Ars spoke with several legal experts, and contacted CBP itself (which did not provide anything beyond previously-published policies). The short answer is: your device probably will be seized (or “detained” in CBP parlance), and you might be kept in physical detention—although no one seems to be sure exactly for how long.
Ars Technica: What could happen if you refuse to unlock your phone at the US border? »
Francis Rawls, a former Philadelphia police sergeant, has been in the Philadelphia Federal Detention Center for more than 16 months. His crime: the fired police officer has been found in contempt of court for refusing a judge’s order to unlock two hard drives the authorities believe contain child pornography. Theoretically, Rawls can remain jailed indefinitely until he complies. (…)
He’s not charged with a crime. Judge demands he help prosecutors build their case.
Ars Technica: Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives »
Wired: A Guide to Getting Past Customs With Your Digital Privacy Intact »
Boingboing: How to legally cross a US (or other) border without surrendering your data and passwords »
EFF: Border Security Overreach Continues – DHS Wants Social Media Login Information »
The Intercept » Secret docs reveal: President Trump has inherited an FBI with vast hidden powers »
Do criticize and protest against president Trump. He deserves it.
But do not forget that you were warned against mass surveillance and other forms of Bigbrotherism long before Trump.
When people now react to the Trump-administrations ideas of having all who travel to the US to hand over social media information and cell phone contacts…
Miller also noted on Saturday that Trump administration officials are discussing the possibility of asking foreign visitors to disclose all websites and social media sites they visit, and to share the contacts in their cell phones. If the foreign visitor declines to share such information, he or she could be denied entry.
…they should remember that this is the brainchild of the Obama administration. Then it was voluntarily, but none the less.
A bad idea is a bad idea, whoever comes up with it. This should have been stopped in its tracks, from the beginning.
It’s not about liking or trusting a certain politician or a political party. It’s a matter of principle.
You should never give government tools for mass surveillance (or other tools that can be used to oppress the people) that wouldn’t be safe regardless of whose hands it ends up in.
Ignorance and partisanship brought us here.
And yet, we have no idea of how President Trump is going to use or abuse the powers of the CIA and the technical capabilities of the NSA.
/ HAX
Many people fear the new U.S. president, Donald Trump. They might be right. Or not. But I think that we might oversimplify this issue.
Yes, Mr. Trump has the image of a despot. But it might be dangerous to judge a book by its’ cover. Not that we should »underestimate« Trump – but because it might lead to a false sense of security in other cases.
Presidents Bush and Obama were the ones expanding the Surveillance State that has now been handed over to the new administration. Their responsibility is immense. And the way they themselves used mass surveillance justifies very strong criticism.
In Europe, democratically elected leaders are rolling out the most massive mass surveillance regime in history. May in the UK, the »Großkolaition« in Germany and the French – they are all creating tools that can very easily be used to oppress the people. This even goes for countries with strong(ish) democratic and human rights credentials, like Sweden.
The EU is setting up the first major system for selective censorship of the Internet. And it’s being done outside the democratic process and institutions, outside the rule of law.
There is every reason to closely watch what the new U.S. administration is up to. But there are equally strong reasons to watch what is going on in the rest of the western world, under the cloak of parliamentary democracy.
It’s not just about what first meets the eye, but what is being done.
/ HAX
A project tackling issues concerning the public domain in the digital environment has called on the European Commission to abandon its proposals for mandatory service provider filtering of user-uploaded content. Communia, which has Creative Commons as a founder member, says such filters will violate users’ fundamental rights.
Torrentfreak: Public Domain Project Calls on EU to Abandon Piracy Filter Proposals »
German interior minister Thomas de Maiziere has announced a series of proposals that revolve around giving the German federal government more power over security agencies, cyber attacks, policing and deportations; permitting the deployment of the military internally; expanding the scope of the proposed EU Entry/Exit System and loosening the the EU definition of “safe third countries”.
There is this German proverb: History does not repeat itself. But it rhymes.
Statewatch » Interior ministry “wish list”: strengthen central government security, policing and deportation powers »
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has – once again – ruled that data retention (storage of data on everybody’s phone calls, text messages, e-mails, Internet connections, mobile positions etc.) is in breach of fundamental human rights.
Nevertheless, politicians in several EU member states are trying their hardest to ignore the court. For them, Big Brotherism carries more weight than human and civil rights.
Let that sink in.
Politicians are more interested in controlling the people than defending its rights. They are more interested in treating ordinary people as potential criminals than upholding principles that are pivotal to a democratic society. They degrade citizens to subordinates, to be ruled over and supervised.
Never, ever expect politicians to defend civil rights. Their agenda is a very different one.
/ HAX
A press release from the European Commission caught my eye: EU Internet Forum: a major step forward in curbing terrorist content on the internet »
At today’s second high-level meeting of the EU Internet Forum convened in Brussels by Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship Dimitris Avramopoulos and Commissioner for the Security Union Julian King, key internet companies presented an industry initiative, which constitutes a significant step forward in curbing the spread of terrorist content online. As part of the industry-led hash-sharing initiative, participating companies can use hashes to detect terrorist images or videos, review the material against their respective policies and definitions, and remove matching content as appropriate.
Well, that is only a part of the story.
The Commission totally ignores the fact that this form of censorship is conducted outside the rule of law.
The concept is that Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft should remove illegal terrorist content. But what is illegal? As a matter of fact, the press release doesn’t touch on this question. The word illegal is not even mentioned. And there might be reasons for that.
In a democratic society, censorship should strictly be a matter for the courts – as they are the ones qualified to make the delicate decisions about what is legal or not. And naturally, there must be a possibility to appeal.
But that is not how the EU Internet Forum / The Joint Referral Platform will work.
It’s all about using these social networks terms and conditions to block content. The decisions will be made by the companies abuse departments, with no possibility of redress. There will be no proper legal procedure, cases will be handled by people who are not legally trained and there is an obvious risk of overreach.
That is not a proper way to approach the delicate issue of free speech.
This is all about EU politicians having established a way to limit free speech without the inconvenience of having to create new law under public scrutiny – and without having to bother with proper legal procedures. It is an approach to limit free speech without getting your fingers dirty.
And there is more.
The same instrument is to be used to curb »hate speech« and other statements that politicians disapprove of. There are no real limitations, no oversight, and no transparency. This project doesn’t have a democratic mandate. And the European Commission has been very secretive and unwilling to share information about what is going on. This is totally inappropriate.
The people’s elected representatives in the European Parliament must look into this matter – to defend our civil rights, democratic process and the rule of law.
/ HAX
