
Questions for TSA after reports of laptop and phone searches on domestic flights - pmoriarty
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/12/tsa-surveillance-laptops-cellphones-domestic-flights
======
pdkl95
I guess they didn't read Riley v California[1]. In the opinion of the SCOTUS:

> Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all
> they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the
> privacies of life". The fact that technology now allows an individual to
> carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less
> worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the
> question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized
> incident to an arrest is accordingly simple -- get a warrant.

Given that the SCOTUS unanimously ruled searching a phone without a warrant is
unconstitutional incident to an _arrest_ , the same requirement must also hold
for Terry stops and simple safety inspections.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California)

~~~
ProAm
Im not sure that matters. They may make it a condition of travel; you do not
have to let the TSA search your phone, but you will not be allowed to proceed
into the airport without doing so.

That is what all the TSA searches have appeared like to me. Just a denial of
service for maintaining a level of privacy.

~~~
John_KZ
This kind of argument is starting to piss me off. "You can express your
freedom of speech, but not in this public park, because it's privately owned"
"You can state your opinions, but not on this website, because dispite being a
major communications hub on the internet, and despite advertising ourselves as
a place of free expression, we actively derank, ban or erase any opinion we
dislike" "You can decline the EULA, you just have to stop using our vital
service" "You can maintain your privacy, but not if you want to travel" "You
can buy a phone that doesn't collect metadata about you, you just have to
break a $50 billion dollar lobby and manufacture your own IC. You still have
the freedom of choice"

You know what, you really don't. Your rights aren't supposed to be just a
legal burden to circumvent with various tricks, they're supposed to hold in
all domains of public life. I want to be able to fly in a plane without having
some asshole dig through my personal life. You think someone is dangerous?
Check for bombs. Check for weapons. Why are they checking for beliefs? What
kind of bullshit is this?

~~~
jonathanyc
Yeah. We accept that “if you don’t like it, you should just move” is a bad
excuse for bad laws. But people still think they are so urbane and clever when
they say “oh, if you don’t like (service X), just don’t use it.”

------
mikeash
This article seems like it’s written to be deliberately confusing.

If I understand it correctly, the TSA is not forcing anyone to unlock devices.
They take the devices away for some period, but if they’re securely locked,
TSA won’t be able to get anything from them.

However, the article drops border searches which _do_ require an unlock right
into the middle of the article, then goes on to say that they have no
_specific_ examples of TSA doing the same thing. This implies that they have
reason to believe it’s happening, but as far as I can see there’s no
justification for that.

The big question is: what are they doing with these things? If it’s some fancy
explosives sniffing (like they already do to my contact lens solution) then
it’s nothing interesting. If it’s an electronic search if unsecured devices,
that’s bad. If it’s an attempt to force travelers to unlock secured devices,
that’s horrible. The article seems to want to portray it as the last one,
while only giving evidence for one of the first two.

~~~
reaperducer
> They take the devices away for some period, but if they’re securely locked,
> TSA won’t be able to get anything from them.

It is well documented that there is no cell phone that cannot be unlocked.

And once it's unlocked, who knows what the real goal is. On the surface, one
suspects that it's to examine its contents. But other possibilities include
sideloading spyware, or even targeted viruses. Some random NGO secretary may
not be the actual target, but could be the vector that allows a program to
spread to one or more other targets within or without the organization.

I liked it better when this was the sort of thing that people on shortwave
radio with tinfoil hats would rant about. Now it's almost weekly headlines in
the NY Times, Guardian, WSJ, etc...

~~~
throwaway613834
> It is well documented that there is no cell phone that cannot be unlocked.

Citation needed?

~~~
reaperducer
For iPhones:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/02/26/gover...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/02/26/government-
can-access-any-apple-iphone-cellebrite/#6c3c2cb7667a)

For every other phone, Google is your friend.

~~~
tedunangst
So that's what's happening? The TSA takes your phone, teleports it to
cellebrite who unlock and clone it in ten minutes, then they teleport it back?

