
Traveler sues US Customs and Border Protection over iPhone search and seizure - dewiz
https://9to5mac.com/2018/08/24/iphone-seized-cbp/
======
jrockway
Good.

Ultimately, the invasiveness of this sort of search is not worth the slim
chance that something of legal interest may be discovered. Criminals have free
reign to "import" data via the Internet already, so they're just going to go
that route most of the time. If you suspect someone of a crime, get a warrant,
and then have your customs officer seize the device. But the "we're just
checking to make sure you're not doing anything illegal" is antithetical to
the freedoms the United States guarantees, and should not be tolerated at the
border... at least when the stakes are this low.

I hope this case sees trial and the judge understands how to weigh the
invasiveness against the possible benefits.

~~~
ivl
I think this is the craziest thing. It's easy to just leave an encrypted copy
of all your phone's data online, reset your phone to factory settings, travel,
and then restore your data to your phone. Seizing it to search is just...
invasive and ineffective.

~~~
mcculley
Easy? My phone currently shows 77.2GB of 256GB used. Can you routinely
download 77GB of data in a foreign country as soon as you clear customs?

~~~
slezyr
Pull out SD card and just put in your boot/anus.

~~~
toyg
With gate scanners getting more and more invasive, that's actually likely to
get noticed (it's the first place they look for drugs...).

Just put the sd card in a checked-in bag, which is only scanned for large
threats (bombs, firearms, animals, and smelly drugs). Anything looking like a
little piece of plastic among little pieces of plastic will simply be ignored.

------
outlace
I came back to the states into LAX from a trip to China a few months ago and
one of the CBP agents was yelling and harassing many of the visiting Chinese
people who did not speak English because they were not following directions.
It was one of the biggest power trips I’ve seen. I felt absolutely terrible
for those people and ashamed that this was their introduction to America.

~~~
SCdF
(nearly?) Every time I've entered the US I've seen basically this. It's gross.

The last time a guy was screaming "do you want to go to prison for 40 years!?
do you!?!?!" to a confused and scared looking chinese lady, presumably because
she didn't declare a fucking durian or something.

~~~
Yenderman
The yelling is unprofessional and doesn't represent us well as a country.
However, the import of undeclared fruits and vegetables can do damage to our
ecosystem if they are of a type that represents a danger, or carries certain
insects.

Also, and I know humor is generally frowned on here, but yelling in the
presence of durian is understandable at a certain level, if you've ever tasted
or smelled it.

~~~
SCdF
Trust me, I'm from NZ, I get the idea behind the declaration of fruits etc.

I've never heard anyone on more of a shitheaded mean-spirited power trip than
every American customs person I've stood near.

------
throwawayjava
Here's the motion:
[https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/08/23/lazojamotion.pdf](https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/08/23/lazojamotion.pdf)

A few interesting aspects:

* Lazoja is suing over the data, not (just) the physical device (Her phone was already returned to her.) Also, she is making additional arguments that the duration of retention for both the device and the data on it are unreasonable. I hope at least one of these claims succeeds; even if warrantless border searches are permissible, retaining hdd/sdd dumps should not be allowed.

* The motion mentions several times that the device contained persona, private information including "pictures of her in a state of undress, as well as privileged communications with her counsel". She requested all data (and especially this data) be deleted and the response was radio silence.

------
appleflaxen
This comes on the heels of the TSA requiring a Muslim woman to show her used
menstrual pad to screeners in Boston.

[https://www.thecut.com/2018/08/muslim-woman-forced-show-
tsa-...](https://www.thecut.com/2018/08/muslim-woman-forced-show-tsa-bloody-
pad-during-search.html)

The TSA is an entity that provides no security, but still manages to degrade
the constitution.

------
wpdev_63
Seizing and inspecting cellphones when people enter the country is nothing
more than a means of harassment, intimidation, and more or less #falseflag
story.

As soon as your cellphone, ipad, etc. hit american networks and you have been
IDed as a person of interest, they(3 letter agencies) will be combing through
your device. Don't fool yourself thinking that devices are secure.

~~~
deviationblue
Exactly this. The whole point of these exercises is putting the inferior races
in their place.

------
wyldfire
> The lawsuit alleges that border agents took a copy of the data on her
> smartphone and failed to say whether it had been deleted.

This seems like it's remarkably hard to know. I suppose this may hinge on
which model of the iphone she had.

