8 ms·

The interesting thing is that the "don't carry the data" scenario of wiping your phone and restoring it after you're across the border is not functionally diffe

The interesting thing is that the "don't carry the data" scenario of wiping your phone and restoring it after you're across the border is not functionally different from the "just don't carry the keys across the border" scenario. I would be comfortable with a dd archive of my encrypted phone contents in an short-lived S3 bucket that I could restore with a simple passphrase-derived key, for example. It's hard for the law to recognize that they haven't achieved anything useful by forcing me to do that instead of just lose the key. One thing this case makes me wonder is if the government would have a problem with someone walking across the border with a completely virgin phone. They must have wiped it, right? Would they try to prosecute? How could they possibly know the defendant in this case actually had anything on his phone before the duress code was entered?

eru 26d ago
For your virgin phone scenario: in practice they'll probably reverse burden of proof and call it a day.
- rho138 26d ago
  Or just subpoena AWS for a copy of their shit and dump them in a hole until it’s unlocked. Yay america.
  - eru 26d ago
    If you actually have a virgin phone, there's no data on Amazon to subpoena.
b112 26d ago
It's immensely different. Leaps and bounds different. Why? Well, once you have been told to unlock the device, you're already in a legally binding process. The phone is at this point evidence. It was not evidence before. It was not evidence a month ago. It really is just that simple. Now, they could view prior wipe as suspicious, but as a US citizen they cannot prevent entry. And they may be able to seize your phone(suspicious!). Which is why simply stating the truth politely "I believe in privacy, and loath government poking into the private affairs of citizens" might help down the road if you want to sue. Might. Border guards protect the realm, after all, and have wide latitude. From my side, my truthful argument for wipe has always been that all of my buisness clients, emails, data might be on my phone. I have a duty to protect their privacy. Making reasonable statements takes the edge off of 'suspicious', and the more people who wipe? The less suspicious it becomes. The biggest thibg anyone could do, is make 100% restorable backups for non-rooted Android a thing. It's doable, but a PITA right now. Make it one-click, perfect, reliable, and more will do it. And then it isn't unusual, it's normal, and the suspicious elements vanishes. Of course, as Google is mired in asshattery lately, I'd expect any attempts to protect us all, such as ASOP patches or bug reports, would be fought against and ignored. Helping the world, protecting travellers, political dissidents, not on their radar. They even fight such things. Because in this day and age, Google does not have your back. Instead, they shove knives there.
- attila-lendvai 26d ago
  well, i guess the writing was on the wall, so to say, pretty much from the beginning: "don't be evil".
  - alance 26d ago
    They deprecated that one.
- unyttigfjelltol 26d ago
  > It's immensely different. Leaps and bounds different. Why? [O]nce you have been told to unlock the device, you're already in a legally binding process. From a factual point of view, rather than the narrow legal one offered, it is not materially different to delete a phone in anticipation of a future search. In most cases, outside the customs context, it's just harder for the government to prove obstruction of justice. What's different here is that the government only had a right to search the phone in relation to the border, and the government used that right not just to search for contraband like the law anticipates. If someone dumped their contraband and made it disappear before actually crossing a border, would that be an evidence-related crime? What if they thought about a contraband conspiracy, and then intentionally forgot? What if the customs office presented a form to all travelers, well in advance of formal screening, that they must preserve their contraband henceforth? And then they decided not to smuggle it? Interesting questions legally, but factually, considering criminal charges in those scenarios over the evidentiary situation would be pretty silly. So then, when you delete purportedly contraband data at the border, have you really just done a public service of removing one more potentially contraband item from border inspection? Or is it that once any of us create data in the vicinity of a border or in a context where we might approach a border in the future with the access device or storage medium, do we all have a duty to preserve it for inspection until the customs authorities get around to inspecting us? Or is it just that this series of hypotheticals illustrate that we have here an epic mash-up of misinterpretation here?
  - hamburglar 25d ago
    One can’t help but wonder if a motivated DOJ could twist a “destruction of the evidence” charge out of someone dumping a kilo of cocaine just before traveling to the US.
b112 25d ago
Wasn't this about entering a duress pin? Therefore, the law hasn't decided on pre-border key wipe. Lots wipe their phone... yet no actions taken. I believe the duress password reboots the phone. They likely know this, hence the different outcome.

