
Social Media Needs a Travel Mode - jmduke
http://idlewords.com/2017/02/social_media_needs_a_travel_mode.htm
======
tptacek
To be effective, this would need to become a kind of norm for overseas
travelers, the same way traveler's checks used to be. The idea would be that
just as you don't carry a bag with your birth certificate, stock certificates,
property titles, and jewelry with you, you also don't carry a 10 year archive
of every email you've ever sent or a detailed list of every person you've ever
spoken to.

In particular, it needs to be normal enough that _a significant fraction of
all travelers do it_. The feature can't be marketed as a protection for at-
risk travelers, but as a common-sense safety mechanism useful to all
travelers.

I think it's crazy that people walk around with phones that have access to
years of email communications, and that even in the happiest timeline we could
have ended up on after 2016, features like this are long overdue.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>In particular, it needs to be normal enough that a significant fraction of
all travelers do it.

Yes, exactly.

Border agents are trained to look for anything out of the ordinary. Currently,
using a feature like this would immediately raise a huge red flag and
encourage more questioning, detention and possibly even deportation based on
the person's country of origin and the mood of the border agent.

Incidentally, that's why I think there is virtually zero chance for these
types of features to take off: the system strongly discourages early adopters
from trying them.

~~~
dublinben
Thankfully, as US citizens we are free to establish a norm of using features
like this, with no fear of deportation.

~~~
turc1656
If you are willing to do this, then why not just say "no" to the CBP and DHS?
You must be allowed in if you are a citizen so the only risk is them keeping
your phone for a few weeks while they try to hack it to get inside. I believe
they are required to send it back to you once they are done by law or agency
policy.

That's what I plan to do if I ever get asked - telling them to piss off. Worst
they can do is confiscate my phone. I am choosing to remain silent. If they
still persist on hassling me and end up taking my phone even temporarily, I
will treat that device as now being compromised and will take the appropriate
action.

Last year I was hassled (not at the border) on two occasions. Once in NYC in
the Port Authority by the cops that patrol that facility and a second time in
the suburbs of NJ. In NYC the cop didn't like that I was getting testy with a
Port Authority employee for not letting me though to get to my bus. He
intervened without cause and asked for my ID. I told him "nope". He tried
making up some story to justify him asking me and I told him "I'm not giving
you my ID. I'm leaving, bye." and then walked away.

In NJ I was detained for way too long under suspicion of several random
things. This wasn't even a traffic stop. I parked the car and then they drove
over and harassed me for a solid 45 minutes. First they claimed I was drunk.
Then they said I was on this particular street to buy drugs. Then they said I
could actually be dealing the drugs. They frisked me for "officer safety" and
then tried to get me to walk the line and do a bunch of sobriety tests. I told
them I wasn't doing any sobriety tests. They lied and said I could be arrested
for mere refusal. I told them they were full of shit and that I can only be
arrested for refusing the actual breathalyzer, not the voluntary tests. I then
remained silent for rest of the encounter. Not a peep, just dirty looks back
and forth. Eventually they had to let me go. Moral of the story is that cops
do back down plenty of times but you have to have the will to test them. And
it greatly helps if you know the law.

One last thing - if you are wondering why I didn't just take the sobriety
tests if I'm sober, there's a damn good reason. Some years ago, my friend got
arrested in that same town for blowing a 0.00. How you ask? Because first he
did the voluntary tests which no one in the history of mankind has ever passed
- at least not according to any police officer. Those tests are always used to
compel something else like a search, breathalyzer, etc. It's an excuse to
justify further harassment in many cases. So my friend did their tests and
"failed". So they compel the breathalzyer and he gets a 0.00. He thinks he'll
finally be free to go when they tell him that based on his failure on the
voluntary tests he is clearly under the influence of something. And since it
isn't alcohol, it must be drugs. So they arrest him, take him down to the
station and draw blood. They charge him with intoxication and illegal drug use
(because he said he doesn't take any medications for anything) before the
blood results come back because those take 2 weeks or so. Even though they
come back totally clean he has still been charged and is required to show up
in court anyway. He had to spent $500 or so on a lawyer to represent him that
day and get that bullshit dismissed. I am not sure if he got the arrest wiped
from his record - I don't think he did. Which means he now has a record for no
reason at all. Please take this story into consideration the next time you
interact with law enforcement. I no longer cooperate with law enforcement for
anything other than a minor traffic stop, maybe not even then. If a stop were
to start going somewhere else (i.e. they are fishing for stuff or trying to
screw me just because they feel like it) my attitude and strategy for dealing
with them does a complete 180. The only reason I may comply for minor things
is simply because it's the quickest way to be back on my way. 99% of the time
their minds are already made up. Nothing you say will get you out of a ticket
in most cases, so there's no reason to cooperate anyway. Playing nice is just
for expediency, but as soon as that turns into something else, you need to
switch gears immediately.

