The idea of someone in authority doubling down on this when pressed is absurd. If I’m at a border crossing and I’m ordered to turn over all my social media activity, and I say “I don’t use any social media,” are they really going to come back with “yes, you do”?
Is this a real thing that is happening to people? It beggars belief. The ACLU would have a field day if people were actually being detained for having nothing to hand over in this scenario.
It's hard to find a search term to find specifics, but it looks like they can detain your devices as a citizen and absolutely detain you as a non-citizen to investigate further. And anecdotally people are being harassed
The ACLU is definitely not having a field day with the current situation. They would rather be bored
it looks like they can detain your devices as a citizen
This used to be a thing one would hear about occasionally for targeted searches of citizens at US borders, and if they're expanding it more generally, it is likely similar: in practice, the threat is that, while they are often legally required to return the devices to you, they can intentionally do so on timescales (eg, years) that mean they are effectively seizing the devices, as you'll need to buy new devices and use backups.
It's always about making it your problem not theirs. If they violate your rights, you have to deal with it, and then try to fight them after. It's the "you can beat the charge but not the ride" but from the feds.
This reminds me of Truecrypt once the government finally caught on. If you had a Truecrypt drive, it was assumed you had at least one hidden volume. I remember rumors back in the 2010s that customs in some countries were refusing entry to folks who had Truecrypt drives unless they would decrypt both the drive and the hidden volume they assumed you had.
I have no idea if it’s true, but it was believable enough to merit a lot of anxiety at Defcon.
More to the point: if we reduce the conversation about privacy to control of personal information, we miss the human and political value of not being fully knowable.
If anyone is interested in more of this seemingly rare line of thought which I adore, I highly recommend reading "The Right to Oblivion" by Lowry Pressly. Very similarly deconstructs how our definition of privacy has been slowly shifted over time and why the common definitions are so hard to use to defend privacy rights with.
Can be a tad dry but even just the start of the book completely changed my perspective as someone who had already thought of myself as a privacy advocate. It's included in Spotify premium as an audiobook as well.
snake_case | 19 hours ago
I don’t use social media, I have often wondered what would happen to me if it were requested while I was traveling.
Tildes is basically it for me. Wonder if that would satisfy them?
balooga | 9 hours ago
The idea of someone in authority doubling down on this when pressed is absurd. If I’m at a border crossing and I’m ordered to turn over all my social media activity, and I say “I don’t use any social media,” are they really going to come back with “yes, you do”?
Is this a real thing that is happening to people? It beggars belief. The ACLU would have a field day if people were actually being detained for having nothing to hand over in this scenario.
DefinitelyNotAFae | 7 hours ago
I mean
The Government’s Growing Trove of Social Media Data | Brennan Center for Justice
It's hard to find a search term to find specifics, but it looks like they can detain your devices as a citizen and absolutely detain you as a non-citizen to investigate further. And anecdotally people are being harassed
The ACLU is definitely not having a field day with the current situation. They would rather be bored
pallas | 4 hours ago
This used to be a thing one would hear about occasionally for targeted searches of citizens at US borders, and if they're expanding it more generally, it is likely similar: in practice, the threat is that, while they are often legally required to return the devices to you, they can intentionally do so on timescales (eg, years) that mean they are effectively seizing the devices, as you'll need to buy new devices and use backups.
DefinitelyNotAFae | 4 hours ago
It's always about making it your problem not theirs. If they violate your rights, you have to deal with it, and then try to fight them after. It's the "you can beat the charge but not the ride" but from the feds.
tanglisha | 2 hours ago
This reminds me of Truecrypt once the government finally caught on. If you had a Truecrypt drive, it was assumed you had at least one hidden volume. I remember rumors back in the 2010s that customs in some countries were refusing entry to folks who had Truecrypt drives unless they would decrypt both the drive and the hidden volume they assumed you had.
I have no idea if it’s true, but it was believable enough to merit a lot of anxiety at Defcon.
JackA | 18 hours ago
If anyone is interested in more of this seemingly rare line of thought which I adore, I highly recommend reading "The Right to Oblivion" by Lowry Pressly. Very similarly deconstructs how our definition of privacy has been slowly shifted over time and why the common definitions are so hard to use to defend privacy rights with.
Can be a tad dry but even just the start of the book completely changed my perspective as someone who had already thought of myself as a privacy advocate. It's included in Spotify premium as an audiobook as well.