US Border Officers Don’t Always Delete Collected Traveler Data
engadget.com
engadget.com
Border searches are nominally for the purpose of
preventing the importation of something that's
illegal to import
I haven't seen the program but it seems hard to believe that enough people would have a clear message about their intent in their email to make this program worth it. You'd have to go through 1000s of regular people to find the one odd person who contradicted themselves in an email. "Don't worry bud. I am pretending to go as a tourist but will actually look for a job and then apply for a work visa! haha!"
It's not forced, as if you decline, you'll just be denied entry. You could consider that forced, but at that point, the officer has already decided that he doesn't believe you, and you're not entering the US until you can prove it.
It's actually very common for people to come in on a tourist visa and find work. They figure out if you're likely to do that when they ask "what do you do for a living?," "do you have any family in the US," "how much money do you currently have access to?," or if you're staying for longer than they deem reasonable, like a 90 day vacation with $1000 in your bank account.
If they don't believe your answers, they ask for proof, like a return ticket, or possibly your text messages/emails. They can call contacts that you said you were going to visit too.
The show has shown a few successful findings from emails, people with emails from clients in the US arranging in-person visits (regarding contractors who can't work in the US) are common. As are people trying to permanently immigrate illegally, as they talk with their family in the US their plans via SMS.
I'm not trying to argue for this practice, and I'm all for making borders less closed off and open. I'm just saying the justification given by the government for it. Especially since the current administration is hard-set on stopping illegal immigration, and the majority of illegal immigrants actually come here legally, and overstay and work illegally.
Eugenics being a good example. Supreme Court upheld it 100 years ago, no constitutional amendment or ongoing fight with "two camps", people just stopped. State laws changed, licensing organizations stopped supporting it.
In this case, President could unilaterally tell the Border Patrol to not do it. Congress could make consequences.
Edit: I'm not saying that's comparable to practices called "eugenics" in the 1st half of the 20th century. Just narrowly responding to "people just stopped [the practice of eugenics]". The Wikipedia article on the subject agrees with this usage of the word, "practices that [aim to] improv[e] the genetic quality of a human population"[1].
There's also the whole topic of "designer babies" which has also been called "new eugenics"[2].
This is admittedly way off-topic from the original discussion. I just thought it was an interesting side-note.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technolo...
That’s not related to eugenics.
Eugenics also generally focused on sterilization vs termination, with a focus on long term changes in the human population. And sterilization is only relevant for people likely to reproduce so the elderly and people with Down syndrome are irrelevant from a eugenics standpoint.
Finally, small scale things like prescreening sperm donors is not going to make a meaningful difference to the overall population. For eugenics to have a meaningful impact the idea was to manage the overall population at scale. It’s a more insidious idea than often portrayed in a modern context because the original idea has become anathema.
They're human babies, and there is no such thing as a low quality human; though people like you sure come close enough.
this is why i dont let anyone touch my tech.
screwed up world. keep your privacy game tight!
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3209648/android/the-pa...
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/guide-getting-past-customs-dig...
We need a nice, clean, to-the-point github readme style list. Off the top of my head:
- Backup contents of device to two places, confirm both, delete it all from device
- Record all personal accounts on the phone, make sure the login/email/passwords are known, then remove them all
- Factory reset the device (if asked about why it's "blank", say that you bought it recently, specifically for the trip. Work out some reasonable excuse)
- Create a throwaway account, set that up as the only account on the phone
- Encrypt the device
- Don't use biometric unlocks
- Use a relatively simple passcode that isn't related to any of the ones you may regularly use (unless you already have a regularly used "burner" passcode)
- Remove your local / home sim card before going through customs (if asked, you're planning to buy one that's local to the country you're visiting)
- Any data that you may need to get back on to your phone once you're through customs should be made available somewhere online and accessible via credentials you can either remember or have stored elsewhere. Possibly through a chain of dependence such as remember the credentials to download the VPN config, then access further documents / details via the VPN.
I fundamentally treat phones and laptops as disposable devices so that, if they're lost or stolen there should be minimal life impact. If they're the only store of photos of your kids precious milestones, then you're doing it wrong (you're also probably not someone suspicious, but in that case you shouldn't be subjected to government departments stealing said photos).
There's no telling what kind of APT's may be installed now or at a future date, so thinking a phone wipe of any kind will do the trick sounds risky.
APT's are apparently commonly used with China, so doubt the US would be any different.
Or simply say that you factory reset it because you are traveling to a foreign country, and (1) don't want to risk that you have some app installed that is legal here but not there, and (2) you do not trust the carriers or government there to respect your privacy.
The incentives are that if data is deleted, the person doing it can be in trouble for destroying it. The probability of getting in trouble for not deleting is low.
This is based off of a mentality of: If we need the data and delete it, we (the gov) will have less power. If we don't delete it and need it, we will have more.
I believe the flaw in this reasoning is not considering a 3rd possibility: We don't delete it, don't need it, but it falls into other (even less scrupulous hands) that can use it and gain power.
So the idea that they are playing loose with the rules on purpose based on recommendations from the top seems warranted.