Sorry for the long post. My interactions with police last year are a sore spot
for me (there were other interactions I left out).

~~~
tptacek
Because you already know you will "win" the game of chicken between a citizen
and CBP, but that win does nothing for non-citizens, for whom CBP has potent
recourse.

------
skewart
I'm curious about a couple of things:

1\. I far as I understand there is legal precedent establishing that
electronic devices are basically the same as suitcases, and both can be
searched at the border (i.e. in the same way that border agents can rummage
through a backpack looking for drugs, they can rummage through a laptop's hard
drive looking for evidence of drug dealing). The key idea is that objects
brought across the border are fair game for search. However, wouldn't
accessing social media accounts require fetching data over the internet from a
data center somewhere? Maybe there is some info cached locally on the phone,
but for them to, say, look through a traveler's post history they'd have to
access data that is _not_ being brought across the border. How is this
different from border agents finding a house key in a traveler's bag and then
using that key to go to the traveler's house, open it, and search everything
they find there?

2\. Searching the data on the device is one thing. Asking a traveler to
provide passwords seems completely different. It seems like a pretty clear 5th
amendment violation. There's a lot of precedent protecting people from being
compelled to speak.

Just to be clear, I'm wondering about this for US citizens returning home.
Obviously all bets are off for non-citizens.

~~~
dbg31415
> Obviously all bets are off for non-citizens.

Why shouldn't non-citizens be protected by The Constitution? Not a lawyer, but
these came up pretty quick in a Google search.

"It is well established that, if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of
the United States and remains physically present there, he is a person within
the protection of the Fifth Amendment. He may not be deprived of his life,
liberty or property without due process of law."

Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding

". . . The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking
admission for the first time to these shores. But, once an alien lawfully
enters and resides in this country, he becomes invested with the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights
include those protected by the First and the Fifth Amendments and by the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions
acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens. They extend
their inalienable privileges to all 'persons,' and guard against any
encroachment on those rights by federal or state authority."

Bridges v. Wixon

"The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has
been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his
identity with our society. Mere lawful presence in the country creates an
implied assurance of safe conduct and gives him certain rights; they become
more extensive and secure when he makes preliminary declaration of intention
to become a citizen, and they expand to those of full citizenship upon
naturalization. During his probationary residence, this Court has steadily
enlarged his right against Executive deportation except upon full and fair
hearing. . . . And, at least since 1886, we have extended to the person and
property of resident aliens important constitutional guaranties -- such as the
due process of law of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Johnson v. Eisentrager

~~~
tomp
The difference is that non-citizens don't have a right to enter the US, so
while they can't be _compelled_ to share their personal information, they can
"voluntarily" choose whether to share it and enter the US, or go back.

~~~
buttercupsmom
> non-citizens don't have a right to enter the US... Here's where I take
> issue, by obtaining a visa to enter the US for work/ travel you go through
> security checks and you were deemed safe/ not a terrorist. So what changed
> from when you were issued a visa to when you landed in the states?

For me, this feels like China all over again. If requesting passwords becomes
prevalent in the US, then the same precautions that travelers take when
entering China will become the norm from the US.

------
delegate
Delete your 'social media' accounts. I'm talking Facebook, LinkedIn, G+ and so
on.

I did that and life goes on perfectly - I don't miss them a bit and I don't
think anyone noticed.

My wife and daughter are right here at home, I use Skype, Whatsapp or Slack to
talk to my friends and colleagues.

So there is _nothing_ that's missing.

Social networks are brainwashing farms (yes, advertising is a form of
brainwashing) so stay away from them.

I don't want to sound too negative, but we all sense it: tough times are
coming and these accounts will become a liability, even if you have 'nothing
to hide'.

~~~
gmac
_tough times are coming and these accounts will become a liability, even if
you have 'nothing to hide'_

That looks like a major chilling effect[1], and it makes life that much easier
for those instigating the toughness.

It's not obvious to me, therefore, that opting out now is the right choice.

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

~~~
delegate
Respectfully, I disagree.

Social media is not the best nor the only place to share your opinions,
political or not.

In fact this is the exact danger that these networks pose - people start
thinking that it's the only place where we can express our right to free
speech.

But this is not what social networks were designed for. They were designed to
distribute advertising; all the rest of the features are just clever ways to
disguise the real purpose of the SN. Even people who work at these companies
are delusional about their company's real purpose.

The place to express our right to free speech is 'the Internet'.

Distributed, resilient, no central control.

Plenty of space for anyone to shout as loud as they like and 'share' it with
their friends, without selling their soul.

~~~
AnAnonyCowherd
I know my personal views about sexuality and proclivity, expressed on my
_personal_ web site, cost me at least one possible job, and maybe a couple
others as well, over the years. If my views on these issues were to be
discovered on the internet, either on a personal site, or some social network,
by someone in the HR department of the Fortune 150 I work for, I would
probably be summarily dismissed. So, the "chilling effect" has already
happened, and it's only working against one side of the ideological spectrum.
Oh, sure, we still have "freedom of speech" in the US, but only if it's
politically correct. Otherwise, you'll also be exercising your "freedom to be
out of work."

~~~
manyxcxi
It sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. I believe our right
to free speech is the most important thing we have. However, if someone reads
a post they don't like why should they HAVE to hire you?

As an employer if I read something that genuinely offended me (I have no idea
if that's even possible) I wouldn't hire them. I hire people I think are going
to make the team better and that I think we would want to work with.

So, yeah, if that hot take you wrote on the internet was a tad incendiary, why
is it bad that people passed on you?

I'd like to think that I'm evolved enough that I could disagree with someone's
opinion and work just fine with them- but if what they said struck a chord, I
can't say that I wouldn't pass on them.

