5 ms·

Travellers' mobile phone data seized by police at border

42 points by thex86 13y ago

josscrowcroft 13y ago
This is pretty alarming but the article points out something often overlooked: "nowhere in Britain do you have less rights than at the border."
- reeses 13y ago
  This is the same in the USA and most countries. "The border" (really, any ingress point where you haven't passed CBP) is effectively a rights-free zone. It's important to remember that you should have nothing that will cause you difficulty if it is seized, copied, or damaged no matter how you enter the country.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
sogjis 13y ago
Sounds like North Korea
- MDCore 13y ago
  North Korea is known for many things but not, as far as I can tell, traveller's having their data seized. If anything it sounds similar to the way travellers to the US are treated. Care to elaborate on your comparison?
  - sogjis 13y ago
    They take away your phone, when you enter North Korea. There are no reports of seized data, but you never what they are doing with your phone.
    - EliRivers 13y ago
      Whilst I'm only one data point, when I entered the DPRK everyone's phone (except mine - left it at home) was put into a plastic bag which was then sealed in such a way that opening it was irreversible. It was then entrusted to our British tour rep, who held onto the bag for the duration of the trip. People got them back from the still sealed bag a week later at the hotel on the last morning (for those flying out) and at the station (for those getting the train to Dandong, which is well worth doing and an excellent way to finish off the trip).
      - contingencies 13y ago
        I wonder how you consider visiting such a place in such a way that fosters commercial gain for the establishment morally defensible? Particularly when you can see enough across the Chinese portion of the border (particularly in the east, near the town of Chiangbaishan) to understand the situation. Have you no shame?
        EliRivers 13y ago
        Well, firstly, I examined the opinions on the subject of a number of refugees from the DPRK. The consensus amongst them is that foreigners visiting is a good thing; not only do we provide hard currency to every ordinary citizen we encounter, which is always welcome, but every interaction between a DPRK citizen and a foreigner acts to combat the official government propaganda. We talk to them, we show photographs, we demonstrate that we're not imperialist aggressors seeking to occupy the country. When you grow up with that lie as accepted truth, it's extraordinarily valuable to actually meet foreigners, or even just see them wandering about smiling and waving. It is certainly true that some of my hard currency went to the government. Given that there are a few thousand tourists a year, this means that what they got from me is a tiny, tiny fraction of what they get through their (limited) trade and their black market dealings (they export opium, for example). Given that all of life is a series of compromises, I judge that the income the government got from my visit is far outweighed by the income a number of ordinary citizens got from me, and also the exposure of those ordinary citizens to foreigners. We wandered around in crowds on our own talking to people, met some people in a pub, encountered people on their way to and from work as we wandered around Pyongyang, all that sort of thing. Yes, our trip was carefully organised and monitored, but it's simply not the case that everyone we encountered was some kind of government actor. "Particularly when you can see enough across the Chinese portion of the border (particularly in the east, near the town of Chiangbaishan) to understand the situation." How is that relevant? I didn't need to see the situation from China. I went to Pyongyang and Kaesong and Nampho and a whole lot of other places. Presumably you think that the correct way to go is for no foreigners to ever visit, and for the DPRK population to live in ignorance of the outside world, never encountering foreigners and never having the chance to realise that actually their government is lying to them? What's your moral defence for that? I went to the DPRK and I put hard currency in the hands of ordinary citizens and I talked to them and I showed them bits of the outside world and shared a pint with some and, on the whole, did more good than harm. The hard currency I put into the hands of the government is regrettable, but outweighed. What have YOU done? "Have you no shame?" The moral high ground and five dollars might just get you a cup of coffee. Shame? I'd be ashamed of myself if I had your attitude, I can tell you that. Shame? That's a product of local customs and folk-beliefs and other such backwards crap. If you're going to travel more than a day's walk from your village, dump it and make decisions based on something a bit more reliable.
gst 13y ago
Due to the UK's key disclosure laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Kingd...) encryption doesn't help. If you don't provide your key to the government they can put you in jail for up to two years.
- pi18n 13y ago
  The UK is beyond unreasonable with that nonsense. What if you ask a foreign partner to create a key and secure the device without telling you until you are past the border or out of the country? What if you were collecting atmospheric data?
  - epo 13y ago
    I disagree with the UK stance on such things but such behaviour on your part would rightly be taken as proof of ill-intent because it would be an unreasonable thing to do and so could only have been intended to avoid complying with the law. These people may be 'unreasonable' but they are much, much, much cleverer than you.
    - quantumpotato_ 13y ago
      False. Counter-example: You work for Company A and need to deliver documents to Company B. Your comrade X creates the key. You pass through a dangerous part of town where Company C works. Fearing that C might kidnap you, X created the key so that X must be present when they reach Company B through their alternate route. >"but such behaviour on your part would rightly be taken as proof of ill-intent because it would be an unreasonable thing to do and so could only have been intended to avoid complying with the law." There is a policeman in your head.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    You make it sound like the US doesn't do anything similar.
    - pi18n 13y ago
panarky 13y ago
"David House, a former MIT researcher who cofounded an organization to raise money for Bradley Manning, accused the Department of Homeland Security of violating his civil rights when he passed through a Chicago airport in November 2010." "Homeland Security agents did not have a warrant when they seized House’s laptop, camera, and a flash drive, then asked him questions about his relationship with Manning." "The Department of Justice had tried to have the lawsuit thrown out, asserting that the government has the authority to conduct routine searches at a US border." http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/05/30/supporter-leak-suspect-bradley-manning-settles-with-over-laptop-seizure/EOG2iCb3aSbwBQeEHq7tiO/story.html http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/05/30/supporter-leak-s...
DanBC 13y ago
London (and other) police ofrces have been doing similar for a while. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/17/met-software-mobile-phones http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/17/met-softwar...) (http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=19807 http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=19807) (http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/met-police-acquires-mobile-phone-monitoring-kit-44303 http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/met-police-acquires-mob...) Police grab as much data as they can, and keep it for as long as they can. So it's a problem if they can cheaply and easily slurp cell-phone data because we know that they probably will. See, for example, the length of time they keep DNA data.
jrockway 13y ago
Probably best to mail it to yourself. If you carry something over the border, it's fair game to deny you entry to the country until you cough up whatever useless information they want. But if you mail it, then you're already in the country and have some rights if the government feels like searching what you've mailed.
- malandrew 13y ago
  You don't even have to mail it. You just need to store it on a server abroad and ssh into that server and copy your encrypted files.
coldcode 13y ago
What will they do when someday our phones are chips in our brains? "Please sir, I need to cut your head off for a bit". Eventually technology will make it almost impossible to do a real border search.
- brokenparser 13y ago
  "For reasons I'm not permitted to disclose, I need to stick this wire up your nose."
- gojomo 13y ago
  They'll require root access as a condition of travel. (A variant of this idea appears, as a throwaway peripheral detail, in the excellent s01e03 episode of the TV series 'Black Mirror', 'The Entire History of You'... which according to Wikipedia has been optioned by Robert Downey Jr. as a potential film.)

