Comment by provost | Hacker News Reader

Comment by provost | Hacker News Reader

Section 5.3 pertains to requesting passcodes, and that an Officer may ask you for the passcode (I don't see anything about individuals being obligated -- though see 5.3.4, which could be interpreted by "legal remedies"). However, section 5.3.3 says:

> If an officer is unable to complete an inspection of an electronic device because it is protected by a passcode or encryption, the Officer may, in accordance with section 5.4 below, detain the device pending a determination as to its admissibility, exclusion, or other disposition.

Section 5.4 elaborates further.

Also, I found 5.1.2 interesting:

> Officers may not intentionally use the device to access information that is solely stored remotely. To avoid retrieving or accessing information stored remotely and not otherwise present on the device, Officers will either request that the traveler disable connectivity to any network (e.g. by placing the device in airplane mode), or, where warranted by national security, law enforcement, officer safety, or other operational considerations, Officers will themselves disable network connectivity.

My employer made me sign an agreement that states (among other things) sharing passwords/passcodes is not allowed and that termination is a potential result of a violation of this policy. I'm going to keep my job and not unlock the whole-disk crypto protecting the data on my drive.

Since I work for an educational institution, there is potentially FERPA protected data on my drive. In some instance we also deal with HIPPA data. It's also interesting because my password manager stores it's data as encrypted files on that drive (mirrored from the cloud). I'm certainly not unlocking that either.

Which is fine, since you're a US citizen and can't be denied entrance. They're going to confiscate your devices, though.

Can LPR’s be denied entrance for refusing to unlock?

Probably not, since they also can't be denied entrance by executive order. But I'm not a lawyer!

I believe an LPR could be paroled, pending a hearing with an immigration judge.

Saying that, the only people who cannot be denied entry to the US are indeed USC.

No, an LPR can only be denied entrance if:

(a) They are regarded as seeking admission and they are found inadmissible. Refusing to unlock their device will not make an LPR regarded as seeking admission as it’s not a reason listed in INA 101 (a)(13)(C): https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0...

(b) They are deportable. Simply refusing to unlock a device in itself will not make someone deportable as it’s not listed in INA 237 “General Classes of Deportable Aliens”: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0...

(IANAL.) Employment agreements generally are not enforceable when they conflict with the law, AFAIK. The security guard might be required to never open the door, but when a police officer or court gives them a lawful order to open it, they open it or go to jail. I doubt they could be fired for opening it in that circumstance; your employer cannot require to you violate the law.

Another way of looking at it: You can write whatever you want on paper and sign it, but that doesn't make it enforceable. You could sign a document that makes you a slave or puts up your children as collateral for your ISP bill, but those agreements would be scrap paper (or evidence for the prosecutor).

Not scrap. They do evidence an intention to pay. They are an acknowledgement of the debt. The individual clauses may be struck as illegal, but the documemt and signatures are still a thing.

> Officers may not intentionally use the device to access information that is solely stored remotely.

Probably until some court rules that a client making the information seem local to facilitate access is legally equivalent to having that information local (and hence not under protection of 5.1.2).

Most likely followed later by some other ruling that a browser can be considered such a client.

Doesn't 5.1.2 mean that the device would be without network access throughout the search (regardless of what information is meant to be protected as stored remotely)?

Got the message? Better store everything in the back-doored cloud! Much less of a hassle to compromise

Reply on news.ycombinator.com