~~~
John_KZ
Can you think of a better location to place a phone's unlocking and cloning
machine than the TSA's examination office? Do they really need to teleport the
phone?

~~~
mikeash
It's unlikely to be a push-button machine. It's more likely to be a
complicated procedure involving desoldering chips and placing components in
specialized harnesses, which would be difficult to replicate at an airport.

------
jMyles
Domestic flights? Wow.

Since this is a different agency than typically conducts (similarly intrusive
and seemingly illegal) searches in the case of international flights, I wonder
if they are following a common protocol? If so, who creates that?

I'm about to fly internationally for the first time in a while; anybody have
any advice on how to handle my devices?

~~~
ep103
hidden partitions, and/or storing all your important data off-device are the
two pieces of advice that get suggested the most.

~~~
lisper
I would strongly recommend the latter. Hidden partitions are trivial to find.

I recommend one of these:

[https://www.amazon.com/MyDigitalSSD-480GB-SuperSpeed-
Portabl...](https://www.amazon.com/MyDigitalSSD-480GB-SuperSpeed-Portable-
Support/dp/B00N0V4JG2/)

Keep it encrypted and in your pocket.

~~~
benmmurphy
The bigger problem with hidden partitions is the TSA agent asks you if there
is a hidden partition and then if they are able to find out they you have lied
you have committed a crime.

~~~
gumby
> TSA agent asks you ... and then if they are able to find out they you have
> lied you have committed a crime.

Not sure that's the case: TSA agents are not police or any other law
enforcement any more than the gate agent is,and can't make arrests or anything
like that. Pretty sure you can say what you like (though please, be polite!).

I once pulled out my phone to photograph the badge of an agent who was
particularly obnoxious, not just to me but to others. I planned to fill out
the complaint card. He freaked out, told me photography was not allowed,
grabbed me by the arm and called for the cop. The cop came over and told him
in no uncertain terms to let go of me, that photography is fine, asked me if I
got a clear photo and made sure I got a photo of the badge. And handed me a
complaint form. I assume he already knew that the TSA guy was a jerk.

~~~
DanBC
> TSA agents are not police or any other law enforcement any more than the
> gate agent is,and can't make arrests or anything like that. Pretty sure you
> can say what you like (though please, be polite!).

Aren't TSA agents government, federal, employees?

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001?qt-
us_code_t...](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001?qt-
us_code_temp_noupdates=0#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)

> Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within
> the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the
> Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

> (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a
> material fact;

> (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
> representation; or

> (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain
> any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

------
pjc50
> "One woman who shared her story with the ACLU told the Guardian that in the
> last year, she has twice had her electronics searched while flying within
> California. The 64-year-old, who works in nonprofits and requested anonymity
> for fear that she could face further scrutiny from TSA, said that on one
> occasion last year, TSA agents pulled her aside to pat her down multiple
> times and eventually asked to see both her iPhones – a work and personal
> one."

I suspect it would be very revealing which nonprofit is involved here; this
kind of harassment through scrutiny is a classic tactic against progressive
groups.

~~~
gowld
It's also a classic tactic against conservative groups.

[https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-
for-...](https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-
aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups)

~~~
ajross
Sorry, are you equating needless bureaucratic red tape in a non-profit's
application for tax-exempt status to the seizure of a private citizen's phone
and laptop?

~~~
mcherm
Sorry, are you equating a private citizen having their phone out of their
sight for 10 minutes with over a year of delays in permitting an organization
to accept tax-exempt donations from thousands of citizens?

Frankly, BOTH are unreasonable and the government should not be engaging in
EITHER ONE. I think there is little to be gained by debating which is "worse"
\-- could we instead agree to cease doing both?

~~~
pm90
No. There are degrees of "worseness": we have a priority queue of issues that
must be addressed given spare time and resources.

In that context: and individual's right to privacy and to be left alone is
much much more important than any organization getting tax exempt status.

------
skrowl
Remember the 5th Amendment applies to passwords. No law enforcement officer
may EVER compel you to log in to a device with a password / pass code / unlock
pattern, for any reason.

~~~
greensoap
In other words, don't enable touch id or face unlock.

~~~
komali2
I'm trying to find the article now, but I recall reading that in the USA it's
a lawful order to have you unlock your phone with a thumbprint, but not to
unlock with a PIN code. God knows why.

Here: [https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/10/31/judge-rules-
suspect-...](https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/10/31/judge-rules-suspect-can-
be-required-to-unlock-phone-with-fingerprint/)

Unsure about federal application, actually. We as country need to get our shit
together regarding device privacy. You should need a warrant to look at a
phone, laptop, whatever, with or without a password. The security of the
device should be meaningless.