42 points by thex86 13y ago

This is pretty alarming but the article points out something often overlooked: "nowhere in Britain do you have less rights than at the border."

reeses 13y ago
This is the same in the USA and most countries. "The border" (really, any ingress point where you haven't passed CBP) is effectively a rights-free zone. It's important to remember that you should have nothing that will cause you difficulty if it is seized, copied, or damaged no matter how you enter the country.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

sogjis 13y ago

Sounds like North Korea

MDCore 13y ago
North Korea is known for many things but not, as far as I can tell, traveller's having their data seized. If anything it sounds similar to the way travellers to the US are treated. Care to elaborate on your comparison?
- sogjis 13y ago
  They take away your phone, when you enter North Korea. There are no reports of seized data, but you never what they are doing with your phone.
  - EliRivers 13y ago
    Whilst I'm only one data point, when I entered the DPRK everyone's phone (except mine - left it at home) was put into a plastic bag which was then sealed in such a way that opening it was irreversible. It was then entrusted to our British tour rep, who held onto the bag for the duration of the trip. People got them back from the still sealed bag a week later at the hotel on the last morning (for those flying out) and at the station (for those getting the train to Dandong, which is well worth doing and an excellent way to finish off the trip).
    - contingencies 13y ago
      I wonder how you consider visiting such a place in such a way that fosters commercial gain for the establishment morally defensible? Particularly when you can see enough across the Chinese portion of the border (particularly in the east, near the town of Chiangbaishan) to understand the situation. Have you no shame?
      - EliRivers 13y ago
        Well, firstly, I examined the opinions on the subject of a number of refugees from the DPRK. The consensus amongst them is that foreigners visiting is a good thing; not only do we provide hard currency to every ordinary citizen we encounter, which is always welcome, but every interaction between a DPRK citizen and a foreigner acts to combat the official government propaganda. We talk to them, we show photographs, we demonstrate that we're not imperialist aggressors seeking to occupy the country. When you grow up with that lie as accepted truth, it's extraordinarily valuable to actually meet foreigners, or even just see them wandering about smiling and waving. It is certainly true that some of my hard currency went to the government. Given that there are a few thousand tourists a year, this means that what they got from me is a tiny, tiny fraction of what they get through their (limited) trade and their black market dealings (they export opium, for example). Given that all of life is a series of compromises, I judge that the income the government got from my visit is far outweighed by the income a number of ordinary citizens got from me, and also the exposure of those ordinary citizens to foreigners. We wandered around in crowds on our own talking to people, met some people in a pub, encountered people on their way to and from work as we wandered around Pyongyang, all that sort of thing. Yes, our trip was carefully organised and monitored, but it's simply not the case that everyone we encountered was some kind of government actor. "Particularly when you can see enough across the Chinese portion of the border (particularly in the east, near the town of Chiangbaishan) to understand the situation." How is that relevant? I didn't need to see the situation from China. I went to Pyongyang and Kaesong and Nampho and a whole lot of other places. Presumably you think that the correct way to go is for no foreigners to ever visit, and for the DPRK population to live in ignorance of the outside world, never encountering foreigners and never having the chance to realise that actually their government is lying to them? What's your moral defence for that? I went to the DPRK and I put hard currency in the hands of ordinary citizens and I talked to them and I showed them bits of the outside world and shared a pint with some and, on the whole, did more good than harm. The hard currency I put into the hands of the government is regrettable, but outweighed. What have YOU done? "Have you no shame?" The moral high ground and five dollars might just get you a cup of coffee. Shame? I'd be ashamed of myself if I had your attitude, I can tell you that. Shame? That's a product of local customs and folk-beliefs and other such backwards crap. If you're going to travel more than a day's walk from your village, dump it and make decisions based on something a bit more reliable.