At the end of the day your freedom keeps you out of jail and my freedom gives
me the ability to say no thanks. What you say in the public square isn't
consequence free.

~~~
AnAnonyCowherd
I believe I specifically said that I understand my free speech has a cost.
Now, I don't know if you'll get this, since my original comment seems hidden
or shadowbanned from the main discussion now, which just goes to prove the
point brilliantly.

What I had originally written on my personal web site was standard, old-
fashioned Christian teaching about homosexuality, based on the Bible. Hate the
sin; love the sinner. That sort of thing. (No, it wasn't incendiary calls to
violence against people.)

If I'm not allowed to say what I want to say, by being fired by my employer
and blackballed from further employment, or by being downvoted to oblivion or
filtered or shadowbanned by Ycombinator or Facebook or Reddit, or having my
account cancelled at the web host provider I use, what good are my
Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and religion? You may find this
situation wonderful because you hate what I have to say, but I think everyone
should find the trend alarming.

Maybe you really are arguing that freedom of speech and religion only grants
someone the right to not being jailed when all they have left is to stand,
homeless, on the street corner with a sign, shouting at passerby -- and then
they'll be jailed for not having a permit, or something -- but I would have
thought that the Constitution meant the First Amendment for more protection
than that.

And, furthermore, if it's only Christians that are being affected by these
discriminations, then hasn't the government declared a side? All this talk on
the left about how the US government is prejudiced against anything other than
Christianity, and, yet, I have no doubt that my company would LOVE foreign
nationals to preach their religion to people in the work place, when I would
be fired for it, if overheard.

I'm saying the consequences are one-sided.

~~~
infinite8s
You do realize that the 1st Amendment only applies to government restrictions
of free speech and not restrictions by private entities?

~~~
AnAnonyCowherd
I believe both of my comments make it evident that I'm perfectly clear on
this. In fact, I don't see how it would be possible to argue what I WAS saying
without understanding this. But, hey, I've been wrong before; I will be again.

~~~
infinite8s
Huh? Quoting your comment exactly:

> "If I'm not allowed to say what I want to say, by being fired by my employer
> and blackballed from further employment, or by being downvoted to oblivion
> or filtered or shadowbanned by Ycombinator or Facebook or Reddit, or having
> my account cancelled at the web host provider I use, what good are my
> Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and religion? You may find this
> situation wonderful because you hate what I have to say, but I think
> everyone should find the trend alarming."

If a private employer decides to fire you because of something you said,
that's not a violation of your First Amendment rights. Or are you trying to
argue that the First Amendment should encompass more than government
restrictions on speech? If so that's not clear from what you wrote - it sounds
like you believe it already should protect that.

> "Maybe you really are arguing that freedom of speech and religion only
> grants someone the right to not being jailed when all they have left is to
> stand, homeless, on the street corner with a sign, shouting at passerby --
> and then they'll be jailed for not having a permit, or something -- but I
> would have thought that the Constitution meant the First Amendment for more
> protection than that."

No one is argueing that. That's exactly what the First Amendment says (only
pertains to government restrictions).

~~~
AnAnonyCowherd
In the words in Inigo, "No, there is too much. Let me sum up."

By reason of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection clause, all manner
of discrimination has been made illegal. All except discrimination against
conservative or Christian speech. I fear for my job if I so much am overheard
to speak on these issues in a way that would imply that I think someone else
is morally wrong.

------
kefka
(Read on the screen)

"$Company noticed an intrusion by the US Federal Agents, Border Guards, and
have marked this as a compromised account. Please have your designated friend,
if set, to authenticate your account."

Its now out of the persons sphere to fix, even if coerced. And companies can
defend this by fact of an Acceptable Use Agreement violation itself is
breaking a federal law: CFAA.

That, and it seems the only way to stop these issues now is to jam it up in
legal limbo by citizens.

~~~
fakeshoes
And if you're a permanent resident with a green card or any other type of
visa, you won't be allowed in at all. All these solutions assuming you're a
citizen aren't all that helpful to every other person.

~~~
kefka
That's the difference. You complied, and the company is road-blocking you.

Frankly, denying everyone at the border is probably a good thing due to the
brain-drain it causes. We're not going to get saner laws without some serious
economic impairments to punish these 'lawmakers' (really, religious zealots
WRT to a very narrow system).

In all honesty, I'm looking at other countries that have saner laws, and less
overall problems. I'm looking at the Nordic countries right now, along with
Australia... But no country is free from really nasty influences of
xenophobia, racism, and hatred.

------
ecopoesis
There is no technical solution to this. If you want there to be no searches of
your phone when crossing the border, speak to your representative in Congress
and your Senator. If they don't listen, then vote for someone else or even
better, run yourself.

The only way this is going to change is with a change in the law.

~~~
tptacek
I appreciate the sentiment here and think that tech as an industry could do
with a lot more humility about its intersection with public policy. I feel
like I know the people involved in this proposal well enough to say that they
agree with this as well.

