Hacker News Reader

Comment by righthand | Hacker News Reader

So carry a separate device while traveling. Or wipe your phone, then restore after the border. This is just going to lead to a service that does this for you and the overreaching feds won’t be able to do anything about it.

And as far as I can tell you still don’t have to give them your pin code.

View on HN

They don't need your pin, they can just hack the phone take all your data anyway. ICE has a contract with Cellebrite

Not really. Cellebrite isn't magic. If you have an up to date OS and a strong password not pin, encryption functions as it should. The best thing to do is simply have a travel phone.

It's not magic, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work most of the time.

From https://cellebrite.com/en/blog/the-access-gap-is-closed-what... :

Here’s what that looks like in practice in 2026:

iOS: Cellebrite supports access to the latest iPhone models and iOS versions, including both after-first-unlock (AFU) and before-first-unlock (BFU) states. Recent updates have introduced new AFU access methods for previously unsupported iOS device configurations, expanding the range of devices that can be accessed without requiring a prior unlock event.

Android: The latest releases restored and expanded full file system (FFS) extraction across a broad range of newer Android models, which is an area where the competitive landscape had seen fluctuation. Coverage now spans Samsung, Google Pixel and other major Android manufacturers at their current OS versions.

"Access" is not what you think it means. This is marketing hype directly from their site. I have first hand experience using their extractors and its not as robust as they make it sound. They extract metadata outside of the encrypted volumes. It all depends on what your worried about.

Actual hardware 0-days are highly coveted, extremely expensive, military classified tools that TSA does not have access too and never will.

Edit: CBP not TSA (thanks good callout)

Minor nitpick this wouldnt be TSA but CBP; both are anti-American organizations under DHS.

Imaged encrypted volumes can be decrypted later. We're building massive amounts of compute with government bonds these days.

This is true for literally everything encrypted. Security is always a function of time and effort. The name of the game is being not worth the effort.

When the effort becomes trivial, so does the justification for it. Doesn’t cost them any of their own money.

Once again its not as simple as oh its easy now. It's highly dependent on how much time has passed, who you are, what your worried about... etc... making it out like everyone is on the same plane makes the threat assessment worthless.

Right now it seems GrapheneOS is the only OS capable of resisting Cellebrite.

Thats not at all accurate. When you say "resisting" you are glossing over really important distinctions. The lastest versions of iOS are perfectly capable of being locked down in a such a way that they are not able to be penetrated by Cellebrite.

The info extracted is the nuance your missing here. Cellebrite doesnt break encryption, it brute forces weak PINs and passwords and collects metadata thats outside of the protected volume.

Your online activity likely exposes much much more about you than the data extracted by Cellebrite. These distinctions matter as its really easy to misunderstand and sensitionalize their tools.

the worry is that this will be interpreted as tampering and cary consequences.

This would not be tampering, because you haven’t tampered with anything. The “evidence” is simply at home.

The law isn't a computer program. Intent matters.

Try proving intent when it’s a common practice. I’d even say it’s a best practice these days, especially for business.

You’re fearmongering. Find me a case of someone getting prosecuted for having a burner phone. It doesn’t exist.

If you're worried about that, you are not living in a free country anymore.

It's been somewhat established that having a wiped or basic phone is in itself sus and reason for them to investigate you further.

They can investigate all they want, they can even detain you briefly, but if you are a citizen and there’s no evidence of a crime then they have to let you in.

They have more guns than you do, and these days, most of the judges are blindly and shamelessly on their side. They don't "have" to do jack.

You’re fearmongering. Despite what some may say, it’s not Nazi Germany. Rule of law still has sway.

Find me caselaw where a “basic” phone was used as valid evidence. Or where the phone was already empty when someone began to approach the border.

Rule of Law was very strong in Nazi Germany. Everything that regime did was legal in Germany at the time.

If you really believe that the two are equivalent, I hope you’re taking action right now and not just posting on HN. Otherwise that would certainly speak poorly of your character.

I mean they'll shoot protesters execution-style and retroactively declare that person a terrorist before they've even done any investigations.

It's not Nazi Germany, but this administration has certainly demonstrated that they're not above inventing reasons to justify their actions later.

Despite the problems, this stuff is still a rarity among most people. And most people understand that.

It’s obviously getting worse, but that’s not a reason to give up all hope.

I don't think I disagree with anything you said. I think cynicism is lazy.

Rule of law still has sway.

Get back to me once the Good and Pretti homicides in Minneapolis have been prosecuted.