gst 13y ago

Due to the UK's key disclosure laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Kingd...) encryption doesn't help. If you don't provide your key to the government they can put you in jail for up to two years.

pi18n 13y ago
The UK is beyond unreasonable with that nonsense. What if you ask a foreign partner to create a key and secure the device without telling you until you are past the border or out of the country? What if you were collecting atmospheric data?
- epo 13y ago
  I disagree with the UK stance on such things but such behaviour on your part would rightly be taken as proof of ill-intent because it would be an unreasonable thing to do and so could only have been intended to avoid complying with the law. These people may be 'unreasonable' but they are much, much, much cleverer than you.
  - quantumpotato_ 13y ago
    False. Counter-example: You work for Company A and need to deliver documents to Company B. Your comrade X creates the key. You pass through a dangerous part of town where Company C works. Fearing that C might kidnap you, X created the key so that X must be present when they reach Company B through their alternate route. >"but such behaviour on your part would rightly be taken as proof of ill-intent because it would be an unreasonable thing to do and so could only have been intended to avoid complying with the law." There is a policeman in your head.
- DanBC 13y ago
  You make it sound like the US doesn't do anything similar.
  - pi18n 13y ago

panarky 13y ago

"David House, a former MIT researcher who cofounded an organization to raise money for Bradley Manning, accused the Department of Homeland Security of violating his civil rights when he passed through a Chicago airport in November 2010." "Homeland Security agents did not have a warrant when they seized House’s laptop, camera, and a flash drive, then asked him questions about his relationship with Manning." "The Department of Justice had tried to have the lawsuit thrown out, asserting that the government has the authority to conduct routine searches at a US border." http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/05/30/supporter-leak-suspect-bradley-manning-settles-with-over-laptop-seizure/EOG2iCb3aSbwBQeEHq7tiO/story.html http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/05/30/supporter-leak-s...

DanBC 13y ago

London (and other) police ofrces have been doing similar for a while. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/17/met-software-mobile-phones http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/17/met-softwar...) (http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=19807 http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=19807) (http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/met-police-acquires-mobile-phone-monitoring-kit-44303 http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/met-police-acquires-mob...) Police grab as much data as they can, and keep it for as long as they can. So it's a problem if they can cheaply and easily slurp cell-phone data because we know that they probably will. See, for example, the length of time they keep DNA data.

jrockway 13y ago

Probably best to mail it to yourself. If you carry something over the border, it's fair game to deny you entry to the country until you cough up whatever useless information they want. But if you mail it, then you're already in the country and have some rights if the government feels like searching what you've mailed.

malandrew 13y ago
You don't even have to mail it. You just need to store it on a server abroad and ssh into that server and copy your encrypted files.

coldcode 13y ago

What will they do when someday our phones are chips in our brains? "Please sir, I need to cut your head off for a bit". Eventually technology will make it almost impossible to do a real border search.

brokenparser 13y ago
"For reasons I'm not permitted to disclose, I need to stick this wire up your nose."
gojomo 13y ago
They'll require root access as a condition of travel. (A variant of this idea appears, as a throwaway peripheral detail, in the excellent s01e03 episode of the TV series 'Black Mirror', 'The Entire History of You'... which according to Wikipedia has been optioned by Robert Downey Jr. as a potential film.)