Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- wtf? anybody ever heard of an sd card? usb drive? not that I personaly care, as my devices remain password free, unencripted, and here take the fucking thing, keep it, as I figure that worse comes to worse there is a way to bootstrap from nothing. then there is the little detail of my phone forcing a "security update", AND forcing a restart, which is absolute proof that I am not liable for anything on any device under any circumstances ever. The simple reality is that basic rights and freedoms of citizenship and the laws to protect that are gone, and we are all bieng treated as chattle by default with performative actions bieng taken in only the most extream and public cases of overt and wonton abuse.by metalman
- If you have something incriminating on your phone then wipe it before you cross the border and restore it afterwards.
- Believe it or not, that's also illegal.by halJordan
- > something incriminating
How would one even define that in 2026?
by runako - You may have “incriminating” stuff that you are unaware of:
https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/02/denied-entry-united-states...
by leephillips - You deserve a secure device: https://grapheneos.orgby Cider9986
- That doesn't help for the kind of search happening here. If the traveler refuse to give the agent the access demanded, they would be denied entry. We need courts to protect the privacy so that you have the right to say no.by advisedwang
- > The court’s holding hinged on four differences between manual and forensic searches: (1) in a manual search, a person does the searching, not a machine; (2) a manual search’s breadth depends on the officer’s time and energy, while forensic searches are comprehensive; (3) manual searches reveal only what a user can typically access, while forensic searches can uncover deleted files, cached fragments, metadata, and more; and (4) manual searches are subject to an officer’s fading memory or imperfect notes, while forensic searches create a permanent copy.
> But in identifying these technical differences, the court never explains why they justify a lower standard for manual searches.
Their observations precisely describe the situation the authors of the constitution would expect of every search (barring consideration of concepts foreign to them), when they included the fourth amendment. I would be very interested to hear the court's justification, though I suppose the absence of such speaks for itself.
- It reflects the absolutely pathetic state of the judiciary and their ability to understand the way technology relates to a pre technological age.
Obviously, even absent technology, judges making these decisions and not even explaining major aspects of it would be unacceptable. But the technology gives complexity that they love to use as a shield, or as a sword against things they secretly don’t like.
by Lord-Jobo