As for me, I'm grateful that I have the resources to push back should this
ever happen to me, jailtime or included. That's a luxury probably very few
Americans can realistically afford (seeing as they can just throw you in jail
for 48 hours).

~~~
saagarjha
> I recall reading that in the USA it's a lawful order to have you unlock your
> phone with a thumbprint, but not to unlock with a PIN code. God knows why.

I believe the rationale was that they can't ask you to incriminate yourself
(give up your passcode), but you don't have to say anything for them to force
you to give your fingerprint.

~~~
skrowl
My understanding is that it stemmed from them being able to compel you to take
your fingerprints. In the old days you'd put your fingers in ink then put them
on paper so they could record your fingerprint. I guess a judge ruled that
putting your thumb on your phone isn't substantially different than that.

That said, you shouldn't ever rely solely on biometrics. In addition to the
legal reason, an adversary could also unlock your phone if you were
unconscious / etc using your thumb.

------
iwalsh
It's possible the TSA will claim that taking a device for some amount of time
and giving it back doesn't qualify as a (4th amendment) search.

However, from a security perspective it would be awful if they could disappear
with your device whenever they wanted - that certainly makes me uncomfortable.

~~~
onetimemanytime
>> _It 's possible the TSA will claim that taking a device for some amount of
time and giving it back doesn't qualify as a (4th amendment) search._

Not likely to work: "We just want to search your house for 30 minutes" or "you
can have your document back after we photocopy it, so no warrant needed."

The idea is that they cannot do certain things without a warrant.

~~~
mcherm
I think the fear is that the TSA will deny having searched the phone and the
complaintant will have not way of proving that they did.

~~~
oldandtired
Having the system have an ability to log all accesses after switching on get
past this problem. As the logs will be proof the system was searched while not
in your hands.

~~~
mcherm
Does the system have such an ability?

I can't exactly go re-write iOS or Android (technically, I suppose I _could_
do the latter) in order to add this feature.

------
warcop
Surveillance Self-Defense [https://ssd.eff.org/](https://ssd.eff.org/)

------
JshWright
If I bring any personal equipment when I travel it's a "burner". I have a
Chromebook running Debian that never has anything on it I care about (and only
access personal stuff remotely via SSH, using a PGP key on a YubiKey). I carry
an old phone, again with nothing on it I care about. Both devices are
encrypted and powered off through security (and left off as much as possible
when at the airport in general).

The most important characteristic of these devices is that I'm 100% happy to
just walk away from them (and there are no easily recovered credentials for
any "cloud based" services I use).

If I'm traveling for work (and have equipment that belongs to my employer with
me), I am equally happy to walk away from those devices (though I'll also
leave the contact info for my company's lawyer).

------
r00fus
Who here thought this was eventually going to happen for domestic flights
after this started happening on international flights?

------
Taniwha
Yet another reason to not fly through the US

------
baxtr
The number of searches has increased quite a bit from 2016 to 2017

[https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-
rele...](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-
updated-border-search-electronic-device-directive-and)

------
russ_ross
No special knowledge, but willing to bet they are doing this on the basis of a
specific threat. Much theatre, hoping it gets press, and intended as a
deterrent based on information they've got they are concerned about. Otherwise
its a lot of work for nothing.

------
greggarious
I wonder if they're imaging the device for later analysis.

I suspect they're not installing implants but it would make me nervous all the
same about using that device in the future...

------
cryoshon
idea: scrub all data and accounts from your electronics before flying.

leave your phone unlocked, but primed with a goatse booby trap so that the
agents get an unpleasant surprise that's totally legal and comes with total
deniability -- hey, you just loved goatse so that's why it's on your phone and
laptop.

if the agent is offended, perhaps they should have minded their own fucking
business.

~~~
onetimemanytime
_> > so that the agents get an unpleasant surprise_

YOU will get the surprise: if you're a US citizen they cannot deny you entry
to the USA but they can make your life miserable by searching and delaying you
every single time.

If you're not a US citizen and try to be a "smartass," they have all the power
to deny you entry in the USA. No appeals.

