Hacker News Reader

Comment by floatingatoll | Hacker News Reader

As an airport traveler, I'm glad they blocked the ads for the phrasing submitted, but I'm upset that they refused to explain their reasoning and negotiate better phrasing. For example:

"Know your digital rights at the border" is great. It's in the classic tone of raise-awareness campaigns, does not use fearmongering, and can be safely ignored by anyone who already understands them.

"Your phone isn't safe at the border" is not great. It makes you feel afraid, mis-describes the issue (what about laptops?), and doesn't specify the vested interest (it's about rights).

Both parties deserve censure for their choices.

View on HN

"Your phone isn't safe at the border" is a statement of fact, really, not fear mongering. It is not safe from warrantless searches.

But you just answered the GP's concern, safe from what?

Also, just my phone? What about my laptop? Safe from searches? Pickpockets? Malware?

There's a big difference between raising awareness of issues(ex know your rights - check out xyz.com for more info) vs big brother is, watching; trust no one, followed by a border security queue

>Also, just my phone? What about my laptop? Safe from searches? Pickpockets? Malware?

If slogans had to be that comprehensive to be allowed, we would be blessedly free of advertising.

"Your phone isn't safe at the border" is on pretty much the same level as "for everything else there's mastercard" on the accuracy<->drama scale. I think your standards are beyond unreasonable here.

The assumption you leave unstated is that it is unsafe to have your phone searched by the government. While that's a point of view I consider true for many, and I endorse halting warrantless border searches of phones, it is certainly not true to say that phone searches are unsafe for all.

I know what you mean but I think the opposite: It IS unsafe to have warrantless government searches on your phone.

Once people get used to that what's next? Since we have your phone open, just go and pop your Gmail credentials in there for us why don't you? Your phone was in your pocket so what else do you have in there? Keys, what do they open? etc...

It's a slippery slope and the reason we have checks and balances.

I am guessing that a random person seeing that ad would be concerned about their phone getting physically damaged, not about their civil rights being violated.

It's a sad but true reality.

It could be confiscated

It can be both.

> U.S. officials say it remains a minuscule percentage of overall travellers — 0.007 per cent, or roughly one per 13,000. The Department of Homeland Security says it's necessary to combat crimes like terrorism and child pornography.

I'm sick of hearing this argument. Either it's a small percentage of travellers or it's necessary to combat those crimes, but you cannot have both. The only way to have both of those is if you already have some probable cause or a reason to search particular individuals, in which case there's no need for it to be warrantless.

"Know your digital rights at the border" will be ignored as its meaningless to most people

"Your phone isn't safe at the border" is FUD.

"Your phone is subject to searches without warrant at the border" is accurate and concrete

I wonder if there is space in this world for non-manipulative political activism and advertising.

The ad phrasing isn't meant to do much more than give you a reason to go to the website, which answers your question and goes into far more detail. It's effective, and no different than any other advertising.

I am disappointed they blocked the ads, but the Streisand effect is in full force here.

They should rather use the phrase: "Any phone isn't safe at anywhere."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com