The point of the travel-lock proposal is that it's actually common sense.
Everyone should want this feature. It is actually weird that we walk around
all the time with unfettered access to decades of personal correspondence and
a detailed log of every person we've ever meet even fleetingly online. The
default should be different: getting access to years-old emails or a
photographic memory of every acquaintance you have should be extraordinary.

~~~
deong
Yes, for that at least, I agree completely. I'm not sure how much the idea
would do for border crossing, but just as a general mitigation of risk, it's
extremely sensible.

------
tacostakohashi
This is completely naive.

Firstly, social media's only incentive is to make your data as widely
available as possible (in the interests of ad revenue), and maintain a good
relationship with the government in their jurisdiction. Every other existing
"privacy" setting on Facebook, LinkedIn, etc is already obfuscated to the
point of unusability, for this reason, and "travel mode" would be no
different.

Secondly, lets imagine that FB did implement a watertight "travel mode" that
hid your embarrassing data effectively while you were travelling. Third
parties would just start capturing and storing posts while you have "travel
mode" off, and sell that to CBP, or whoever else wants to pay for it.

~~~
idlewords
People who care deeply about these issues work at Facebook and Google.

~~~
severine
Please clarify: I take your answer as a (fair) response to the first
objection, but what about the other ( _" third parties would just start
capturing and storing posts while you have "travel mode" off, and sell that to
CBP, or whoever else wants to pay for it"_)?

Does that possibility worry you? Wouldn't that also put you _in a position
where you’re lying at the border_?

edit: readability

~~~
idlewords
I'm not sure I understand that objection. How will a third party collect non-
public information from my Facebook account, or my email?

~~~
severine
Maybe the surveillance economy can send a diff or two?

[https://boingboing.net/2016/11/13/the-surveillance-
economy-h...](https://boingboing.net/2016/11/13/the-surveillance-economy-
has-6.html)

I fell strange linking to your own warning...

~~~
idlewords
The surveillance economy is not a magic thing that sees all, though. What's
the specific way in which third parties end up with my email and private
Facebook data?

~~~
severine
Sorry, I don't use Facebook, and I applaud the initiative (as I understand it,
it's about limiting the exposure).

I just think that the use of a such a travel mode could be likened
to/misconstrued as the practice (perilous, as you indicate), of using a decoy
account, given for example, some previous snapshots of any public/semipublic
social media activity suddenly invisible for the border agents.

Just trying to get a clearer view of your proposition (I think I'm doing it,
thanks for answering!)

------
secfirstmd
Ok, firstly, I think it's great that so many people are engaging on issues of
privacy and at least trying to help folks understand how to mitigate their
risks in these situations. Something I think that is getting missed about all
this is that a lot of people are being very US and techno-centric when they
create these articles. Security when travelling is about more than just
digital issues.

Doing something like this requires that you consider the risks of your phone
seizure versus the risks you may face without your primary smart phone. If
your an activist flying from London to D.C then fine. But what about if your
an activist flying from D.C to the D.R.C and back - then your threat model
changes from potential TSA problems to physical security threats.

For just one example of this, let's say you ask people to ditch their phones
and take a burner because of a potential risk at the US border. Now you have
removed one of the best devices for the person's physical security - a
smartphone that can update people about security alerts, about local news,
weather, disease risk, riots (e.g the stuff we put in the Umbrella App
dashboard - shameless plug ->
[https://www.secfirst.org](https://www.secfirst.org)), share data amongst
groups of people on the ground, can send GPS alerts in a emergency, can help
them navigate if there is a problem, has a flashlight on it in darkness, has
access to emergency contact details, insurance information, medical data,
nearest hospitals etc. Now, your relatively low likelihood/low impact
potential digital security risk at a US border has overridden the low/medium
likelihood but high impact physical security risks...

Ditto it's important to thing about basic tactical things like that people are
lazy, data is expensive and they will often not bother to restore the most
important contacts and information that they may need when they travel, which
can be a problem in an emergency...

Again, it's great to see people engaging on security issues but please be
aware of the threat model, context and consequences of what you are trading
off.

~~~
scratcheswell
> a smartphone that can update people about security alerts, about local news,
> weather, disease risk, riots, share data amongst groups of people on the
> ground, can send GPS alerts in a emergency, can help them navigate if there
> is a problem, has a flashlight on it in darkness, has access to emergency
> contact details, insurance information, medical data, nearest hospitals etc.

I'm confused about why you're implying a burner/temp travel phone can't do
these things. You can get a cheap & fully capable android phone at best buy
for $40

------
rdl
I think you could easily justify something like this as a "travel mode" not
just for border security, but "in case your phone is lost/stolen while
traveling". Make it so you have full or enhanced access to very recent stuff
(photos, status updates, etc.) from the trip itself, and don't have access to
as much from before the trip. Help defeat localization settings in the place
where you're traveling, and get tourist/visitor-specific ads instead of local
ads. Value for the user (usability and safety) as well as for the social media
network and advertisers.

The other form of this which would make sense: worksafe mode or public mode.
If you're logging into your facebook/twitter account from a public computer,
perhaps it doesn't have as full and unlimited access, and doesn't have access
to non-reversible account actions, and strongly logs out. If you're logging in
from a place defined as "work", it doesn't have notifications, certain groups,
etc. (the "giving a meeting presentation on your laptop when a racy
notification from spouse pops up" problem).

------
mnm1
It's not like they couldn't make you turn travel mode off if they wanted to.
How about pushing for a law closing this 4th amendment loophole at the
borders, at least for citizens?

