[chrsstrm]

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.

[dylan604]

> 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.

[huslage]

It ONLY applies to citizens. The CBP cannot deny an American citizen entry into the country for any reason. They cannot compel a citizen to unlock their devices. All bets are off for non-citizens, sadly.

[LocalH]

> The CBP cannot deny an American citizen entry into the country for any reason. They cannot compel a citizen to unlock their devices.

Don't worry, they're working on ending birthright citizenship

[SR2Z]

They're gonna have to enforce that one at gunpoint

[NoImmatureAdHom]

Actually, I'm not sure they can compel non-citizens. If you want in, you might have to give them the keys. But if you would rather not enter, would they compel on pain of imprisonment?

The U.S. isn't China or the UK.

[ndsipa_pomu]

UK citizen here and I've never had any issue with flying in/out of UK with several electronic devices (phone, laptop, tablet, steamdeck etc). Never even been asked to power them on or demonstrate them working (i.e. to show that they're not a bomb disguised as a laptop) and don't know anyone else that's had any hassle getting back in the country. I've been selected for being swabbed for explosives a few times though, but even that only takes a minute and is hardly any inconvenience.

In my experience, Australia was the most difficult country to get into as they are (now) very careful about bringing in any plant seeds or fruit, but the security staff were very friendly and helpful. I had to spend a while explaining that I did have some bananas in my bag previously which was why the cute sniffer dog was interested in it.

[NoImmatureAdHom]

Your personal experience is probably representative in that invasive searches happen to very few people, but that's not the issue at hand. The fact remains that the British will imprison you for refusing to decrypt your stuff (or for refusing to answer their questions):

https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/exa...

[mrkstu]

Australia is annoying. Israel is by far the worst- UK is bad in theory since they can jail you to compel an unlock, but obviously is going to happen to a vanishingly small number of people…

[chopin]

Same experience with Australia. Japan is very painless, as well. Friendly, helpful staff on both.

[piva00]

In my experience going through the border in China is more pleasant than through the USA, never had a hiccup in China while I've been detained for hours without contact with the outside going through a transit in JFK.

[NoImmatureAdHom]

The vast majority of people from the developed world have no problems going through any border in the developed world. Your experience is probably representative, but that's not what we're talking about. My understanding is that de facto you have no rights at all in China. The Americans take this sort of thing very seriously, which is why it's in the news and talked about. Some guy gets imprisoned for 37 days for a meme (and is subsequently paid $835k by gov't for his trouble) and it's all Greg Lukianoff can talk about. [0]

[0]: https://substack.com/@glukianoff/note/c-262196255

[majorchord]

Yet Japan, a country the West fetishizes regularly, routinely jails people for 20 days with no contact or even any charges at all, often ruining their lives, while desperately trying to force a confession no matter how innocent you are, then (hopefully) turning them loose, and not many people seem to care about that.

[ThePowerOfFuet]

>The U.S. isn't China or the UK.

Wasn't. Past tense.

[mixdup]

They can't prevent you from entering the country. You do not have an unlimited right to bring items into the country with you, though. They can absolutely prevent you from bringing your phone across the border if you decline to unlock it

[kelnos]

> They can absolutely prevent you from bringing your phone across the border if you decline to unlock it

Under what grounds?

[mixdup]

Customs law? You have an absolute right to return to the country as a citizen. You do not have an absolute right to bring whatever you want into the country, even as a citizen so they can search your belongings to see if you are carrying contraband. It's a different set of rules than if you're just on the street already in the country, crossing a border customs has a lot of leeway

I'm not saying that I agree with it, it's just the way it is

[laken]

The directive linked in the literal OP you're commenting under. (section 5.41 in that directive)

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Here's a fun story from about 20 years ago: https://www.wired.com/2007/04/canadian-psycho/

Spiteful border agents is not a new thing (I love the URL shortening).

[gruez]

>> 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]

Not really sure what you're arguing, but it's not an answer to my question

[gruez]

You don't "have to", but they can deport you and refuse entry in the future in retaliation. It's a variant of the TSA not being able to "compel" you to a search, but they can refuse you from flying.

[DANmode]

They can lie, and pretend you’re uncooperative,

or that their investigation took longer than the duration until your intended flight,

but, no, they can’t legally refuse you from flying without cause or suspicion.

[two_handfuls]

The question was: "Does that apply to non-citizens?"

Saying "they can deport you" without specifying whether the hypothetical "you" is a citizen or not means you did not answer the question.

Not that you have to answer a stranger's question, but I thought I would clear the confusion in the hope it may be helpful.

[gruez]

The premise (non-citizen) is in the question and doesn't need to be repeated. C'mon, this isn't grade school where you have to answer questions by first restating the question in its entirety.

[testing22321]

> but you get to go home

Not always.

They must admit you, but they can arrest you one second later

[kelnos]

They still need to charge you with something. If they can't, they can't hold you.

Yes, I know, they can theoretically do whatever they want, but realistically it would take the most spiteful of spiteful agents to arrest you without cause (just because you refused to unlock your device). Just the act of doing this would create a lot of extra work and paperwork for the agent that most of them are not going to want to deal with. Plus, asserting your rights is a sign to them that you aren't a pushover and aren't going to get trampled on easily. The bullies prefer easier targets, usually.

[testing22321]

Cue all the people that get thrown in jail for 48 hours without being charged at all, or those arrested for resisting arrest… for resisting arrest.

[phoronixrly]

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]

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]

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.

[bdcravens]

> 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

[NoImmatureAdHom]

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]

"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.

[kelnos]

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]

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]

You have the right to travel without ID in the U.S. The TSA may demand it, and may tell you it's legally required, but that doesn't make it true.

"In fact, the TSA does not require, and the law does not authorize the TSA to require, that would-be travelers show any identity documents. According to longstanding practice, people who do not show any identity documents travel by air every day – typically after being required to complete and sign the current version of TSA Form 415 and answer questions about what information is contained in the file about them obtained by the TSA from data broker Accurint…."

https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/05/19/tsa-tries-again-to-im...

https://papersplease.org/wp/2024/03/18/buses-trains-and-us-d...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...

ezpz

[eff-nix]

If you tell the TSA you’re a sovereign citizen for 15 minutes they’re legally required to let you fly.

[airstrike]

> 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.

[mtremsal]

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

[1over137]

co-hosting

[sokoloff]

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]

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]

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.

[rawgabbit]

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?