I said that it still has sway, not that it’s perfect. Your position basically amounts to “hide in bed and hope they don’t come for you”.

My position is that what happened to them could happen to you or me.

You don't seem concerned, though. So that's good. I guess.

The question isn’t whether something is merely possible. You could get struck by a moving ambulance tomorrow.

It’s about how likely something is.

Getting more likely every year.

And if you're not a citizen?

Then this does not apply. Best to consult a lawyer

Have not heard this, whats your source? I don't see how they could determine that because "its a new phone" is hard to dispute.

best case scenario is that a higher court overturns this but not holding my breath.

Do you have any references to this?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49386895

That doesn't support the proposition that carrying a new or previously-cleaned phone across the border is cause for suspicion. In that case, the defendant wiped the phone after he was encountered by CBP.

It's abundantly clear when a phone is new or previously-cleaned, they would consider that cause for suspicion all the same.

Clear from what? Cite examples where this has happened, please.

Step 1: Person is detained. Step 2: They wipe their phone on the spot. Step 3: Police say they're hiding evidence.

If step 2 happens at the border post detention, or prior to arrival at the border, the perspective to the police is all the same, they see a wiped phone. Police detained somebody, saw they had a wiped phone. Doesn't matter when they wiped it.

Common sense...

The law distinguishes between not bringing evidence to a law enforcement encounter and destroying it in the middle of one.

Please, ask an attorney and educate yourself before you continue.

"The law" doesn't operate by standard norms at the border, almost like you missed the point of the original article. If they want to charge you with something, they'll find a way to do it. Not sure which version of the US you live in where all government actions follow the letter of the law, but it's not where the rest of us are.

Read Samuel Tunick's article again:

> Customs and Border Protection officers wanted to search his phone. After questioning, he eventually turned it over but gave officers a passcode that then erased the contents of his Google Pixel phone.

If he had given them a blank phone, it wouldn't matter whether he had _just_ wiped it or had arrived with a wiped one, they would treat him all the same.

> Please, ask an attorney and educate yourself before you continue.

I've gone through this process at the border and have in fact consulted an attorney on precisely this. How about you do the same before you continue.

> If he had given them a blank phone, it wouldn't matter whether he had _just_ wiped it or had arrived with a wiped one, they would treat him all the same.

Whether someone’s activity meets the elements of a destruction of evidence charge depends on context. Any competent attorney will tell you that. Wiping your phone once the encounter has begun, and especially in response to being asked to hand over the phone for inspection? Bad. Doing it before you board the plane? Less of a problem.

A border agent might still question you more intensely if you show up at the encounter with a new or previously cleaned phone, but that’s not the same as being hauled off and criminally charged for destruction of evidence after the encounter has begun.

> I've gone through this process at the border and have in fact consulted an attorney on precisely this.

What did they tell you, exactly? And can you give me their contact info?

> How about you do the same before you continue.

I am an attorney. (Not legal advice, consult your own.)

>but that’s not the same as being hauled off and criminally charged for destruction of evidence after the encounter has begun.

I'm glad you have so much faith in our system.

> What did they tell you, exactly?

That you have far fewer exercisable rights or guarantees at the border.

> And can you give me their contact info?

No thanks, I'm alright.

>I am an attorney. (Not legal advice, consult your own.)

I'm sure you are!

> That you have far fewer exercisable rights or guarantees at the border.

That’s true, but also not what we’re debating.

We are debating whether, on inspection, having a new-appearing phone when you first encounter CBP will give rise to reasonable suspicion that you violated the law or are inadmissible and thus should be further investigated. I asked you for specific examples where this happened to someone, and you provided an example that didn’t fit the pattern. You gave some other story about someone who destroyed evidence in the middle of an encounter.

If you don’t have an example that matches, that’s fine. But don’t then move the goalposts.

Fun fact, no we aren't!

Go ahead and re-read the original comment: "It's been somewhat established that having a wiped or basic phone is in itself sus and reason for them to investigate you further."

The implication is that, as in the case I provided, if they have already detained you, and you provide them with a wiped or basic phone (Tunick), this will be a "in itself sus and reason for them to investigate you further."

Goalposts are where I left them, not sure where you're going...

edit: And let me save you time in your response, "investigate you further" implies they were already investigating you.

What are they going to do if you’re not carrying anything illegal and you’re a citizen? You cannot be refused entry to the US as a citizen and they can’t charge you or hold you without evidence. You don’t have to tell them why your phone is wiped, just stay silent until you’re released.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com