Not that it'd do much. If the border agents really want to see one's social
media accounts, I have zero doubt they can get that data from other government
agencies. In fact, they probably already have it. It sounds to me like they're
just trying to assert their power and dominance over the people whose accounts
they are demanding access to as a way to get off on intimidating others.
Pretty typical behavior by law enforcement officers the world over.

~~~
tptacek
The idea is that they cannot in fact make you turn travel mode off, because
travel mode doesn't turn off. It's a time lock. The point is that while
locked, Facebook and Google Mail are still usable; they just don't have your
whole history available on them.

If we stipulate that your second paragraph is true, then travel mode is in
fact _a complete countermeasure_ to that behavior. (I don't think it's true).

~~~
mholt
Why wouldn't they just detain you until the time runs out?

~~~
robbiemitchell
Ideally it would not be evident that the account is in travel mode.

~~~
4ad
How can it possible be non-evident?

~~~
tptacek
A travel-locked Facebook account should just look like a quieter Facebook
account.

~~~
4ad
So, pretty evident from the most casual analysis.

~~~
tptacek
I don't think any part of the proposal depends on it not being possible to
detect whether an account is travel-locked, but I'm curious about why you
think it's so straightforward to tell if an account is locked?

Surely, if this became popular, CBP would simply start asking aliens seeking
entry whether their accounts were travel locked. And the standard advice would
be, "never lie to CBP".

But I'm still curious about why you think this would be so obvious.

------
jethro_tell
If they get your password can't they just turn of travle mode for you? Or wait
until you do the same? I don't know that there is a technical answer here
accept wiping your phone/laptop before you go through customes.

The real solution is a political one where we speak up and legeislate and
litigate that the 4th amendment applies a the border.

~~~
deong
Wiping your stuff does no good at all. As pointed out in the article, they
know who is on the flight hours before you land. They'll know you have a
Facebook profile. The difference between having a laptop already logged into
Facebook and a wiped laptop with no data is quite literally the time it takes
them to tell you to type in the password for them. Ignorance isn't an escape
clause.

Which is, I think, the same problem Maciel's solution faces. Border patrol can
possibly just see that you've enabled "trip mode" (by the anemic presence) and
put you back on a plane. You're welcome to try again after your trip mode
expires, but if they want to see your account, there is, as sure as
mathematical logic, no possible "out". Anything you do to deny them that
access can be grounds to refuse you entry (if you're a non-citizen).

You're right that the only real solution is a political one. Unfortunately,
there are no political solutions to any problem anymore. Not in the US at
least. The days when government was even interested in solving problems are
gone and I doubt they're ever coming back.

~~~
tptacek
If you're an at-risk traveler, you'd enable travel-lock pretty much as soon as
you decide on your itinerary, potentially before you ever get on an airline
manifest.

The thing I think I see a lot of people missing here is that travel-lock
doesn't _wipe_ or _disable_ your accounts; it just restricts history and
breadth. For a lot of people, I think these services will get _easier and more
pleasant to use_ while travel-locked, so it's relatively painless to give
yourself a generous margin before departing and after arriving.

~~~
kasey_junk
I'd turn this feature on my phone _right now_ for gmail just for "lost phone"
mitigation.

~~~
tptacek
The problem with that is that CBP can (and surely soon will) compel travelers
to log into their accounts from CBP's own equipment.

~~~
kasey_junk
Sure. But a setting that said "always on mobile" and another one where they
schedule it for me based on my airline emails makes uptake faster.

And I want that when I'm traveling _anywhere_.

[later] we want to _normalize_ the idea that access permission to our data is
context aware based on what we are doing. To me this is true independent of
border crossings. For instance there are things I want in the cloud for backup
purposes that I don't want be able to access from anywhere but home normally.

~~~
tptacek
Yes! Sorry, we were agreeing but I well-actuallied you.

------
Kluny
Instead of that, I'd like a way to clone everything on my phone and save it on
a USB. Every app, logins, contacts, photos, settings, factory updates,
wallpaper, lock screen password, everything, in an encrypted archive that I
can put on a USB in my checked baggage, or mail ahead to my destination,
upload to my personal server, whatever. Then I'll just do a factory reset,
install some cover apps, and go. Then reinstall my backup when I get where I'm
going.

The Android backup feature that comes with the phone backs up contacts and
photos, but it's very incomplete. Settings, saved logins, and other stuff gets
lost. You have to reinstall swype every time. It's too inconvenient to use the
way I've described. Other phone cloning apps exist, but a cursory google
search only finds ones that require two phones, rather than a phone and a PC.

~~~
NoGravitas
On a rooted Android device, TitaniumBackup can be used this way (not factory
updates, but those don't get wiped by factory reset anyway).