eru 26d ago

For your virgin phone scenario: in practice they'll probably reverse burden of proof and call it a day.

rho138 26d ago
Or just subpoena AWS for a copy of their shit and dump them in a hole until it’s unlocked. Yay america.
- eru 26d ago
  If you actually have a virgin phone, there's no data on Amazon to subpoena.

b112 26d ago

It's immensely different. Leaps and bounds different. Why? Well, once you have been told to unlock the device, you're already in a legally binding process. The phone is at this point evidence. It was not evidence before. It was not evidence a month ago. It really is just that simple. Now, they could view prior wipe as suspicious, but as a US citizen they cannot prevent entry. And they may be able to seize your phone(suspicious!). Which is why simply stating the truth politely "I believe in privacy, and loath government poking into the private affairs of citizens" might help down the road if you want to sue. Might. Border guards protect the realm, after all, and have wide latitude. From my side, my truthful argument for wipe has always been that all of my buisness clients, emails, data might be on my phone. I have a duty to protect their privacy. Making reasonable statements takes the edge off of 'suspicious', and the more people who wipe? The less suspicious it becomes. The biggest thibg anyone could do, is make 100% restorable backups for non-rooted Android a thing. It's doable, but a PITA right now. Make it one-click, perfect, reliable, and more will do it. And then it isn't unusual, it's normal, and the suspicious elements vanishes. Of course, as Google is mired in asshattery lately, I'd expect any attempts to protect us all, such as ASOP patches or bug reports, would be fought against and ignored. Helping the world, protecting travellers, political dissidents, not on their radar. They even fight such things. Because in this day and age, Google does not have your back. Instead, they shove knives there.

attila-lendvai 26d ago
well, i guess the writing was on the wall, so to say, pretty much from the beginning: "don't be evil".
- alance 26d ago
  They deprecated that one.
unyttigfjelltol 26d ago
> It's immensely different. Leaps and bounds different. Why? [O]nce you have been told to unlock the device, you're already in a legally binding process. From a factual point of view, rather than the narrow legal one offered, it is not materially different to delete a phone in anticipation of a future search. In most cases, outside the customs context, it's just harder for the government to prove obstruction of justice. What's different here is that the government only had a right to search the phone in relation to the border, and the government used that right not just to search for contraband like the law anticipates. If someone dumped their contraband and made it disappear before actually crossing a border, would that be an evidence-related crime? What if they thought about a contraband conspiracy, and then intentionally forgot? What if the customs office presented a form to all travelers, well in advance of formal screening, that they must preserve their contraband henceforth? And then they decided not to smuggle it? Interesting questions legally, but factually, considering criminal charges in those scenarios over the evidentiary situation would be pretty silly. So then, when you delete purportedly contraband data at the border, have you really just done a public service of removing one more potentially contraband item from border inspection? Or is it that once any of us create data in the vicinity of a border or in a context where we might approach a border in the future with the access device or storage medium, do we all have a duty to preserve it for inspection until the customs authorities get around to inspecting us? Or is it just that this series of hypotheticals illustrate that we have here an epic mash-up of misinterpretation here?
- hamburglar 25d ago
  One can’t help but wonder if a motivated DOJ could twist a “destruction of the evidence” charge out of someone dumping a kilo of cocaine just before traveling to the US.

b112 25d ago

Wasn't this about entering a duress pin? Therefore, the law hasn't decided on pre-border key wipe. Lots wipe their phone... yet no actions taken. I believe the duress password reboots the phone. They likely know this, hence the different outcome.