entry into the US. That's exactly what "you could not be compelled to unlock an encrypted device" means? You won't get sent to the gulag for refusing to, but entry into the US was always conditional with very little room for recourse if the border agent doesn't like you.
  - dylan604 4mo ago
    Not really sure what you're arguing, but it's not an answer to my question
crm9125 4mo ago
[dead]
bdcravens 4mo ago
> what is relevance of being posted today Not sure about today specifically, but it is pretty relevant with the World Cup starting in 2 weeks
airstrike 4mo ago
> This directive was issued in January of this year, what is relevance of being posted today? The best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago. The second best time is today.
rawgabbit 4mo ago
Further down, paragraph 5.3.3 says they could detain your phone if they could not bypass the passcode. What are they checking. How many times I read memes making fun of El Leader?
NoImmatureAdHom 4mo ago
They can't compel you to decrypt anything, and powering down is a good idea. There are consequences for not decrypting, though: for a U.S. citizen, they can seize your stuff for up to 5 days. For non-citizens, they can elect to not let you in. Concerning "obligated", I would point out that regulations aren't laws. Governing bodies can say whatever they want, but that doesn't make it so. For instance, the TSA continues to publicly insist that ID (especially "Real" ID) is required to fly within the U.S., but it's not.
- bananamogul 4mo ago
  "For instance, the TSA continues to publicly insist that ID (especially "Real" ID) is required to fly within the U.S., but it's not." Explain, please, because you seem to be implying that someone can board a plane from New York to LA without being legally required to show any identification.
  - eff-nix 4mo ago
    If you tell the TSA you’re a sovereign citizen for 15 minutes they’re legally required to let you fly.
  - kelnos 4mo ago
    I lost my ID once around 15 years ago and was able to board my return flight just fine. I had to get to the airport early because I -- correctly -- expected a longer, personalized security check, but I was on my flight on time, as expected. Yes, things have changed in that time with regard to the zealousness of the TSA, but the laws and regulations behind them have not.
    - eff-nix 4mo ago
      My friend drunk drove and crashed, the cop —correctly— gave him a long talk about how that’s a bad call, then let him off. Does that mean drunk driving is now legal?
  - NoImmatureAdHom 4mo ago
sokoloff 4mo ago
I read “may request” and “may be requested” quite literally. They may request it, but it doesn’t say providing it is compulsory. I have nothing to hide, but still no intention to provide my passcode.
- natch 4mo ago
  If you have any friends or contacts or family who have ever shared any private information with you of any kind (phone number, address, photo, private opinions, etc.) you damn well have something to hide.
  - sokoloff 4mo ago
    That was a callback to "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Even if that didn’t land, I think it's clear from the rest of the context that I don't intend to provide my passcode.

mtremsal 4mo ago

I think the context is just mass international travel due to the US hosting the World Cup, no?

1over137 4mo ago
co-hosting

dylan604 4mo ago

> I had thought (and Supreme Court ruled) you could not be compelled to unlock an encrypted device, which is why I always powered mined down before crossing. Does that apply to non-citizens? If a CBP officer doesn't like you as a non-citizen, like your lack of cooperation during an interview, they could just deny your visa and your entry into the US. If you're a citizen, they can't deny your re-entry. They can delay you for however long and ruin your day and even keep your devices, but you get to go home.

phoronixrly 4mo ago
I think assuming that the CBP will adhere to the law is based on a pretty outdated mindset. I'd say at least since the current management, but more likely since 9/11...
- thankyoufriend 4mo ago
  I'd even call it a delusional mindset. For context, CBP and ICE were both formed in 2003. Jenn Budd has several books on this topic if you want to understand why a growing number of people want to abolish CBP, ICE, and even the entire DHS, which itself was formed only a year prior in 2002. These are very recent organizations in our nation's history, and if we're fine putting things like the Dpt of Education on the chopping block, why not DHS?
  - asveikau 4mo ago
    I personally remember that people were calling the DHS a mistake since 2002. I also, as a DC native, was utterly shocked when I first heard "normies" taking DHS seriously as an entity. A friend mentioned DHS was hiring, and I thought to myself ... "wait, but isn't that place bullshit?" Among a certain set of people, it had a bad reputation from day one.
gruez 4mo ago
>> I had thought (and Supreme Court ruled) you could not be compelled to unlock an encrypted device >Does that apply to non-citizens? If a CBP officer doesn't like you as a non-citizen, like your lack of cooperation during an interview, they could just deny your visa and your entry into the US. That's exactly what "you could not be compelled to unlock an encrypted device" means? You won't get sent to the gulag for refusing to, but entry into the US was always conditional with very little room for recourse if the border agent doesn't like you.
- dylan604 4mo ago
  Not really sure what you're arguing, but it's not an answer to my question

crm9125 4mo ago

[dead]

bdcravens 4mo ago

> what is relevance of being posted today Not sure about today specifically, but it is pretty relevant with the World Cup starting in 2 weeks

airstrike 4mo ago

> This directive was issued in January of this year, what is relevance of being posted today? The best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago. The second best time is today.

rawgabbit 4mo ago

Further down, paragraph 5.3.3 says they could detain your phone if they could not bypass the passcode. What are they checking. How many times I read memes making fun of El Leader?

NoImmatureAdHom 4mo ago

They can't compel you to decrypt anything, and powering down is a good idea. There are consequences for not decrypting, though: for a U.S. citizen, they can seize your stuff for up to 5 days. For non-citizens, they can elect to not let you in. Concerning "obligated", I would point out that regulations aren't laws. Governing bodies can say whatever they want, but that doesn't make it so. For instance, the TSA continues to publicly insist that ID (especially "Real" ID) is required to fly within the U.S., but it's not.

bananamogul 4mo ago
"For instance, the TSA continues to publicly insist that ID (especially "Real" ID) is required to fly within the U.S., but it's not." Explain, please, because you seem to be implying that someone can board a plane from New York to LA without being legally required to show any identification.
- eff-nix 4mo ago
  If you tell the TSA you’re a sovereign citizen for 15 minutes they’re legally required to let you fly.
- kelnos 4mo ago
  I lost my ID once around 15 years ago and was able to board my return flight just fine. I had to get to the airport early because I -- correctly -- expected a longer, personalized security check, but I was on my flight on time, as expected. Yes, things have changed in that time with regard to the zealousness of the TSA, but the laws and regulations behind them have not.
  - eff-nix 4mo ago
    My friend drunk drove and crashed, the cop —correctly— gave him a long talk about how that’s a bad call, then let him off. Does that mean drunk driving is now legal?
- NoImmatureAdHom 4mo ago

sokoloff 4mo ago

I read “may request” and “may be requested” quite literally. They may request it, but it doesn’t say providing it is compulsory. I have nothing to hide, but still no intention to provide my passcode.

natch 4mo ago
If you have any friends or contacts or family who have ever shared any private information with you of any kind (phone number, address, photo, private opinions, etc.) you damn well have something to hide.
- sokoloff 4mo ago
  That was a callback to "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Even if that didn’t land, I think it's clear from the rest of the context that I don't intend to provide my passcode.