However, it doesn't solve your real problem, which is that you can be
compelled to log into your social media accounts in the presence of the border
control officers. You can do that from the browser on a wiped phone, or on
their equipment.

~~~
Kluny
Yeah, it's true. I guess it would be one part of a strategy. Mine also
involves saying "pardon me?" a lot and telling them that I'm deaf. 98% of
people in uniform don't have the patience to try to communicate with a deaf
person, and just tell me to move along. Also, they probably won't believe that
I don't have facebook or email, but I can avoid telling them about things like
okcupid, instagram, and disqus logins at least long enough to delete those
accounts if I do get searched. Like any security, it's more of a deterrence
than an absolute block.

------
Bokagha
Why not go further with the idea of a Travel Mode toggle and have it be tied
to the device itself. This cuts out any possibility of any data being left on
the device from being analyzed easily, social media or otherwise.

Google and/or Apple could add this as a new menu toggle similar to Airplane
mode. Once switched on, while in an airport, prevents the device from being
unlocked. Then by utilizing geofencing, once the device leaves the airport it
unlocks and can be used again.

~~~
zapt02
What if the border agent takes your phone outside? It would go something like:

> Tell me your password > OK, not sit here while I go out to unlock your
> phone.

~~~
Bokagha
I doubt that border agents will want to walk every phone outside and then come
back in. It is security through inconvenience.

But I guess there could be an option to extend the range of the original
airport geofence.

~~~
bigiain
<agent presses button that fires up their gps signal jammer and turns on some
wifi networks impersonating the Starbucks at Grand Central Station>

(I suspect there's companies already trying to sell them that technology...)

------
rdl
I'd been thinking about a similar thing: a "limited access for border guards"
mode.

Basically, you can turn over the phone to border guards in a way which gives
them access to what is on the phone, but which logs actions, and allows you to
easily revert/revoke any changes they make. (This would also be a mode you'd
turn over to an employer demanding access).

Potentially this mode might also block access to certain things (secret FB
groups, archives over a certain age, some chat logs), but would otherwise be
fully functional.

The benefit would mainly be that all actions taken would be logged and
reportable, as a way to try to keep authorities from poking in places they
shouldn't. It seems they are NOT mostly using forensic imaging tools, but
logging in directly on the devices, at least right now, so there would be some
value.

------
maxerickson
One thing I wonder about is how quickly a travel mode would become grounds for
denial of entry.

~~~
joezydeco
Or how quickly Facebook/Google/Twitter would comply with some classified
FBI/NSA directive to provide the data anyway.

The first mistake is trusting these networks with your personal life in the
first place. Nothing can erase that except your ability and willpower to keep
your secrets to yourself.

~~~
ksenzee
Note that CBP does not have access to all the data NSA has gathered. If they
did, we wouldn't be talking about this at all; they'd already have everything
they wanted.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Relying on dysfunctional communication between portions of government doesn't
seem like a sustainable strategy.

~~~
idlewords
It's not dysfunctional communication, it's legally mandated boundaries
enforced by an independent judiciary.

Don't cede the thing you're fighting for.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> It's not dysfunctional communication, it's legally mandated boundaries
> enforced by an independent judiciary.

Do you really think that wouldn't dissolve in the face of "we already have the
information, we're just improving communication between government
organizations"? They shouldn't collect the information in the first place.

------
chinathrow
I feel that all technical modes will fail.

Why?

\- We first had PIN numbers. Easyily cracked/defeated.

\- We then had passwords. Provide them or go back home where you came from.

\- We might have travel mode. Defeated or made illegal. Go back home.

I think the only resolution to this is political. Make these searches go away
- worldwide - as we near a very bad precedent.

------
k-mcgrady
I feel it would be quite obvious looking at your device and it's lack of data
that such a feature was in force and they would just deny you entry. Nice idea
but the problems need fixed in law. IMO technical solutions are just temporary
bandaids.

~~~
idlewords
I agree that technical solutions are bandaids. However, US citizens can't be
denied entry. They can be delayed for a few hours, not longer.

~~~
deong
Your device can be confiscated for much longer, of course. You could take that
time difference and hopefully permanently wipe account data before the lock
expired, but that has the drawback that it's terribly inconvenient for you and
causes the government no great concern at all, so it might simply become
routine procedure.

~~~
idlewords
You can imagine a scenario where you leave detention and then de-authorize
impounded devices.

The point is not that this is a perfect solution. It's a better solution than
the status quo.

------
ABCLAW
It is worth noting that while social media represents a significant threat to
ordinary travelers, the potential for significant harm through indirect leaks
exists through retained professionals as well.

In fact, this situation might even be worse for those passing through the
Canadian border. Please see: [http://www.canada-usblog.com/2017/02/03/what-
canadians-shoul...](http://www.canada-usblog.com/2017/02/03/what-canadians-
should-know-about-solicitor-client-privilege-at-the-canada-us-border/)

& the linked:
[http://www.lexsage.com/documents/Border%20Searches%20of%20El...](http://www.lexsage.com/documents/Border%20Searches%20of%20Electronic%20Devices-
Aug%202009%20\(2885071\).pdf)

------
nicoles
I'd love to see travel modes take off. I was talking with some friends about
how great it would be to be able to switch my login credentials to some sort
of shared multiple person-required password for the duration of a flight. Like
Shamir's Secret Sharing, but temporarily.

------
aphextron
Or we just give up social media.

What, exactly, has been gained from the days of just posting on anonymous
message boards and using email?

Nothing but giving unimaginable power to creepy guys like Zuckerberg and the
ability for governments and employers to track your entire life. I'll pass.

~~~
tzs
So instead of asking to see your social media account at the border they would
be asking to see your email account. How is that better?

~~~
aphextron
>How is that better?