~~~
cryoshon
why would i get a surprise? i'm just an innocent citizen who loves goatse.
there's no reason to single me out for harassment -- or if there IS, there's a
lawsuit ready to go

~~~
onetimemanytime
Of course you are. And they're just doing their job, they _suspect_ you might
try something. Just suspect, so to protect and to serve they have to check
you, every single time. Better safe than sorry.

A lawsuit for being searched more carefully? Good luck.

------
sg0
If office issued electronic devices (which presumably have to undergo routine
organization-specific scrutiny, and may contain non-public info) are snatched
by the TSA for random sniffing, why can't an organization sue the TSA for
compromising security?

------
coldcode
They can have my device if necessary, however I will not give them the
passcode without torture. They can add it to the pile.

~~~
mulmen
They can't _have_ my device without a warrant. I'm not comfortable with them
even taking it out of my sight or connecting it to anything. This is an agency
that absolutely cannot be trusted.

------
derefr
A devil's advocate argument, for people to have something explicit to rebut
here:

One of the guises state police operate under in America is the "highway
patrol"—a force that searches for terrorists and drug trafficking and the
like.

And presumably, air travel is a privilege, not a right, just like driving a
car is. (Or _is_ it? Taking _public_ transit is a right that can't be denied
to someone unless they explicitly break a rule of the system. But airports are
private companies...)

So, given that, is there a _legal_ reason that there is no "airway patrol"?

I'm not suggesting they have the powers of random search & seizure that the
TSA seems to have, mind you. But should there be state police that are
stationed at airports, who search people when they have probable cause?

~~~
jMyles
> Presumably, air travel is a privilege, not a right, just like driving a car
> is.

Freedom of movement is a privilege, not a right? What can you possibly be
talking about?

Did I miss a memo? The United States (and other common law societies) have a
long history of enshrining freedom of movement as a fundamental right.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law)

Also, be reminded that the USA voted in favor of the UDHR, which reads in
part:

* a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others

and

* and that a citizen also has the right to leave any country, including his or her own, and to return to his or her country at any time.

~~~
derefr
Freedom of movement no more guarantees your right to purchase a ticket aboard
a _private, commercial_ flight, than freedom of speech guarantees your right
to post to a _private, commercial_ forum.

What freedom of movement _does_ guarantee, to be clear, is that you're:

1\. allowed to own your own plane;

4\. allowed to fly said plane over pretty much any American airspace, other
than specific little zones cordoned off by the military;

2\. allowed to have your own airfield to launch and land your plane;

3\. allowed to use the airfield of any American airport to launch/land your
plane (at least in an emergency.)

With your _own_ plane—just like with your _own_ car—you have freedom of
movement in the US.

~~~
benchaney
> Freedom of movement no more guarantees your right to purchase a ticket
> aboard a private, commercial flight, than freedom of speech guarantees your
> right to post to a private, commercial forum.

It is the government that prevents you from flying on the private commercial
airline. Not the airline owner. If the government was preventing people from
posting certain messages on private commercial form, that would certainly be a
violation of the First Amendment.

------
ghostbrainalpha
I am TOTALLY ok with TSA reading my last text messages before I go on a
flight.

Those last few texts someone sends before committing a terrorist action, could
send an extremely strong signal to authorities and possibly prevent a
disaster.

If the extra security results in a strange TSA agent getting to enjoy some
surprise dick pics, well that's the price of freedom Jerry.

~~~
jjulius
>If the extra security results in a strange TSA agent getting to enjoy some
surprise dick pics, well that's the price of freedom Jerry.

I wouldn't say that someone has 'freedom' if they're being forced to possibly
have their body visibly exposed to strangers against their will.

~~~
pentagonpapers
isn't that what those scanners do lol?

~~~
jjulius
They highlight where there are extraneous objects on one's body, but they do
not reveal what's underneath your clothes. The OP that I responded to
explicitly states s/he would be fine with TSA agents ruffling through your
most recent messages on your phone, and that it should be OK for them to see
nude photos of yourself that you may have just sent someone.

There's a big difference between going, "Hey, the computer put a red square on
the left thigh of a generic outline of a human, it suggests we should look
there to see if you have anything," and, "Hmm, let's see what Johnny sent
Sally yesterday. Oh look, his dick! And this lady who isn't even traveling
with him sent him six pictures of her breasts!"