------
pimeys
I need to travel to US for Christmas celebrations. My phone is kind of
important for my diabetes control and insulin dosage. My pump and CGM do not
tolerate x-ray and it's prohibited in the manual. What are my chances to go
through the US border safe, or should I cancel my trip?

~~~
komali2
Keep the pump and CGM on you, don't check them. When you leave, you'll have to
let TSA manually look at them. Tell them before they put it on the Smith's
detection belt, which uses Xray.

Customs and border control don't xray your stuff unless you're randomly
selected. If you're randomly selected, tell them about the pump and CGM and
how it can't be xray. Based on my experience with asshole CBP agents, they may
"punish" you by throwing all your shit all over the place when they paw
through your stuff, or you might get lucky and get just a normal search.

As for your phone, lock it with a password, disable fingerprint unlock, and
good luck.

I wanted to link to CBP's help website for medical devices, but their HTTPS
certificate is invalid lol. Fuck's sake.

[https://www.tsa.gov/news/releases/2016/11/15/tsa-shares-
tips...](https://www.tsa.gov/news/releases/2016/11/15/tsa-shares-tips-
travelers-disabilities-medical-devices-medical-conditions)

~~~
toyg
_> unless you're randomly selected_

There is nothing "random" in the selection, let's not continue spreading this
delusion. It took 4 trips to the US, for that sorry excuse of an AI they use
for the selection, to finally decide I wasn't a threat.

If algorithms to generate numbers were all as random as the TSA one, I could
probably predict every encryption key out there.

------
deusofnull
Im glad she resisted this seizure of her personal property. But what about all
the data that phone transmits over the internet which can be / is collected by
most every intelligence agency, without a warrant?

~~~
nutjob2
"is collected by most every intelligence agency, without a warrant"

This is tinfoil hat stuff. Depending on the data and the situation, they need
warrants just like everyone else.

~~~
deusofnull
Given that Intelligence Agencies are often times under the direction of State
Departments, and State Departments are constantly breaking international and
domestic law, what gives you your confidence in their commitment to operating
within legal boundaries?

------
schoen
EFF and ACLU also have an active case about this topic (which I've worked on),
filed in September 2017.

[https://www.eff.org/cases/alasaad-v-duke](https://www.eff.org/cases/alasaad-
v-duke)

(It was called Alasaad v. Duke when it was filed and is now called Alasaad v.
Nielsen.)

The Alasaad case is pending in a different Federal court (the District of
Massachusetts).

------
throw2016
This is beyond the pale and is not consistent with democracy or basic human
rights.

No democracy will subject people to the indignity of security personnel
presuming the right to go through their personal papers and thoughts. It is
dehumanizing and shifts the pendulum towards a police state.

------
chimeracoder
I'm confused by this - if she refused to unlock her phone, how would they have
obtained a copy of the data?

~~~
throwawayjava
"Jane Doe and John Does 1-2 provided Ms. Lazoja a receipt (No. 1199376) dated
February 26, 2018, documenting CBP’s seizure of her iPhone and SIM Card, and
indicating the iPhone and SIM Card were “Sent to DHS Lab.” (Rejhane Aff. ¶
27); see Ex. A."

They took her phone and retained it for 130 days. Presumably, during that time
they copied all of the data off of the phone (and perhaps also decypted that
data). Regardless, the plaintiff argues that keeping the phone for that period
of time without a warrant was unconstitutional in the first place.

~~~
chimeracoder
> They took her phone and retained it for 130 days. Presumably, during that
> time they copied all of the data off of the phone (and perhaps also decypted
> that data).

My understanding is that the data can't be (feasibly) extracted and decrypted
from a modern iPhone, though. Isn't that why the FBI made such a big fuss
about Apple not "cooperating" to backdoor devices?

I understand the argument about the seizure being unconstitutional, but I'm
talking strictly about the cryptographic aspects here.

~~~
wepple
There are commercial tools for breaking iPhones. For example, $15k buys you
300 unlocks with this:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/03/05/apple...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/03/05/apple-
iphone-x-graykey-hack/#323eddcd2950)

Of course, it’s Cat and mouse and I believe Apple will or already have
squashed that.

The iPhone is the most secure consumer mobile device, but not bulletproof

------
erkose
This may be from another article, but I would like a formal definition of what
"in a state of undress" means.

~~~
jrockway
Doesn't really matter. The fact that she was made to be uncomfortable was the
problem.

~~~
LeoPanthera
And you would be wrong. She meant "without hijab".

~~~
mirimir
OK, what's your source for that statement?

Edit: If you had said "could be wrong", I would agree. But to get to "would be
wrong", you would need a clear statement from her. Which, of course, she has
no obligation to provide.

~~~
phyzome
Can't speak for them, but: [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-
my-iphone-...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/woman-my-iphone-
was-seized-at-border-then-imaged-feds-now-must-delete-data/)

~~~
mirimir
There's nothing there about what was on the iPhone.