My private email account can't be proven to exist, or submit to NSA requests
either.

------
rspeer
What if the phone can be put into "suck mode" that just makes it completely
infuriating to get any information from for a while after you've flown a long
distance in a plane?

Sure, you can open Facebook and stare at a loading icon until you give up. You
can go to a profile page and see images that are failing to load. At some
point you're going to stop wasting everyone's time.

The reason this is better than just a "trip mode" is that it's so banally
realistic. Of note: because of the weirdness of connecting to cell networks
after having moved thousands of miles in airplane mode, most phones I've owned
_already do this_ to some extent.

~~~
idlewords
I was going to say, this already exists on my phone.

Any countermeasure on the device will just result in you being asked to log in
on a CBP laptop.

~~~
dragonwriter
2FA, for services that support it, with the second factor being a device that
isn't with you when cross the border would be a solution that would be near
absolute in prevention of logging in at the border, whether from your own
device or a CBP-controlled device (of course, it wouldn't prevent you from any
consequences CBP applies to _not_ logging in.)

Of course, there's a question of the risk to _that_ device, which somehow has
to cross the border separate from you, which creates its own ream of problems
(you could protect the access to _that_ device with 2FA that uses the device
you _do_ keep with you, which mitigates the security risk of loss, but you
still risk losing access to the services it protects if it is lost in transit;
obviously, you want to make sure your 2FA has a recovery process and one that
isn't usable from arbitrary locations or the device you carry across the
border, but will be usable by you when you get home, at least.)

------
thex10
Nice idea. But it's treating the symptom rather than the root problem.

~~~
everythingspun
The root problem is terrorists wanting to kill people.

~~~
soraminazuki
That's not a good excuse for denying ordinary people of their basic rights.
There will always be killers anytime, anywhere.

------
mirimir
This isn't very different from refusing to provide login credentials. Sure,
turning travel mode on and off could require keys, which are present only on
primary devices, which are left at home. So there'd be no need to lie.

However, foreigners would likely be turned back. Because using travel mode is
arguably evidence of hiding stuff. And citizens might still be detained. It
seems unlikely that they'd send agents to homes, to turn off travel mode. But
it's arguably not impossible.

------
neumann
I've been thinking of this.

I don't want to take my digital possessions through customs if they can
request access or deny me.

I don't want a burner that is subpar and I can't afford another phone with
great camera etc.

So, I can see two options:

A virtualbox/dualboot where you run two OSes of your devices with full
encryption - and one is a dumb/fake install with no personal data that you
enable when traveling. It doesn't login to your mail or your facebook and
doesn't have your real contacts, photos, passwords on it. You can do this
trivially (still for the technically savvy) for a laptop, probably for an
android it is not too hard with a custom bootloader. If you were more
paranoid, you could create 'dumb' social media accounts, but that starts being
time consuming.

Second option is you make an encrypted snapshot of your system before travel.
Then you reset / wipe your system before traveling, and then reload the
snapshot once you are through customs. This could be done more securely by not
actually taking the snapshot on physical media across borders, but storing on
a server and downloading once you are through customs. The downside of this is
you need data access during travel.

As an aside, I am curious how they would react to someone like me who has no
social media accounts. Do I need a fake one to make me look 'real'?

------
hd4
This may be a hugely naive question but what could they do if I simply don't
use social media?

Do they automatically suspect someone who denies using it and what would
follow in that event?

~~~
tptacek
If you legit don't have a Facebook account, you're fine. The problem is that
most people do have them, and it's an extremely bad idea to try to sneak them
past CBP.

------
binarymax
An article with an interesting suggestion and a noble goal but I'm not the
first one to say it:

Technology cannot solve the problem we currently face with erosion of privacy
at the border! These clever tricks trying to get around the issue only kicks
the problem downfield, and likely won't effectively work. If they found out
you have travel mode enabled - you may be denied entry or worse (note the
comment from @mholt) - they would just detain you until the time lock runs
out.

~~~
idlewords
They can't detain US citizens longer than a few hours.

~~~
binarymax
What if I'm a US citizen traveling to Canada, and their border patrol is
similarly vigilant? I could be denied entry to Canada.

Sadly this policy is being picked up in many other countries :(

~~~
RodericDay
Our border patrol isn't "similarly vigilant". That's a meme being spread by a
very dedicated account on HN, probably to seed the grounds for a lot of
"whataboutism".

------
p4lindromica
What is actually needed is a dead man's switch: a secondary password that,
when entered, destroys the security enclave/TPM to render the device
unreadable

~~~
zapt02
Then the border guards send you home. What mission has been accomplished?

------
dustinmoris
Social media doesn't need a travel mode. Non US citizen just stop travelling
to the US whilst the country is violating human privacy rights at border
control.

~~~
lacampbell
[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11171475)

As a non-american looks like I'm fucked if I want to fly into my own country
with my own electronics.

------
mholt
How do you turn a travel mode off? Once border patrol knows this feature
exists and how it works, the jig is up. Any expiration/timeout would just
cause you to be detained for the duration the travel mode is enabled. A second
password to turn it off would just cause that second password to be coerced
out of you. Location-based deactivation can be spoofed.

~~~
idlewords
US citizens can't be detained indefinitely at the border. The limit is a few
hours.

