[mrdingle]

Important takeaways:

    - Use full-disk encryption.
    - Secure it with a very long hard to guess password.
    - Turn your computer off at least 10 minutes before going through customs.
    - You don't legally have to tell anyone the password with out a court order.
    - You don't have to give them any information to aid in their search.
    - Secure delete everything before you travel.

Super important:

    - DO NOT LIE.
    - You can simply not answer a question. But never lie.
    - Say, "I'm sorry, but I cannot answer that question."

Super super important:

    - Plan!!!
    - Decide what you will do *before* you get to customs.
    - Don't stress out, just relax and don't answer questions you don't want to.

[molmalo]

I've read some people here on HN (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3496070), saying that they will start using TrueCrypt to hide their data. This is explicitly discouraged by EFF, stating:

Although TrueCrypt hidden volumes may have some practical applications, we think they are unlikely to be useful in the border search context because they are most helpful when lying to someone about whether there is additional hidden data on a disk. Lying to border agents is not advisable, because it can be a serious crime.

I'll add this here, so it can be read by someone reading your resume.

[greenyoda]

Yes, you can go to jail just for lying to federal agents. See this article:

How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents

http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html

Excerpt:

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy. Though the falsehood must be "material" this requirement is met if the statement has the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed."

(Ironically, the government lies to us all the time, but there are apparently no penalties for that.)

[bermanoid]

That article gives a ton of good reasons to flat out refuse to talk about anything of substance to any agent, ever, without your attorney present.

I would highly recommend reading it. Even if you don't think you're personally the target of an investigation, the way these things go, anyone that they can catch in the net is a potential target, so you should be nervous - it always looks better to indict N+1 people than N, and if you talk to the investigators at all without a lawyer present, you greatly increase your chances of being that +1, even if you truly and honestly haven't done anything wrong.

[lda]

As a non-citizen, I would not risk being labelled uncooperative by the border agents. Just because they cannot compell you to surrender your passphrase doesn't mean they couldn't hold it against you in the future (longer visa processing times, extra background checks).

As suggested in the pdf, a wiser approach is cross the border with an immaculate system and download your data afterwards.

[MaysonL]

Heck, non-citizens labelled uncooperative are liable to be refused entry, and blacklisted.

[fijal]

Well, for what is worth there is absolutely no due process for being denied entry to the US as a non-citizen. I would really not try to be uncooperative and I'll heavily try to look very very dumb (I guess it's some sort of lying). As a non-citizen you have no rights at the border - the guy can send you back for no reason or for the reason he's a dick or detain you without due process.

[nekojima]

If you are asked if you have "pirated" material on your laptop or various external media devices, and you do, how to respond?

"Not to my knowledge." or "I'm sorry, but I cannot answer that question."? Which would then likely raise the alarm in the interrogator.

[mrdingle]

Say, "I'm sorry, I don't feel comfortable answering that question."

And when they ask why say, "Because I believe that it is my right not to."

But nothing more. Just be short, to the point, and courteous. You're not guilty of anything for saying that, and they will understand that you understand your rights.

They may make your life a tiny bit harder because of it, but if your courteous and patient you can maintain your dignity and your privacy.

[driverdan]

IANAL

Two points here. First, don't answer specific questions about anything. This means refusing to answer questions about piracy, terrorism, etc.

Second, unless there is evidence you're breaking criminal distribution laws they're not going to care about the MP3s your friend gave you or the copy of Doom you downloaded from a BBS 15 years ago.

[Natsu]

It's best to be able to say "no" and be truthful about it. Just don't take pirated media across the border to begin with.

[nekojima]

Considering I spend most of the year travelling around or living in East Asia, my best choice is just to avoid the US completely, including transit flights (as we now have our passports checked).

I know the chances of being asked anything, including, "have you bought pirated movies or software while in Asia?" Is pretty hard to refute if you've lived or traveled there for the last decade.

[nate_meurer]

This is not useful advice. Can you prove that you have a license for all the media and software on your machine?

Remember, in this case the burden of proof is on you. Somewhat similar to the way the BSA does audits (or the IRS for that matter).

[Natsu]

I don't think the agents are all that sophisticated, but if they notice you doing any funny business, you will get the third degree. So don't try anything.

If you're that concerned, make sure it contains nothing but Free (libre) software. Then you will be able to prove your innocence.

[nate_meurer]

Let me say this a different way: having any media on your machine whatsoever is now "funny business". If you have movies ripped to your laptop for your kids to watch, as I do, then you can legally be held under suspicion of piracy, and your property can accordingly be confiscated. The burden is on you to satisfy whatever requirements the government may have for the media.

[Natsu]

I certainly don't like it either. I think reforms are needed.

My answer was just to help someone stay out of trouble. Trying to mislead border control is a bad idea.

[orofino]

IANAL. You have 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. You don't have to answer. How do you word that? No idea, but that would be the route to take I think.

[nekojima]

"You have 5th amendment rights against self incrimination."

My concern is while that is often stated, those people aren't sitting in the detention centre with you for hours while your digital devices and the material on them is being searched and you are being 'threatened' with further detention, likely bogus charges and pressured to admit guilt for using your laptop as a normal user does.

[mrdingle]

These are standard interrogation tactics that people need to be prepared for. If you really feel threatened, speak to a qualified layer before you make any decisions, say anything, or agree to anything you don't want to.

Standing up for your rights and privacy isn't always going to be easy. But sitting in detention for a little while is really a small price to pay for your liberty. Plus, you'll waste a lot of public money in the process.

[nl]

You have 5th amendment rights against self incrimination.

Not if you aren't a US citizen.

[tikhonj]

As far as I know, constitutional rights apply equally to both citizens and non-citizens. Of course, if citizens aren't protected in this case, neither will non-citizens, but I think the distinction should not matter in constitutional matters.

[nl]

I believe that current rulings indicate US Constitutional rights do not apply to non-citizens outside US borders.

Quote:

Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments,

(Note "within the territory of the United States")

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrig...

[tikhonj]

But do these rights even apply to citizens outside of the US? I don't actually know.

[Volpe]

If you are at the border (i.e not in the US) Do those rights still hold?

I thought that was the point of guantanemo? Because the US doesn't want the prisoners there to have any rights.