Edit: OK, I missed that. She did characterize the problematic images. Sorry.

~~~
phyzome
There sure is:

« Lazoja noted in her affidavit that as a practicing Muslim who wears a hijab,
she does not want to be seen "in a state of undress without my hijab" by men
who are not members of her family.

The two agents asked if Lazoja had any electronic devices, so she produced her
phone.

They then asked her to unlock the phone, but she refused—citing the fact that
the phone contained such "undressed" images of herself as well as "legal
communications with the Council on American-Islamic Relations." »

------
BigChiefSmokem
The solution here is that the U.S. Constitution should apply to U.S. Citizens
at the border or in any territory, anyone else does not get the benefit of a
warrant.

~~~
zamazingo
Please see the following for a list of constitutional amendments this would
suspend to non-citizens:

[https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h926.html](https://www.u-s-
history.com/pages/h926.html)

For more information,

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Sta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States)

I also expect this would lead to suspending all US laws guaranteeing human
rights to non-citizens at the border. As far as I know, US agencies are not
subject to prosecution by international criminal courts, which would make
their employees immune to any prospect of human rights violations-related
prosecution.

~~~
BigChiefSmokem
The U.S. Constitution does not apply to non-citizens because the United States
of America has NO sovereignty outside its borders.

Human rights treaties should be arranged through the U.N. as intended that's
why it was chartered, if we are not using it that way that is not the
responsibility of U.S. Citizens to solve.

~~~
ceejayoz
> The U.S. Constitution does not apply to non-citizens because the United
> States of America has NO sovereignty outside its borders.

There are plenty of non-citizens _within_ its borders.

The US Constitution deliberately and carefully uses "citizens" in some spots
and "persons" in others. Stuff dealing with voting, for example, uses
"citizens", while things like the First and Fifth amendments say "people".

As a result green card holder (sensibly enough) has the right to free speech,
freedom of religion, a jury trial, can't be made a slave, etc. They don't have
a right to vote or run for the Presidency.

~~~
ComputerGuru
I don’t know why you used the example of a green card citizen when even an
illegal immigrant has rights under the constitution, let alone a traveler on a
visa.

~~~
ceejayoz
I used it because it should be fairly obvious that a green-card holder would
have freedom of speech and religion etc. It's a clearer "oh, that makes sense"
than something like a temporary visitor.

~~~
ComputerGuru
Yup. But my point was that the constitution actually makes it a point to grant
those privileges to persons and not citizens or even permanent residents. It's
not a happenstance, it was deliberate wording on the part of the Founding
Fathers and it's been upheld every single time in courts high and low. If
you're in the US, the same dignities and protections afforded to US citizens
under the US Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights are extended to
you.

People might believe that green-card holders are "special" in that regard
because they're on their way to becoming permanent citizens, but they would be
mistaken.

------
onetimemanytime
This a very reasonable request. You have a right to have my phone etc etc but
now delete all the data. Don't let the most private data hang on some database
forever.

Yes, she's a Muslim connected to CAIR so she was probably hoping they'd take
her phone to sue, but rights are rights.

~~~
Mizza
> You have a right to have my phone etc etc

What? Nobody has the right to look at my phone.

~~~
whamlastxmas
If you're crossing an international border into the US, they do.

~~~
Mizza
Not without "reasonable suspicion"[1]. Even then, I still reject the idea that
they have the right. They'd only be doing it despite my protests. They only
have the "right" because they have the force, it's not different than any
other type of authoritarianism.

[1] [https://www.propublica.org/article/can-customs-border-
protec...](https://www.propublica.org/article/can-customs-border-protection-
search-phone-legal-rights)

~~~
onetimemanytime
These word games aren't gonna help you or anyone. According to the article you
linked to, " _CBP says it can conduct these searches “with or without”
specific suspicion that the person who possesses the items is involved in a
crime._ " and

" _The court, however, raised the bar for a “forensic examination” of the
devices, such as using “computer software to analyze a hard drive.” For these
more powerful, intrusive and comprehensive searches, which could provide
access to deleted files and search histories, password-protected information
and other private details, border officials must have a “reasonable suspicion”
of criminal activity — not just a hunch._ "

So even an Appeals Court gave them the right to do searches. The extensive
ones require reasonable suspicion, which I guess can be challenged in court if
someone is arrested based on such searches.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
The Mafia also says that you have to pay them protection money. Just because
they have the power to force you to let them doesn't give them the right to do
so.