~~~
ppog
That's fine for US citizens entering the US, but any 'travel mode' needs to
work for the outbound trip too. If the country you're visiting has adopted a
US-style border stance, then you're in no better a position than a non-US
citizen visiting the US: the border forces of that other country can detain
you until travel mode expires if they want. It seems like "They can't hold me
for days while they wait for the mode to expire" only works for citizens
returning to their own countries.

~~~
pseudalopex
More likely they'd just send you home. Either way, denying people entry is bad
for business and tourism. If enough people want to protect their accounts when
they travel, countries will have to weigh the trade-offs.

~~~
TuringNYC
Sure, it is bad for business. It will likely be used disproportionately on
brown people and minorities, just like "random" screenings at the airport.
Yes, bad for tourism, but only consistently bad for a minority of the
population and most others just have to take of their shoes etc.

------
mathgenius
> Border agents can find your profile online and make you log in on their own
> machine.

What if you have a long password that you cannot remember? Same for email,
etc.

I don't have fb on my phone. And I don't remember the password. They would
have to make me do a password reset via email, which might work.

------
edandersen
Would basic geoblocking help? A setting that says this account cannot be
accessed outside your home country? Has the plausible deniability of
"security". VPNs can also be effectively blocked if the same lists Netflix etc
subscribe to are used.

------
amelius
Social Media needs a "delete everything older than X days" function.

~~~
idlewords
Yes it does. Or at a minimum, the ability to set time horizons on things like
Facebook groups.

The Women's March was organized mostly on Facebook. Why does that list of
people have to be stored in perpetuity?

------
jameslk
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this is any different from
refusing to provide your password. Border Patrol may just detain you
regardless of whether the issue is you aren't providing your password or you
decided to make your device less accessible before going on your trip. Both
are forms of trying to prevent them access to your device, which they won't
like. The real solution seems to be changing the laws that allow them to get
away with what they're doing.

------
lacampbell
I think social media and gmail are a complete lost cause wrt privacy. I
already de-activated my facebook due to it being a time sink. But I think I'll
go ahead and delete it now.

~~~
idlewords
One thing about Facebook culture is that the employees there see themselves as
fanatical guardians of privacy. It's a very strange belief system, but it's
real.

------
utunga
I love this idea, but it also needs to be discussed within the context of
knowing that (since Snowden) the NSA already has all your social media data
categorized and ready to go should it need.

So, in context, this is about stopping one branch of government - CBP - from
being able to compile data that another branch of government already has.

I love the idea but worry it might be a form of security theater, given the
three lettered elephant in the room.

------
foreigner
What if you changed your password to something really long and not memorable
before you leave home? Print it out on a piece of paper and leave it in a
safe. You can't be forced to produce a password you don't remember. When you
get home, open the safe and change your password back to something you know.

~~~
foreigner
Although I guess they could force you to go through the reset password flow,
so you would have to cripple that as well...

------
staunch
Cell phones often have 4G connections but if they're on wifi or laptops on
wifi, we could collect the IPs of all airports and present the travel mode by
default.

Phones could use GPS to detect when their in/near airports and inject an
X-Travel-Mode cookie into HTTP requests.

------
debt
Most Americans don't travel so this likely won't happen in the US; even less
travel internationally.

[http://travel.trade.gov/view/m-2016-O-001/index.html](http://travel.trade.gov/view/m-2016-O-001/index.html)

~~~
tptacek
The overwhelming majority of people CBP actually deals with at the border are
in fact citizens.

------
rythie
The simplest solution would be simply to not to travel to the US. I'm sure it
wouldn't be long before the airlines & hotels were lobbying for a change in
the law.

~~~
idlewords
Some of us live here.

------
lj3
Didn't Moxie come up with something like this a while back? It was a bit of a
non-starter since you had to install a custom version of Android in order to
get it work

------
mlinksva
Is a more general application of this idea a 'vacation mode' \-- a way to
enforce an intentional limited vacation from social media?

------
pizza
_Airplane mode: from the end of the microwave peril to the era of alternative
inspection, in under 10 years._

------
severine
Plus what you leave in and out of the "safe" profile makes for a very
interesting info ;)

------
ar15saveslives
Why is it a bad idea to have fake FB/Gmail/Twitter accounts?

~~~
wbeckler
They look you up before you arrive and find out what your real account it.

------
JustSomeNobody
You would simply be forced to turn off travel mode. And don't lie to the
border agent and say it's not on.

~~~
idlewords
Please read the entire post.

------
vosper
> We need a ‘trip mode' for social media sites that reduces our contact list
> and history to a minimal subset of what the site normally offers. Not only
> would such a feature protect people forced to give their passwords at the
> border, but it would mitigate the many additional threats to privacy they
> face when they use their social media accounts away from home.

Border security officer: I see you have trip mode on. Turn it off, and give us
the phone, or you're not getting into the country.

Reminds me a little of this: [https://xkcd.com/538/](https://xkcd.com/538/)

~~~
idlewords
Please read the entire post.

~~~
NeutronBoy
I understand, but their default response for "You've done something to hide
information from us" isn't going to be "Oh well, we tried. On your way!"

~~~
vosper
Exactly. They'll just take you to a computer they control and make you login
there. Or there'll be a law that requires an override authority.

